Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from the application of Frank Hague for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was argued before the Court of Errors and Appeals on February 18, 1929, and was decided April 18, 1929. The appeal is from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Fallon, whose opinion is reported in 104 N.J. Eq. 31. Counsel of record in the published opinion are Mr. Russell E. Watson for the appellant and Mr. Merritt Lane (with Mr. Thomas J. Brogan on the brief) for the respondent. The opinion in this court is per curiam.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Is Joint Resolution No. 13, taken as a whole, a valid exercise of legislative power, even if some one or more of the inquiries suggested therein may be unlawful?
2. Was the subpoena lawfully issued, and did it lawfully require Mayor Hague's attendance before the committee notwithstanding the assumed inclusion therein of illegal requirements for the production of documents?
3. Was it lawful to order a warrant for the arrest of Mayor Hague and to bring him before the legislature?
4. Was the warrant in this case, if otherwise valid, vitiated by lack of a seal?
5. Does the warrant, commanding the arrest of said Hague, and that he be brought before the bar of the senate and assembly "to answer as and for a contempt in refusing to obey the said subpoena" by its language contemplate penal action against said Hague on account of such alleged contempt?
6. If so, was it within the power of the senate and general assembly to inflict such punishment?
7. Was it competent for the legislature to direct the arrest of said Hague under conditions which might involve his imprisonment until some later day (in this case six days later) before he could be brought before that body in session?
8. Shall the decree be reversed?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that, on the ultimate question whether the order brought up should be reversed, the court was equally divided in opinion. Because there was no majority in favor of reversal, the order was affirmed. At the request of the judges, the court voted separately on eight specified legal questions presented by the case. The recorded votes on those questions are set out in the opinion and reflect the court's determination on each discrete point rather than an extended written majority opinion:

• Question 1 (validity of Joint Resolution No. 13, taken as a whole): Answered "Yes" by a 12-0 vote.
• Question 2 (lawfulness of the subpoena and its requirement of Hague's attendance despite assumed illegal document requirements): Answered "Yes" by a 12-0 vote.
• Question 3 (lawfulness of ordering a warrant for Hague's arrest to bring him before the legislature): Answered "Yes" by a 12-0 vote.
• Question 4 (whether the warrant was vitiated by lack of a seal): Answered "No" by a 12-0 vote.
• Question 5 (whether the warrant's language contemplates penal action for contempt): Answered "Yes" by a 12-0 vote.
• Question 6 (whether the senate and general assembly had power to inflict such punishment): Divided 6-6 (Six justices answered "Yes" and six answered "No").
• Question 7 (competency of the legislature to direct arrest under conditions possibly involving imprisonment until a later day): Divided 6-6.
• Question 8 (whether the decree should be reversed): Divided 6-6.

Because the court was equally divided on the ultimate question of reversal (Question 8), the opinion states that for want of a majority for reversal the decree will be affirmed. The opinion provides the voting outcome for each question but does not elaborate further analytical reasoning or majority rationale beyond the recorded votes and the per curiam statement.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The order brought up is affirmed because the court was equally divided on the ultimate question of reversal and there was no majority in favor of reversing the decree.

Implications: The direct effect is that the lower order remains in place as affirmed by this court. The opinion does not discuss broader precedential implications beyond the answers recorded for the separate questions, and it does not articulate a majority opinion that would establish new controlling legal doctrine in this court's opinion text.