Sec. 1 . In General
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena
may be cited for contempt of Congress. Eastland v. United States
Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). Although the Constitution does
not expressly grant Congress the power to punish witnesses for
contempt, that power has been deemed an inherent attribute of the
legislative authority of Congress (Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204
(1821)) so far as necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative
authority expressly granted (Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917)).
However, as a power of self-preservation, a means and not an end, the
power does not extend to infliction of punishment. Manual
Sec. Sec. 294-296.
To supplement this inherent power, Congress in 1857 adopted an
alternative statutory contempt procedure. Sec. 2, infra. Thus, the
House may either (1) certify a recalcitrant witness to the appropriate
United States Attorney for possible indictment under this statute or
(2) exercise its inherent power to commit for contempt by detaining
the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Manual Sec. 296.
The statutory procedure is the one used in modern practice, but the
``inherent power'' remains available. In one instance, the House
invoked both procedures against a witness. 3 Hinds Sec. 1672.
In contrast, the Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2
USC Sec. 288d) to direct the Senate legal counsel to bring an action
in Federal court
[[Page 450]]
to compel a witness to comply with the subpoena of a committee of the
Senate.
Under the inherent contempt power of the House, the recalcitrant
witness may be arrested and brought to trial before the bar of the
House, with the offender facing possible incarceration. 3 Hinds
Sec. 1685. At the trial of the witness in the House, questions may be
put to the witness by the Speaker (2 Hinds Sec. 1602) or by a
committee (2 Hinds Sec. 1617; 3 Hinds Sec. 1668). In one instance, the
matter was investigated by a committee, the respondent was then
brought to the bar of the House, and a resolution was reported to the
House for its vote. 2 Hinds Sec. 1628.
The inherent power of Congress to find a recalcitrant witness in
contempt has not been invoked by the House in recent years because of
the time-consuming nature of the trial and because the jurisdiction of
the House cannot extend beyond the end of a Congress. See Anderson v.
Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821). The first exercise of this power in the
House occurred in 1812, when the House proceeded against a newspaper
editor who declined to identify his source of information that had
been disclosed from executive session. 3 Hinds Sec. 1666. Such powers
had been exercised before the adoption of the Constitution by the
Continental Congress as well as by England's House of Lords and House
of Commons. Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). Although the
use of such powers was supported by the Supreme Court in Jurney,
neither House has used them since 1935
