True American. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1835-18??, 1838-12-05
A OF LOUISIANA.
First Judicial District Court.

First Judicial District Court.
In the matter of T. w. Collens praying for a babea,
corpus.
Judgment deliveredly the Hon. A. M, Bucbon, >, y,
the application of Thos. W. Collens, Esor. far n W.;
of habeas corpus.
The return of the keeper of the prison of this parish
shews that the petitioner was committed to said prisor
by John n. Holland, U: 5. Marshal, upon a warran,
holding sessions in New Orleans, of which warrant the
following is a tenor:
:Whereasi it hath been this day %adjudged by the cir.
cult court of the United States, IN and for the nintb cr,
cut for the Eastern District of Louis ana, that Thomas
W. Collens, who acted as deputy to the former clerk
Of the said court, hath been guilty Of contempt of said
commanding him to deliver over and surrender IN RI ,
court the records of a certain cause therein pending
and entitled Robert Slaughter VS.. John Brown and
Others, and also refusing to the court the use and in
spection of the said record, of which he was then and
there in possession, when demanded BY the Judge there.
Of; YOU the said Marshal, are hereby commanded to
ln,nflsoe the sad Thomas ". Collens, till the further
furnished by the U. S. Marshal for this District tn t. the
Jailer, with the following endorsement In ob.d; moe
70 a warrant to me directed, by the Hon. the Clrcuit
court OF the United States for the Eastern District of
LOUISIANA, whereof the within is a true copy, 7 hava
committed the within named Thomas w. Coliens. esq
to IN PRISON Of tn: parish of Q leans; and tho Sheriff
Of the said parish is here requ red to keen the soiJ ~
W. Collens, eSqr. in safe custody until a further order
Of said court be made in the premises, or until he h..
further discharged by due course OF law. "
:" to pc !ihoH iel ut HdUeaS corpus, and III the prpu-
ment upon the re urn, the counsel Of MIR. Collens have
taken a very wide range indeed-They have nor oniv
canvassed the form of the warrant and comn,;tran,,
ana inc questions OF law arising therefrom, but they
discussed the previous proceedings c onstituIinC the con.
tempt Tor winch the petitioner is c0uImitteI, and have
even attempted to make this tr hunul tn, arbit,r nf =
controversy which has existed for some time past re.
speeting the ~clerkship ofthe Unitsd States Cour, i,
tins city, Jlsttying TIL refusal of the petitioner to n,n'
dnce the records of the Circuit Court for ,his fadsrol
district, on the ground that he was the lawful keeper Of
those records hal hoon H. j.. l.
cult Judge, and that the attempt to divest him Of ,hem
was an attempted usurpation by the district Jude.
". Hon II was nerltoriors in the petitioner to resist.
Such pelng the extent of the ground covered hv tho
COUNSEL OF the petitioner, ! consider it incumbent rnon
me IN order to prevent misconstruction, to premise nv
Judgment ors;ae upon 1h's application by declaring that / re-
coghlse explicitly the doctrine asserted by the snpr.me
court OF tbs state in the case of Buquet VS., Watkins.
that when the law has vested in a tribunal. the noyey
Oh pursuing tor contempts, such tribunal is the Judge
and the sole judge of what constitutes n conten,n,. 81
its decision on that head cannot be reviewed h v anu NJ
other tribunal, indeed, | may be permitted to observss,
IN were IN order TO examine into the cause of inpris.
onment alleged in the warrant, that | can conceive ofno
contempt OF court 80 gross, as the Withholding of r..
CORDS from the recogn zance of The Judge and Of the sn;.
'ors, oV any person whatever: C. contempt which does
not only regard the person of the magistrate, bur strikes
judicial Rroce 'dlngs, and removing the evidence of iii.
gated rights. And | would not consider sucb CON
tempt as any the less aggravated, because committed
by a person claiming TO be clerk and keener of ,he 10
cords for it is absurd 10 pretend that there can he =
private right OF property in public records. This noint
lnassa settled by our supreme court, if it needed
my ad]ndicatlon, in the case of LATTE VS.. Duncan.
under TINS view of the law, | cannot examine
ne matter which influenced the District Judge of
ne U States, sitting as Circait Judge, to punish
If the contempt,
Upon another branch of the application, I wish !
y . e ois.nctly understood. Several errors of form
n the order of imprisonment, have been uroed ne
grounds tor the discharge of The petitioner BuI
wen II 4 shou'd be of opinion that those objections
we're valid, they would not justify me in discharo.
ng. supposing that no other grounds of DISCHARGE
we're presented; Tor It would then become nv
NY, under the o23d article of the Code ofPractice.
I | in%lerfered a, all, to render a new order Of arras,
n regular form.
ohe otler point remains-the illegally Of the
for want Of precision as to duration.
ne Imprisonment is to continue until the furth err
toet OF me court, think this ground of obiec.
ION TO the warrant well taken, and thai, the pe,i,
loner is entitled to be discharged, on The prounJ
nat the CIRCUIT Court Of the U States has in this
ONT exceeded It's jurisdiction, as defined bv law.
ny the judiciary act of 1889, section n, ceur,a
me united States are empowered to punish by
ne or ii Imprisonment, at the discretion Of tho s,d
ourts, all contempts of authority in any cause nm
caring before the same.
IN me present case, | take it for granted that n
oh'emPt has been committed. The subiec, ma,
er was exclusively within the cognizance of ths
'rcuit conrt; and that court has awarded the
But is that punishment such ,s IL
ontemplated by the act OF congress. ms, c;,ad9
learly not. For it it were, the court would, in
3 accfee' nave exercised the discretionary pover
10 1t by the law. l am not aware ,ba,
oh9fess Fas set any precise bounds to the discre.
VI he'e spoken OF. 1t must, therefore, be con.
'rued dr6'tr1um boni uiri-the measure Of a nm
ent' yet energetic and effectual administrator Of
is''ce' ms discretion, more or less arbitrarvin
. na'uie' must yet, IN It's application to each MARI
ouidi case END and determinate by the decree of
Juuse' fof 1t is easy 10 perceive thai, unless
20 Iuuse' l." ns sentence Tor a specific contempt,
"Aeo a period either of tine or of the perform
ace oil an act, which shall determine the lanai
'ne Imprisonment, he has not exercised his dis
o,o"i ana Inc sentence is, conseq uenlly. moi
zen as the law has contemplated. TO illustrate
- { some ofiehces are punishable in Louisi.
Ia by imprisonment at the discretion of the cour,
VINO ever imagined that upon a verde, ~
my, under these statutes, sentence could h,
9a'iy pronounced OF Imprisonment until the
fther order OF the courtl And can it he nrr
hded that a sentence, which would no, be lepg,l,
ter all The preliminary formaIities of indiotmSSn,
raignment, lrial by Jury, and conviction, Womb
more legal, where none OF those forms had been
served, yet where the result is equally ,be
PfVat on OF the liberty of The "ciIizenl 1t seems
me mat such a doctrine is alik e Regulated by
: lu.ee OF regal construction, and repugnanl TO
g spirit OF our political institutions.
NOW, the imprisonment of Collens, being nm Y
'ermined in duration, by lapse of Time, Or BY by sh
t psaofmance OF an act, has every element, Of
lPe'ual imprisonment; for what can be pred;.
'eu OF eternity itself, but lAat it is withourTimi,l 6
ie eHtct OF the warrant being then to consion X
, prisoner TO perpetual confinement, without
IN perpe'ully being dtcreed in terms bv The
hf', II 'esnlts' not only that the court has mt
'fcisea It's discretion in this instance. bur has
's'i'u'ed, in the place of its legal disereunnarv
yer, a jurisdiction underlined and unde6nable|
thereto c, The 822d article of the
lie oil Prlr1rr- ,uhich donln.. NN