The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1842-04-14
VOL. 8. NO. Is WHOLE NO ~


crgy OF the General aud The gallaniry Of his
army, he was brooding over his own imagin-
aty wrongs, and planning some method TO re-
par his wounded dignity. On this day twen-
ly-seVen years ago, he caused rule of the
district cour,to be served on General Jack
son, TO appear before him and show cause why
an attachment should not issue sgalnst him
for-ls'. refusing to obey writ issued by
Judge Hall; ID, OBTAINING an original paper bo
longing TO the court; aud Sd, for imptisonng
the judge.
The first cause was for the General refu-
sing to obey writ of habeas corpus in the
case Of Louaer; the second for detainiDp
the writ. Tho whole Of these three causes as
signed are founded on the hypothesis, that in.
stead Of General Jackson having command of
his camp, he exer Csed limited authority un
der the control Of the civil magstracy. trust.
have satisfied you that martial law did in
fact exist, and of necessary consequence. that
Judge Halls authority was suspended. If he
was injured by it, surely he was not tho prop
er person 10 Try General Jackson for that in
jury. The Imprisonment consisted in SEN
ding an officer to escort him out of camp; and
fpr this instead Of taking the regular legal rem
edy, by an action for assault and false i'm.
prisonment, in the State court which was o.
pen to him as we'll as every other citizen, he
called the General to answer before himself
He went before the judge and proffsred to
show cause, the judge would not permit nlm
to do this, nor would he allow him TO assign
his reasons in writing for his conduct, but
without trial, without hearing Of his defence
he fined him one thousand dollars. You all
know the conduc. of the General on that oc~
casion; he saved the judge from the rising in-
digna,ion of the people and paid his fine 10 the
United States Marshal. These proceedings
OfJudge Hall were not only exceedingly out
rageous, but they were wholly illegal and
void; for as says, an eminent English jurst,
seven an act of Parliament cannot make
man judge in his own cause" This was
truly and wholly the cause Of the judge him
himself If a law of Congress had existed
which authorized him to cit in judgement up>
on any man for an injury inflicted upon him
self such law would have been mere dead
letter, and the judge would have been bound
| TO disregardi,. 1t was the violation Of this
| principle of jurisprudence which aroused the in
dgnation of The people and endangered the
life of this contemplate judge.
/ am aware of the law of contempt; il is the
power of sefpreservaon given 10 the courts;
II results from necessity alone, and extends no
further than necessity strictly requires; it has
no po wer 10 avengc ha wrongs and injuries
done TO the judge, unless those wrongs obs
sttuct the regular course Of justice. am a.
ware also OF the manner IN which the law of
contempt has been administered in our courts
where no statute law regulated it, and il was
left to the discretion of the judges TO deter
mine what was or was not contempt. In ono
case man was fined for coutemp, for revew-
ing the opinion of judge in a newspaper
This judge was impeached before this body
and acquitted, because not quite two thirds Of
the Senate voted him guilty. Some Senators
thinking probably that as Congress had neg
lected TO pass law on the subject of eons
tempt, the judge had nothing to govern his dis.
creton in the matter, and therefore ought NOT
TO be convicted. Congress Immediately pass
sed such law, and no contempts have occurs
red since in the United States coults. In a
State court, however, held in the same place,
judge is reported to have fined lawyer for
not obeyng his order to sit down. Many a
lawyer might refuse to obey such an order, bu,
no one would refuse to cit down, or remove 10
some other position If requested in gentle-
manly manner; but unfortunately there are
men on the bench who are The very antipodes
of gentlemen must neither he criticised,
disobeyed nor laughed al. We read Of a
cour, directing their grand jury 10 indict an
editor for libel for having published humOr-
Gus curicsturc Of trial before them. They
had tho modeety 10 send the cause 10 be tried
before another court, but that court, unless
grossly misrepresened, had such sympathy
for the rdculed Judges that not content with
fine Of some hundred dollars inflicted by the
majority Of the court, the presiding Judge
shamefuly lamenied that he was prevented By
his associates from mprsouing the defendant
who would not probably have been convicted
had not The same judge charged the jury il
tho cause. know know nothing of the char
acters of the persons charged, nor do ! in
quire, for that had nothing TO do with thes
prosecutions. twas the acts committed an,
the intention only which should have been re.
garded. No learned jurist who is civil po
lite and decorous in1he discharge Of his oftl
cill duties, ever has occasion to resort 4
rmes ror contempt, or indictment for libel, 4
prevent his court from being impsded in th
discharge Of its duties or TO preserve II from
disgrace.
Il ls the duty oflegisIators 10 discOunie
, nance all such abuses Of such abuses Of au
thoritv. which cannot but happen where me