Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1844-12-11
NuFAbe 4.

walton. Ii is in the established law, by
statutory enactments upon this subject Of
the United States and Of some Of our sis
ter States. We are thus presented with
complete practical relutaion Of the
whole argument which would attempt to
vindicn,e the propriety Of the claim TO
this power by the courts upon tho basis OF
expedency aud necessity. The act of
Congress, of March ID, 1881, C, 90, limit.
ed and defined the power over all con-
tempts Of courts of the United States, by
declaring that the power 10 issue attach
ments and inhict summary punishments
for contempts Of courts, shall not be con-
strued TO extend 10 any cases except the
MISCELLANEOUS of any person in the pres
ence of the court, or so near thereto as to
obstruct the administration Of justice; and
the misbehaviour of any Of the officers of
the said courts in their official transact
tons; and the disobodence or resistance
by any officer of said courts, party, juror,
witness, or any other person, TO any law
ful writ, process, order, rule, decree or
command OF the said courts. A similar
statue has b n enacted in Ohio, with tho
further restrlc ion that the accused shall
DO heard in his defence by himself or
counsel, In the "system of penal law,
prepared for the State of Louisiana" in
1924, by Edward Livingston, Esq, con-
tempts could only be committed in pres.
ence of the court, or in peadings or wri-
tings addressed to the Judges in pending
cases, and these were tried by Indictment,
whereby jury found the fact The civ
il code of Pennsylvania, in 1895, confined
the power Of Imprisonment 10 contempts
committed in open court No publication
out of court, respecting the conduct of the
court, or any Of its officers, jurors, wit
nesses, or parties in any cause pending
in court, exposes the party to summary
punishment, and tho only remedy for the
persons aggrieyed is by indictment or nc
ton at law. In States, then, established
upon the same republican principles as
our own, having courts of justice Of SINH
lar jurisdiction and like authority, needing
the same inherent capacity for self pres
eryhtion and the same Influence over the
public mind to render them eilicacious for
the ends of their creation, and beneficial
to the interests and purposes Of their gov
eminent and their people, the common
law power Of the judges over contempts
is found TO be unnecessary and useless.
From this it is therefore fairly aud ire
sislably deducible, that the motive for ar
rogatng claim 10 an authority IF this
kind being taken away, and the claim be.
ing predlcated upon that motive, the au-
thory must 60 with it, or in the language
of the legal motto, "ceSsd1ltc ratione, ces-
sat et ipsa ier."
But our own Legislature has passed
law upon this subject in these words:
"The courts shall have power TO fine and
lmprson any person who may be guilty
Of a contempt Of the court while sitting,
either in the presence or hearing of such
court Provided, that such fine shall not
exceed one hundred dollars, and no person,
for such contempt shall be imprisoned for
a longer period than the term of the court
at which the contempt shall have been
committed" II, II. 436, 90. The same
law, it is TO be remarked, is made appIi-
cable to the circuit, the chancery, and the
high court Of errors and appeals. This
statute describes clearly the offence and
,flixes for il a limited, termnable and def
mite punishment, Upon what principle
IAN the Legislature be supposed to have
the existence, If any such
could be imagined under our constitution,
If power unlimited, ungranted and nm
leiined, to punish contempts Of courts
Without their walls, acts unaffecling the
iecorum Or respect Of their presencel A
greater offence is thus made subject to
,ircumscrbed chastisement, and a lesser
s left liable to an infinite degree of pun
shment The sense, spirit, scope and
n@ntlou of a statute are to be regarded
n its construction, and Judges are so to
it as TO suppress n mischief or
advance remedy. Dwarris, 7lS. Is
lot the power Of furnishing implied con-
empts mschleyous,--should it not be
Our statute, by this rule of
Interpretation, should be pronounced de-
'tdrdtory of the law upon the subject Of
5ontempts so lar as they arc committed
By general persons. A common sense
survey Of the statute creates forcible i'm.
1lication that its language details ne cir.
which can alone Constitute
contempt of our courts. Or legislators
frame the laws, acknow!eIlp lying tbe coas,i.
u!ion as the highest ar. the onlv an,bori.
y on earth ior. ine,r'goide in shap ping them.
iney iound 10 Wat instrument no such
as 'hIs doctrine of Constructive
would establish, but rather a
',tceueu' and paramount authority to dis
ogey H. ihey have, in consequence,
commanded the subject of contempts of
cou'ts, not to be governed, to quote the
worda of Lord Cooke. ahv tha crooked