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

is classed by Blackstone 4, 235, amonI
, those Of consequential contempts,
then the power to punish the class Of con
sequentia contempts constituted part o
the law of the land so long anterior to TIT
date Of Magma Charta as to have become
at that early day very maxim OF law
where was the necessity for the Legislation
upon the subject Why should Paria
: ment have egislated upon an individual
instance Of consequential contempt, un
less the evil were then first discovered
and a remedy then, for the first tint
, soughtR To what extreme the courts hat
extended their jurisdiction over contempts
up TO the time of Magma Charta, we have
no actual knowledge, lit is but conjec.
ture, but that seventy years afterwards
Parliament, for the first time, legislated
upon the subject, we do have proof; ant
we have further proof from the language
of the statute and the grant of power &c
the courts, that such was, in its nature, an
enlarged power, which consequently pre-.
sumes its non existence until the passage
of that act. The phraseology of the pre-
amble of that statute most strongly forti-
fies this position. The reason for the en-.
actment isgiven in the following language,
and Lord Cooke says the preamble of a
statute is good means to find out The in.
tention of il: "Forasmuch as Justices, to
whose Office il beloageth to minister jus.
tice TO all that sue before them, are many
times disturbed in due execution of their
Office, "&c, This, at the present day, would
be deemed a consequential contempt Of
court, and if it were so before Magma
Charta, and the power dwelt in the courts
then to punish and check it, the statute
was certainly uncalled for legislation
but if so, il is solitary and isolated in
stance of such at that early period. II
was by train of similar reasoning, |
imagine, that very learned author, as he
is styled by Blackstone, 4, 1887, see Glib,
Hist. G. P. G. 3, was inclined to deduce
the present doctrine of contempts exclu.
sively from this statute, and TO allow il no
greater antiquity. How much then Of
the present doctrine in England owes its
origin 10 that and subsequent legislation,
and how much to judicial assumption Of
power, it is here unnecessary to enquire,
but in stating the historical argument, all
that with fairness can be said, lie, that
Magma Charta conferred TO the courts the
power to preserve themselves, and no more,
and not that it necessarily recognized as
tho law Of tho land the many kinds of
contempts now known to court and Judges
For so far as the newspapers publication
of libel upon court is concerned,
case Of the kindcould not have occurred
until the time of Queen Elizabeth, when
newspapers were first established, which
was three hundred and forty three wears
after the date of Magma Charta. The
proposition which is thus laid down is, that
the doctrine Of consequential conempts
in its present broad understanding was
unknown to and not confirmed by the ear
liest constitutional law of England, Mag.
ma Charta.
We must next test this doctrine of con.
tempts by the touchstone of the Consti-
tuition of the State This is the only pro-
per, legal and safe criterion by which it
can be Judged and decided upon. In do
ing SO, we must be careful TO allow no by
pothetcal interpretations or eguvocal dc.
fnitions of the explicit text of this instru-
ment. 1t is a compact between the peo-
ple and their officers. There are re-
straints placed upon both. Power 10 go.
vern has been confided, but it has also
been limited and restricted. 1t remains
then to examine whether the exercise of
power in the case now under considera.
ton, is within the Constitution and laws Of
this State.
Immedi' Iyupon the adoption Of our Con-
stitution and before the enactment Ct any
statutory law, so much of what is general
ly termed "the common law" and which
is also strictly in accordance NTH that con-
Stitution, was likewise necessarily adop-
ted. For instance, the Constitution es-
tabished and erected courts Of Justice
II gave them the jurisdiction Of courts of
Justice as the same were before undea.
stood, less so much power and authority as
trenched on that Constitution which crer-
ted them. To carry on these courts, GER
tain machinery is necessary, and that
machinery must be without clog, him
drance or Interference. This was neces-
sary to the ends Of their creation, for the
exercise of the functions entrusted to them,
and indispensable to serve and vindicate
the interest and dignity Of the govern
ment, which has been built up by the
people. Is then the case in hand, the use
Of power vested in our courts either d.
reclly or by implication, and is the act for
which the petitioner is now imprisoned a
clog upon the wheels of courts of justicel
| shall endeayor to show why they are not
What is a contempt of court2 Besides
the various classes Of contempis which
we're known to the common law Of Eng
4