New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-10-28
THE WAR OF JURISDICTION.

THE W.aR OF JURISDICTIONS
most entertaining controversy has sprung
up lately between the Second and Fourth Dis
trict Courts, involving conflict of jurisdiction,
and that may hereafter give rise to no little
confusion and difficulty.
The Judge of the Fourth District Court hav-
ing allowed suspension-appeal from his judg-
ment dissolving an injunction previously granted
against certain members of the Board of Assist
ant Aldermen, on the ground that the injunc-
ton was wrongfully sued out, the defendants
resolved to act in the matter in Committee of
the Whole, as though no injunction was pending.
Thereupon the defendants were ruled for con-
tempt in disobeying the injunction, and several
of them, on conviction, were sentenced to twenty
four hours Imprisonment. The Judge Of the Sec
ond District Court, having concurrent but not
appellate jurisdiction in respect to the Fourth
District Court, issued writ of hdbeds corpus
at the instance of defendants, and discharged
them from custody on the ground that the con-
tempt committed, if any, was contempt of the
authority of the Supreme Court, in which Court
the injunction was pending on appeal.
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that
the injunction had passed from the jurisdiction
of the Fourth District Court, and admitting
| (Which is denied) that the Second District Court
has right to supervise the decisions of the
Fourth Court, the Judgment Of the Second
Court has the sanction of the highest authority
The power of Court to punish for contempt,
is one necessarily inherent, as necessary to its
existence as Court. 1t is q power subject to
no control whatever from any other Court,
whether of concurrent or appellate jurisdic
ton; because no Court could preserve it's own
| precincts from the invasions of disorderly per-
sons, OF its own mandates and officers from con-
temptuous interference, unless this power was
exclusive, and free from any right of revision,
eren BY the Supreme Court of the State.
This has been the law of England and of this
country from the foundation of our Govern
ment The power to commit for contempt be-
longs to every Court of competent jurisdiction,
as we'll as to every legislative body. What is
or not contempt, is for their decision, and is
final This matter is clearly decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case
of Kearney, Wheaton p. 38, in which Judge
Story, in support of this doctrine, quotes the
| language of Justice Blackstone, viz: All
Courts, by which mean to include both Houses
| of Parliament and the Courts of Westminster
Hall, can hare no control oUer them in matters
of contempt. The sole adjudication for con-
tempt, and the punishment thereof, belong ear
c,usipely and ,oithout Interference to each
respective Court. Infinite confusion and dis
order would follow, if courts could, by writs of
habeas corpus, examine and determine the
contempts of Others
Judge Story says, in the case of Kearney,
:" When Court commits party for contempt,
their adjudication is conviction, and their
commitment is an execution.
Assuming the law as laid down to be incon-
trovertible, several questions are forced on our
consideration
If by the appeal taken to the Supreme Court
the injunction lad passed from the control of
the Fourth District Court, the contempt COM
nitted was solely against the authority of the
appellate Court, and the Judge of the Fourth
District Court had no right to imprison the de- |
endants therefor. If the case had not passed |
o the appellate Jurisdiction, we would be forced |
o the contrary conclusion, to-wit: that the
Judgment Of the Court of the first instance was
orrect. But in either event we cannot perceive
low the Judge of the Second District Court
an be justified, although his decision was
trictly in conformity to law and to adjudged
Eases. The Second and Fourth District Courts
are Of concurrent jurisdiction, and there is no |
law giving either the power to revise the deci-
sions of the other. The Second District Court
has no appellate jurisdiction with respect to the
Fourth. Such being the law and the facts, we