The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-09-11

FOR crime aud convict party these the udg
menis would be wholly void. If the petitioner can bring
himself within this principle then there is no judgment
against him; he is wrongfnlIy imprisoned, and
order him 10 be brought out and discharged
What is he detained fort The answer is and sim
pie The commitment shows that he tried, found
guilty, and sentenced for contempt Of court and nothing
else He is confined execution Of that sentence and
for no other This distinct and substantive
offence against the authority and government of the Uni
ted States Does anybody doubt the jurisdiction of the
district punish the contempt OF who disobeys
its process Certainly All courts have this power
and must necessarily have it. Without il they would be
utterly poweres The authority to deal with offender
OF this class belongs exclusively to the court in which the
offence is committed and other court not even the
highest interfere with its exercise either by writ of
error mandanus abeds corpus III the power be abused
there is no remedy but impeachment The law was SO
held by this court in hcIauphns case, g. W. 81 2T5)
and by the Supreme Court of the United States in kea
neys case e. Wheaton, 3s) II was soemnly settled
part Of the law in Brass Crosleys % Wilson,
1881 by in which two Of the foremost jurists
that England produced. We have not the smallest
doubt that it is the law and must administer il
find it, The only attempt made to disregard it
by New York judge "a Johns, r. 345) WIN not sup
ported by his brethren This attempt followed by all
the evil and confusion which Blackstone and Kent and Sto
declared to be its necessary consequences Whoever win
trace that singular controversy TO its termination will
that the chancellor and the majority of the Supreme Court
though once onyoei in the senate were never answered
The Senate itself yielded TO the force OF the truths which
the Supreme Court had laid down clearly and the udg
ment Of the court Of errors in Yatess case 20 Johns COSY
oyerruled by the the year afterwards in
Yates Lansing % Johns p 423) which grew Of the
very transaction and depended the prnei
pies Still further reflection at later period induced the
Senate to join the popular branch OF The legislature in
passing statute which eectuay prevents Judge from
interfering by hGbeos corpus with The Judgment Of another
question OF contempt
These principles being settled it follows iresistiby that
the district OF the United States had power and m
risdcon to decide what acts constutc contempt against
to determine whether the petitioner had been guilty OF
contempt, and to inict upon him the punishment which,
in its opinion lac ought to suffer II fully believed the
petitioner to be innocenf sure that the
udarSfs faotu
piled the aw-sl we could not recxamine the evidence,
reudge the justice of the case, without grossly dsre
aarding what we know to he the law Of the land The
judge Of the district decided the question his own
constitutional responsibility Even if he could be shown
to have acted yrannicay corrupy he could be called
to for it only in the Senate Of the United States
But the counsel of the petitioner go behind the proceed
ing in which he convicted and argue that the sentence
for contempt is void because the court had Jurisdiction
of certain other NATTER which 1t investigating or
attempting to investigate when the contempt commit
ted We find Judgment against him in case and no
complains about another in which there no Judgment
lie suffering for offence against the United States and
he says he is innocent Of any wrong to particular nd
yidual lie is conclusvcy aduLged guilty OF contempt;
and he tells us that the court had Jurisdiction to
store Mr.. Wheeera slaves.
1t must be remembered that contempt Of court is spc-
cifc criminal offence II Is punished sometimes by ndct-
ment and sometimes in summary proceeding as it
in this case In either mode of trial. the adjudication
against the offender is conviction, and the commitment
in consequence Is execution q Wheat, a8) This is well
settled and believe has been doubted Certainly
the learned counsel for the petitioner have not denied II
The contempt may BIO connected with some PARTICULAR
cause it may consist in misbehavor which has tend
ency to obstruct the administration of justice generally
When II Is committed in pending CAUSE the proceeding
to punish it proceeding by ITSELF 1t not entitled ii
the cause pending but on the criminal side. (Wal l34
The record OF conviction for contempis distinct from
the matter under investigation when Il committed as
an Indictment for perjury from the in which the
false oath was taken Can person, convicted Of perjury
ask to deliver him from the penitentiary showing
that the oath which the perjury is assigned taken
in of which tile court had no jurisdiction? Would
~, a rcarn
treating the sentence void r. instead Of swearing
falsely he refuses to be sworn at all and 10 is consic
not OF PERJURY but Of contempt the rule appes and
with force precisely equal II it be really true that
contempt be committed against while II Ia in
curing into matter beyond lis jurisdiction and Y the
fact SO in the case then the petitioner had good do
fence and be ought to have made 1t on his trial: To make
it after conviction ia too late To make il hero is to pro-
duce it before the wrong tribunal.
Every judgment be conclusive until reversed Such
Is the character nature and essence Of all Judgments II
it be not conclusive, it is not Judgment court must
either have power settle given question finally And
forever to preclude all further inquiry upon IL
else has power to make any decision at oil To say
that court may determine matter and that another
court may regard the matter afterwards open and
undetermined, ia an absurdity In terms.
1t is most especially necessary that convictions for
tempt in one court should be fna conclusive and free
from REORGANIZATION by other courts hdbeds corpus II
the law were not so our judicial system would break 10
pieces in month. Courts totally unconnccted with each
other would be coming in constant collision. The infc-
ror courts would revise all the decisions OF the judges
placed and above them party unwilling TO DO
tried in this court need only defy authority and ii
commit him., take out his AaJcds before
cnte adge of the pleas and If that Judge lie Of
opinion that we ought not 10 try him. there end Of
the
This doctrine is plainly against reason that II would
be wonderful indeed any authority Cor II could be found
in the books There none except the overrulcd decision
Of Mr. Justice Spencer OF New York and efforts Of
the kind to control the other courts made by Sir
Edward Coke, in the Kings Bench which unver-
sally admitted to have been Illegal we'll rude and in
temperate. On the other hand, have all the English
judges aud all own discaniing their power inter-
crc with, CONTROL another in this way. will
tent myself by simply referring to of the books in
which II IL established that the conviction Of contempt
separate proceeding and is conclusive Of every fact which
might have been urged the trial for contempt and
among Others want of Jurisdiction 10 try the canse
which the contempt was committed Johns, II. y25
scqa The opinion Of CHI J. Kent pages a7o to 3J5
Johnsr 563. Johns, 423. l, IIill l7o- Irede Ia9
h. 1873. Sandf, 72l. 4 Carter $50 | Blackf l6G.
% Miss, 1856 Wheccr's Criminal Cases. p. ]. ii Ad
and Ellis 55S. These will speak for themselves
may remark 10 the last that the very same obiec-
ton made there and here The party was convicted
of contempt in not ohcying decree lie claimed his dis
charge on hGhsGs co because the chancellor had
rsdicon to make the decree being interested in the cause
himself Rnt the court of Queens bench held that II that
WAS defence should have been made The trial for
contempt aud tho conclusive We cannot
choose but hold the rule here Any other would DO
violation OF the law which Is established and sustained
by all authority and all reason.
But certainly the of jurisdiction alleged In this case
woud not even have been defence the trial The prop
oston that court is powerless punish for dsordey
conduct or dsobediencc Of It's process in which it
ought ultimately to dismiss for of jurisdiction not
only unsupported by judicial authority hut we think Il ID