The national Republican., 1866-12-18

ter buy guttsfi or " thsy are supHied WIN
some fsw pisess Of late music, or some nusieal IN
strumsut from The immsnss stock Of jobs =. Ellis,
sos Psnn'ylvsaiA avenue, near Tenth street
Porrcs Busrxrss. iieutenants Of the |
seventeen arrests made throughout the District for
the preceding twenty four ho1n. The amount Of
apss imposed was ea7.ss. ..-.
AcxsowIspol anc,rpr Of the Musicai
0f~iss, very ssssiy printed advertising sheet,
pablisksd By our sntsrprisins nsishbof, John +.
tnh ~, 800 PspAUivssis svsnus, for ffss sirss.
mNsn' = ----.-uuuusunuu- ..g
srEs Ths ceusss. VI
t,- SuraRxH ,CouRr or TEE UsrED SrAfEs.-
TM Ps.w % Pssiss A. Cssss.vs-Wsl Man.
zs..s I.'s. ft.s ~. ces.' p csns:. cs,ss;t Si
sea~lss s~S Mssssoss R.sirssi Company. Poi.
fiensys, o. IA Milwushs ssi 81. Pdsi Rmiroad
Company, &C., RsspoSxsnfs. fs.-rhis oovrt msds IN
esAsf directing the 0rsut oourt for NJ district Of
wlsso.sia Y sta.. ssss - ss'ssi. so.ti1c:n e.
sspondsatG shouid dsivsr their rad with ai ths
appurtsnaness, rolling stock and other property"
bsioasag 70 the ROAD, to the pstitionsr. The nsn.
dats aid not assume 70 dstsrnins what rolling
ssk b.i'ss:d e u: red 70 :. s:iy.ssS s.s i'f'
(. The oisssit Court made the order directed BY
tks nandaAs s,d The rsesivsr delivered the eastern
dvsoe ef road accordingly, bat the rsspondsnts
rsfuSsd 70 deliver the rolling stock according 10
Ne order s.d decree q ths court;
The pstitousrs moved 10 attach the ofesrs and d.
rsctofs Of the g. Paul Company, for contempt In
dlsobsying the order. This motion failed In d.
vsion Of and nom that time TO the present
ne rolling ssosk which Il wss dirsstsd 70 deliver 70
Tie petitioners In dirsgard Of he order Of the
eouit mads In pursusnes Of the mandate Of this
y This ss.ss Il now novsd-arss, for ~andanu,
10 compel the CiroutCourt 10 enforce ths mandate Of
Of The rolling stock; and second for On attachment
Of ths ellesrs Of ne 81. Paul Company, q for .
contempt Of this sours In dinegafding the dserses
Of the court below, made On mandate from this
The petitioners conesds that one Of these mo.
tions nust b. denied, but eontsnd that one or NE
other Of them must also be granted and insist that
The g. Paul company and its ofaesrs are guilty Of
. contempt Of this court, for which they may bs
| punished here. When this court decides . cause
snd rsmits Il to the court below, with directions
TO make certain order decree, that order do.
| cree when 20 made 10 the order or decree Of this
court, and dlsobsdisnes thereto must BE- oontsmpt
Of this eourt, "for whom the decree (of the court
late court II becomes the decree Of that court"
(GrierJ. Corning vs. Iron Factory, ID How, 466.)
A. the Circuit Court, upon the mandate, entered
orders and Decree this court had directed dis.
obedience thereto BY the rsspondsuts was clearly
contempt Of that court, and when the petitioners
brought the fact 70 the notice Of the court an At
tschmsnt should have bssn Issued. In suoh case
an attachment Is the only remedy . party has to
enforce Decree Il must, therefore, be proceed
ing the party 10 entitled to for that Purposs and to
deny II In the proper case 10 to deny the party In
ljursd the only rsmsdy 10 can have to enforce his
sdjsdiestsd rights. Nor q an appeal from the 70.
sal Of The court below to issue the attashmsnt the
appropriate remedy because on the appeal this court
could only sdjudgs the parties right, which Il has
slrssdy done; and the second mandate would BE- no
more than The Arst This court directed the
court below 10 enter an order requiring the dsliv.
cry Of the rolling stock to the pstitonsrs on the
payment BY them Of the amount due This order
ths Circuit Court sntsrsd; the psttionsrs paid the
money and demanded compliance with ths order.
This was refused, and the refusal was olsarly .
oontsmpt Of the Circuit Court An attachment
was then applied for. This the Cirouit Court re-
fused A mandamus 10 now spplisd for to compel
court below on the application for .ttsohn.nt the
respondents justified their disobsdisnee BY the
plea that they were the owners Of the property,
even before they received II from the court upon
giving bond. 70 this the petitioners reply that,
even oonosding that the respondents did own the
property prior to giving their bonds and receiving
the same from the court, that having obtained pos
session under order from the court they srs ss-
topped for all the purposes Of this motion from set
ting up such prior title n an excuse for their disc.
bsspcs 10 tbs subsequent order Of the court To de-
liver II TO the petitioners. Numerous other reasons
are also urged In support Of tho petition There ID
also motion argued herewith TO dismiss IN appeal
In the case; also, motion to vssats ssupercedsss
but the important feature Of the case b the point
Ths respondents reply to the motion for man.
dassSs that the mandate Of this court o6sysd.
What Il complained Of here 10, not that the order
directed BY the mandate wss not made, but that.
being made, II was not sstisfaetorily executed
puts is not . question 70 bs passed upon on thil
petition The judgmsnt Of this court on appsali
, that are TO come up 10 tho case cannot be fore
stalled BY this petition the direct issue Of IT'LL
In the cause BE- controlled By any incidental col
The power to punish contempt, as power Of self
protection, 10 one Inherent In al courts Of record
II b discretionary always specially declared 30 Il
the asts Of Congress eonfsrring II on the Fedora
ossisn s1d With. Is. seuna discretion Of q. Ssnd
court. II was the peculiar Jurisdiction Of The cir
cult court to determine whether there had been .
disobsdisncs Of IL orders; and II . disobedisnos
whether u called for the panitory aocsss Of th,
court. The determination Of the circuit court OF
the petition for oontsmpt was exercise Of judi
cisl power and discretion conclusive, unless II b,
reversible and reversed BY direct proceeding fof
that purpose In an appellate court: ION man
ddn5hs . superior court WILL never uireot IN Wne'
manner the discretion Of an inferior tribunal should
bs exercised but they will, in proper case, 70
d quirs the inferior court to decide" (Insuranos
. Company w. Hsin Of Wilson, 8 Peters, 29l, 304.
Other authorities were cited on this point
The power 10 punish for . contempt 10 clearly th'
same st common law as that prescribed by tho stat
ute % that in case Il held that the Federal COURT
possess the power independent Of the statute, II Il
itill the same power-saoh court to punish for con
tempt Of It's own suthority.
( Matt. H. Carpenter for petitioners, John W
!. Cary and y. @. Ryan for respondents.
The Military Commission Case-Ih Opinion o
I tho Court-Ths TIiah Illegal aud Void-Con
q grs,s, BY a Conjunction Of the Act of 1883 hsid
. to haze PROVIDED Agains Such TIal'-Congrs'
. With0n. Anthority TO Anthor'ss Military Commi;
i. sons-THs Constifnfion the Supreme Lao Of n
: Land ~ Psacs and Wr--Er parts Lamdin
n MiLigan.-Ths questions certified Of In this, (sn'
two other cases on record with H. were a. follows
T. lst On the facts stated In said petition and sx
hibits ought writ Of hsbsss corpus to be issus'
aooording TO the prayer Of said petitionl
q "a. On the facts stated In said petition and OF
t hibits ought the said Lsmbdin p. Milligan to b
discharged from custody In said petition prayed
l wh.kk L. f..t stsd L. s.A al