New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-06
THE BEE AS A LEGAL ADVISER.

THE BEE AS A LEGAL ADVISER.
This somewhat celebrated malconten
and pettifogging journal has discovere'
by the aid OF its limited legal requirement
another of those enormously illegal ant
outrageous acts of Governor Warmoth II
the release of Mr.. Van Norden, OF tn
Louisiana Savings Bank, who was, on tn
fourth instant, committed to the Parlsi
Prison for ten days, as punishment TO-
the contempt of which he is alleged t.
have been guilty toward the Sixth Distric
Court That journal, with a tremendou:
burst of honest indignation, says: ''Wt
are certainly not astonished at any ac
Governor Warmoth performs"
This is remarkable admission for the
Bee to make, for we would have supposed,
knowing it's frequently committed errors
in legal advice, that it would at least be as.
tonished at this act of the chief executive.
Mark these wild ventures and sweeping as
sertions of our double -barreled contempo-
rary:
We venture to say that it is the first time
in the history of tie United States that
any Governor or President has undertaken
to nullify or render Intellectual a judicial
order, and IL is an act of SO mOnstrOus a
character that we can hardly believe it.
One committed for contempt by COM
petent court can not be discharged from i'm
prisonment by another court, under writ
of habeas corpus or through any other pro
ceeding except on application to the court
itself which made the commitment. There
is no corrective provided by law for an
abuse of the power except that of impeach-
ment.
The pardoning power can not be legally
applied to cases such as the one upon
precedent for its application in such cases.
The pardoning power in eases in crimes
can only be exercised after conviction;
that is, after the courts have done with the
criminal. A party committed to prison for
contempt of court is still in the custody of
the court, and may be brought up gain and
recommitted if he does not purge himself.
These four propositions are the results
of the researches of the editor of the Bee
on this rather important question of par
don and reprieve. We beg leave to loan
him one or two American ideas, with
which his article. of the fifth proves him
unacquainted.
First, then, is the case cf Mr.. Van Nor
den the first one in the history of the
United States in which the proper execu-
tive officer has undertaken to nullifv and
render Intellectual judicial order-or, in
other words, is there no precedent for the
application of the pardoning power to such
case as that commented on by the Bee?
The following is the opinion of United
States Attorney General Gilpin relative to
the pardon;ng power Of the chief execu-
tive:
RESPECTING THE PARDONING POWER.
The pardoning power vested in the Pres
dent extends to fines imposed upon indi
vduals for conduct adjuged to be con
tempts of the circuit courts.
ATTORNEY generals OFFICE,
February D. l3il.
SIR had the honor to receive vour letter
of the second of February, inclosing the
application of Richard l.. Dixon to the
President and the recommendation of Judge
Mckinley and Judge Gholson, and other
persons in the State of Mississippi. for
pardon of the fine of $780, imposed upon
Mr.. Dixon for a contempt committed by an
atfray between himself and another person,
in the presence of the judges of the Circuit
Court of the United States at jackson. in
that State, and inquiring whether the eX
- q
tends to such cases.
Ii we adopt, as the Supreme Court OF the
United States has decided we should do.
The principles established by the common
law respecting the operation of a pardon,
there can be no doubt it may embrace such
a case. A pardon has been held to extend
10 a contempt committed in Westminster
Hail, under circumstances not materially
different from those which occurred IN the
case submitte to the President.
l am therefore of opinion that, should
the President consider the facts such as to
;ustity the exercise OF his constitutional
power to grant repIieves and pardon- Tor
otfenses against the United States" there
is nothing in the character of this Ofense
which withdraws 1t from the general
authority. II. d. GILPlN.
To the Secretary Of State.
We fear orr friend Of the Bee i, not
very extensively read in the history Of the
United States, and it has been suggested
that he is not even a citizen of the United
States: yet we hope the cases and opinions
herein quoted will show even to his salts
faction that there have been precedents,
and that the action of the Governor was
based upon high judicial determination.
The second proposition is so very wild
and fallacioUs that We doubt if it be neces-
sary to comment upon it at all. We will,
however be content with calling attention
to the decision of the United States Cir
cult Court for the Southern District of New
York, in which Justice Blatchtord decided
tAt the court which commits a person for
contempt has no jurisdiction or power Of
itself even to discharge the party; that the
relief must be sought by an application to
the President of the United States; that
no such power is conferred upon any other
officer, or upon any court; and that the
corrective" provided by law for such an
abuse of power by the Judiciary is in the
hands of the executive alone.
Again, the Bee says ''the pardoning
power can only be exercised after conric-
ton, and to make the self-evident PROPOSE
ton more evident, adds, ''that is after the
courts have done with the criminal" Our
contemporary also thinks party COM
mitted to prison for contempt of court IS