New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-09
THE VAN NORDEN CASE.
Released on HabeRs Corpus.

Yesterday morning the Supreme Court
room was thronged with an audience that
embodied the principal lawyers Of the city,
the interested parties in the Lewis and Van
Norden contest and their friends, fair
sprinkling of politicians and lookers-on,
and few who could come under the head
of ''chizens generally At eleven O'Clock
Chief Justice Ludeling and Associate JUS
tees Howe and Taliaferro took their seats
on the bench, and Mr. Justice Taliaterro
Immediately read the opinion III the case
The organ of the court, in reciting the his
tory of the case, simply recapitulated the
facts Of the past few days, with which the
public are familiar, and in going into the
bowels of the subject deduced from the
premises the following conclusions:
j. Is this court. OF any of the judges com
prising it, vested with power to issue the
writ of habeas corpus prayed for in this
case and to maintain jurisdiction OF the
matter presented by the petition OF the re-
lator!
. Has the Governor of the State the
power to grant pardon to a party sem
fenced to imprisonment by a court for con-
tempt of its authority!
vides that the Supreme Court, and each of
the Judges thereof, shall have power to issue
writs of abeas corpus at the instance OF
persons in actual custody, in cases when
they lnaS have appellate jurisdiction; and
We regard the order under which the
party IN this case was arrested and is held
in custody by the Sheriff as constituting a
part OF the proceedings in the suit Of Lewis
vs. Van Norden. The order Of seQuestra-
=, nv ha nd or al
else of his judicial functions in determining
the issues presented by the parties. The
order of imprisonment, consequent upon
the relatOr's alleged contempt. forms part
of the proceedings in the action pending
1t grew out of and constituted an important
part OF these proceedings. 1t is not easy to
disconnect it from them. We do not view
it in the light OF Il separate. independent
violated action or proceeding, detached
from the main action and wholly uncon-
nected with it. If we entertained doubt
on this point. we should feel it TO be our
duty. in a case involving question of per
sonal liberty. to assume jurisdiction. The
matter in controversy between the parties
to the suit is clearly within the jurisdiction
of this court.
Tie next inquiry is has the Governor the
prerogative of pardon i'll cases OF conviction
and punishment tor contemp. OF the author
ity OF a court
We are not satisfied that the chief execu-
tive officer OF the State is without power to
extend pardon to party convicted and
punished Tor contempt OF court. We ind
nothing III the constitution OF the State
which makes an exception in such cases.
That the President OF the United States
is clothed with the power TO grant pardons
in cases where judges OF the United States
courts punish for contempt is clearly settled.
a Opinions of Attorney General. p. AS; )
ditto, .. J19. Blatchtord Circuit Reports,
vol. 8. y. Il, and cases there clted).
The analogy between the exercise of such
a power by the President in all the States
in cases OF the sort arising IN the courts OF
the United States. and the exercise of that
| power in single State by its Governor in
the same class OF cases arising in the courts
OF State. seems to be strong and we'll de-
| lined. There being no exception found IN
| our State constitution precluding III such
| cases the exercise OF the pardOnIng pre-
| rogative by the Governor OF the State. we
! feel 10 Eesitancv il recognizing its eN-
| istence.
That The otfense Of contempt of court
| should be punished no one can question.
| hut that the oIfense can not be pardoned Is
an opinion which does not rest OF sound
basis.
| It is an otfense against the State, and not
| merely against the Judge or The court IN
which il is committed. The otfense belongs
20 the State. acting through branch of its
| government.
| The pardonlng power, we admit should
| he used with the utmost discrimination and
delicacv; yet II is none the less absolute. AS
in many instances, the punishment inflicted
| for a contempt of court might be at times
| unjust it is meet that there should be pro
vided check to control what might be the
decree OF tvrannical Judge.
In 1874 Walter Hickey was fined and i'm
| prisoned in one of the courts of Mississippi
for a contempt of one Of the tribunals OF
that State. He was pardoned by Governor
| A. G. Brown. but was Immediately re
arrested, and the case upon being taken tc
the High Court of Appeals resulted in the
release of the prisoner.
The opinion of the court, delivered
| through Justice Sharkev, was unanimous
and held that the pardon was absolute and
vested in the Governor. because a contempt
OF court was public wrong. and not one
committed against the judge as al lndi
! vidual.
IL decreeing the release OF the relator
| Justice Talia1erro remarked: We DO no
! propose TO pass upon the act OF issuing the
| pardon in this, nor to pronounce II discreet
Or otherwise; but as the -elator claims IN:
release under that pardon, lie must he dis
| charged from custody.