The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-11-29
An ADHERENCE sTO LAW
THROUGHOCT.

Under the above caption the Intetti-
gencer of yesterday Ia bors to give legal
aspect to the violent operations OF the
Returning Boards and Radical State
governments in the Southern States.
Without entering into review OF the
article in this connection, we simply de-
sire to call the attention of our nelghbo-
TO one important movement, which 1t has
wholly overlooked, and which deserves
more than q passing consideration, and
that is the usurped power of the Fed
eral Court in interfering with
the proceedings of the State Courts
in South Carolina. The case IS q very
plain one. and the principles of law sp-
plving to the case are equally plain.
rhe members of the State Board of Can
vsssers stand in contempt OF the court
the court imposes fine and commits the
parties to Jail until they are purged OF
the contempt. Now, where does the
Federal court or.any other tribunal de-
rive the power to review the action OF
the Supreme Court of South Carolina in
this particular case2
1t is well settled principle OF law, MS
old as the common law itself, that the
adjudication of contempts belongs excu-
sivelv to each court, aud one court has
no right to Interfere with another court
In cases of contempt.
The correctness of this principle forces
itself upon the mind of every intelligent
person, and is clearly laid down by all
the writers of elementary law. BLACK.
STONE lays down the doctrine thus;
"The right of furnishing contempt by
summary conviction is inherent IN all
courts O, Justice and legislative assem-
bIies and Is essential for their protection
and existence. 1t is branch OF the
common law, adopted and sanctioned oy
opr State Constitution. The discretion
involved in this power is IN q great
measure arbitrary and indednab!e, and
vet the experience OF ages has demon
strated that it is perfectly compstl0Ie
with civil liberty and auxiliary TO the
purest euds of justice"
And then. as if to be more definite and
emphatic, says:
The sole adjudication Of contempts
asd the punishment thereo. IN any man
ner belongs exclusively and without in
terfering to each respective court
HrRp on Habeas Corpus, page IS, say:
.I. is rule essential to the efficient
administration of justice that, where
court is vested with jurisdiction over
the subject mstter upon which 1t assumes
70 set, and regularly obtsins jurisdiction
of the person. 1t becomes Its right and
| duty { determine every question which
may srise in the cause without lnterier-
ence from any tribunal.
II NAV be claimed that Judge BOND
NAV assume that he has the right to re-
view the action of the Supreme Court be-
cause of some defect, or supposed defects
in the proceedings of the State Court
Ru. that idea was exploded By the
Supreme Court Of the United States IN
the case of KEARSEY. & Wheaton a.
in the following language;
$50 tbst it is most manifest from the
whole reasoning of the court IN this case
that writ Of habeas corpus was no'
deemed a proper remedy where party
was committed for q contempt bg eotr.
Of competent jurisdiction, snd that II
granted the court cold not inquire into
the suffciency Of the cause OF commit
ment."
Additional authorities could be cited
but the law is as plain as the nose on
mans face, and if the Republicans hse
an idea of sdheringto law throughout