The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-11-27
The Writ of Habeas Corpus--Jndge
T2ond

He can only do so by usurping aurisdic-
lion which does not belong to his court.
He has no more right 10 review the pro
ceei;ngs Of the Supreme Court OF South
Carolina than Judge WELIFoRD, Of this
city, has--no more right to do so than the
Supreme Court OF South Carolina has to re-
view his decisions. The law is undeniably
against BoNp's interference, yet that fact,
we regret to have to say, does not prove
that he will notusurp power which does
not helong to him. This subject was ably
and eShaustigely discussed during the last
session OF the House Of Representatives at
Washington. From the numerous authori-
ties quoted in that debate we Gull sufficient
NUMBER to show clearly that one court has
no right to interfere with another court, in
cases Of contempt OF court. Our first quo
tatior is from Hurd on Uabeus Corpus.
page IS, Us follows:
1T isa rule essential to the efficient adj
ministration of Justice that, where court
is vested with jurisdiction over the subject
matter upon which it assumes 10 act and
regularly obtains jurisdiction Of the person,
il becomes its right and duty to determine
every question which may arise in the cause
without interference from any tribunal"
"The right OF punishment for contcmpts
by summary conviction is Inherent in all
courts OF justice, and essential to their pre-
lection and existence. a commitment I'M
der such conviction is q commitment in eN-
ecution, and the Judgment OF conviction is
not subject to review in any other court, UNI
less specially authorized by statute. 1t cam
not he attacked under the writ OF habedS
corpus, except for such defects rs render
the proceedings void"
Here is the place at which BOND will try
to enter. He will no doubt claim that the
Supreme Court of South Carolina had no
jurisdiction in the case against the Canvass
ing Board. But that would be condemning
himself, He has no right to assert iurisdic-
ton over the Supreme Court nor to say
whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction
over the ease against the CanyasSing Board
or not. He would be wrong-doer and
Esurper himself.
The Supreme Court Of the United States,
in KsARSEY's case & Wheaton, Az. after
quoting from Mr.. Justice BLACKSTONE, says:
$50 that it is most manifest from the whole
reasoning. OF the court III this case that
writ OF hQbedS corpus was not deemed II
proper remedy where party was. commit
ted for contempt by a court OF competent
jurisdiction, and that il granted The court
could not inquire into the sdlhclehc; OF TIC
cause or commitment"
That is plain enough, and is from the
highest judicial tribunal in the country,
and the one which reviews Judge BONDS
decisions. Here Is another extract from the
opinion OF that august tribunal III the same
case: ~@s.
.sThe sole adjudication Of contempt and
the punishment thereof belong exclusively
and without interfering to each respective
court.
"Infnitc confusion and disorder would
follow ii courts could ny writs OF habcaS
corpus examine and determine the con-
tempts OF others"
These ought certainly to control Judge
BoSp's action. But will they: We fear
not. Els decision could not be reversed
until after the President would have been
elected; and that would be too latc. His
purpose would have been accomplished.
Nevertheless, let us still hope, whilst we
look at few more cases. In the case oil
The People e1 TeiafiOne Mitchell Is. The
Sheriff or Nc,c York, in the second volume
OF Barbour's Reports, the syllabus Is as
follows:
"On a habeds corpus in a case OF COM
mitment for contempt only two questions
can be examined-firSt, as to the iurisdic-
ton OF the court or officer making the COM
mitment; and, secondly, as to the form OF
81, IL thn Of IL II n
doubted and the commitment is sufficient in
form, and contains the cause OF the alleged
contempt plainly charged therein, the pri-
soner must be rcmanded and the writ dis
charged The court has no power 10 inquire
into the justice or propricty Of the commit
ment.' ..r =
Again In the PAssMORE WILLIAMSON
case (26 Pa. Reports) Judge BLACK, one OF
the ablest lawyers in the United States, said
at is most especially necessary that con-
victions for contempt in one court shall be
final, conclusive, and free from examination
by other courts on hateGS corpus. II the
law was not so our judicial system would
break to pieces in Il month. Courts totally
unconnccted with each other would be
comm" in constant collision. The inferior
courts would revise all the decisions OF the
Judges placed over and above them. A
party unwilling to be tried in this court
need only defy our authority, and, II we
commit HIM. 10 take out his habeaS corpus
before an inferior Judge OF his own choos-
ing, and Il that Judge is OF opinion that we.
ought not to try him there is an end OF the
case.
.sIhis doctrine is so plainly against the
reason OF the thing that it would be Won
deriul indeed If any authority Tor 1t could
be found in the books. There is none en-
cept the oyerrulcd decision Of DIR. Justice
Spencer, OF New York, already referred to,
and some efforts OF the same kind TO con-
troll the other court, made by Sir Edward
Coke in the Kings Bench, which are now
universally admitted to have been Illegal, as
we'll rs rude and incorporate"
In the debate in the House Mr.. HOOKER
said thet Chancellor KENT, referring in the
case of BATES, Johnson Reports, to the
decision il the Earl of ShaftcSb ury's case,
says: >Hfr
"The court in that ease seem to have laid
down 4 principle from which they have
never departed. ana which is essential to the
due administration OF Justice. This princi-
pic, that every court, at least OF the superios
kind, in which great confidence is placed
must be the sole judge, in the last resort, OF
cortempts arising therein, is more explicit
~ defined and more emphatically enforced
inthc two subsequent cases OF The Queen
Us. Patty etal., 9 Lord Raymond, l1o5, and.
OF The King Us. Crosby Wilson, ISIS; ,