, 1876-02-23
THE COURTS.
Judgo Tipton's Contempt Cnso
Disposed OF;
And the Defendants Ordered Roleased
and Declared Blameless.
Csea on Uearing...Record Of judgments
and New Suits.
THE CONTEMPT CASE.

THE CONTEMPT CASE.
noDEn1s AND CRAWFORD DISCHARGED.
Tho argument Of the petition Of Messrs. Rob
srts and Crawford Tor habeaa corpus, which was
adjourned htonday morning, camo up yesterday
before Judgo Drummond.
Alr. 1toed oponod tho argument, saying that
tue writs issued after tho contompt, md ho
thought undcr th6 tloclaions OF tho United
States Courts themselves. The only ground on
which relief could bc clhfncd WAS under the pro-
Visions Of tho late naboas Corpus act, Which
said: "Or Is In custody for an act douo or
omitted IN pursuance Of tho law Of tho Unltod
slateB Courts" Tho gebtlonen had another
remedy II they wore punished by Judge Tipson
to appeal to tho Supreme Court, aud, II the
dccision waB tiore affirmed, to appeal to tho
Unitod States Courts.
Air. ". q. Coy followed. He said tho matter
Of contempt had bocn already adJudfcatod In
the State court, and tic Federal Court coutd bot
81. aa court Of royiew. Il had beou decided In
the Dorr case that tho Federal Courts could not
issue writ Of haboaa corpus to take prisoner
from the iurfsdtetton OF 4 State Court.
Judge Drumtnond nn!tt he thought the qucB-
ton IN the cnso was whether tho defendants sho
wcyc arrested were obliged to taAo tho oaso to
The suprome Court Of the Stnto, md tllon II they
ass The urso oors of tis s ssto se
hold TINT 1t had Jurisdiction Of contempt casos.
1fr. Coy suggested that tho shortest way was
10 answer before tho Htato Court.
Tho Judge inquired w}lethcr the State Court
had not already deoiled tho question.
Mr.. Coy did not know.
Judge brummonl then asked when caBe had
boen Transferred to tho Eedernl Court, and q
lawyer proceeded to 90 What ho considered
rtellt, What was to DO donns What remcdy wne
sheeo7 Was tho Federal Court paramount In
such case, or WAS It Obliged to wait for tho
judgment Of tho State Uoust?' Gould It not
protect the members Of The liar In tho exercise
Of power given by act Of Congress7 Tho
Judge then asked btr. Coy whothor tho Federal
Court WAS not untitled to decide whotller tho
case had boon properly transferred or not,
had had sono doubts On tho sabjoet, Judge
Drun1monl proceeded to road tho act Of
March, 1876, enlarging tho Jurisdiction Of
tho Federal Coutts, and showed clearly that
question. Tie then wont on to stato that he had
CAUSED notice 10 bc cont to tho nutAotit!ea at
Bloomington, the Judge. and ehorifr, and nlno 10
The Attorney General, as II WAS question Of
tho State autlorities. ue Ind no dosiro to ill
torfere with legal and proper course In tho
Btato Courts, but tho question VIVA raised aa to
whether the Federal court waa not entitled to
protect tho mombera Of tho Bar who wero In tho
performance Of q duty under m act OF Con-
gross. Bo far a. tho Federal ethtuto operated
On cilIzons under the Constitution and laws, ii
MAS paramount ovcr any other authority Oh tho
subject i waa expressly made 80 by common
consent. Tha citizons OF Mclean County, ss well
rs thoEo OF Cook County, had consented thareto.
All werp bound by that Constitution, and none
could contrGyeno 1t without doing injury to that
which Eado then common conntry. Tho Fed
oral Judges did not des,re 10 Interfere with tho
BtAte Jurisdiction, nor did thoy seols jurad!c-
tion. Was thore any other wny In witch tho
geut!emon could be protected 7 Ought thsy to
60 back to the Circuit COURT Of Mclean County,
whore thclr caso had boon decided aud they
boon fn1nd guilty Of contempt, and the 1ueation
wns whether tue Federal Court ought not to pro-
toct tts o0ioetH-for members Of the Dar wore It's
officers.
Tho present cnso was a vory unusuat clrcum.
stance, tho Judge said, but hc had giyen tho
auhiect a good deal Of consideration. l1e had
had d slmilar casc In Indiana, and, hftor full
argument, he had held that writ Of haboas
corpuawas the proper ronedY.
1t might be possible that tho Federal Court
at atbprinGAcd might not have Jurisdiction, but 1t
waR very easy to take atopa to .asocrtain. It WAS
competent to 60 boforo tho Court a. sptingdeld.
and bring to the notice Of tho Judge there any
thing tLat would deprive him Of Jurisdiction.
and, II ho was Of opinion that he had no juriB-
dlction, 10 would rom.t tho caso 10 tho Mclean
County Circuit Court. Such conflicts OF jurs-
nat be helped,
Tue rus undoubtedly was that, generally. No
court would interfore with smother III question
OF contemps. That was matter which remained
exclusively with tho Court whcro tho alleged
contempt Was committed. But tie preaont vas
an exceptional case. This was . caso whore
IN net Was tlono under an aot Of
Congress. and punishment had beeu
imposed for an act done III pursuance Of law
It certainly was m exception to the general rulc
OthorwiRs parties might he Imprisoned and kop
there indefinitely without any relief, OF At ANY
rate for long serioH Of years, as 1t took 1onF
time to tako the caao to tho Supreme Court Of
tho State, and then to tho Supreme Court Of tht
United skatca.
The facts. therefore, IN tho petitions remain
INK uncoItrovortod aud tlle right to tho rult
being clear undor tho law, the Judge he!d tin
tho petitioners wero entitled to thoir discharge
aud rulo would DO ente1od dIschargipg thou
from custody.
Tho DECISION seemed TO be expected by all
nnt tndool tho opposition Of Alossrs. Coy ant
Feed waa worry feebto In fact, aGr. Need &C
inowledge1 that in hiS opinion tho Court hat
Jurisdiction II tue potitiunB woro truO. Attor
ney-Qenoral EdBalI was present, but, for som.
! roaaon beat known to himsalt, made no r0nark
| Whatever. 1t Ia probable that the other gentle
men who have been hrrestol vt Bloomington =
Judge Wptou's instance will ba Eow discharged
/