The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-11-13
TERRY'S APPEAL In VAIN
THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDa
HIS IMPRISONMENT q

Two of the Grounds of His Appeal
Dismissed as Immaterial-Contem
Cases Different from Those of
Another Kind-The Judge Could Act
at Once.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12.--The supreme
court to-day, rendered an adverse decision
in the celebrated case of ex-Judge Terry of
California upon his application for a writ Of
habeas corpus, in which he alleges that he
is unlawfully imprisoned under an order
of the United States Circuit court for the
northern district of CALIFORNIA, in the Jail OF
Alameda county. After presenting the case
made by the application, the decision says:
GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL
The grounds upon which the petitioner claims
that the circuit court was without jurisdiction
to make an order committing him to jail are:
!. That the order was made in his absence.
2 That it was made without his having any
previous notice of the intention of the court To
take any steps whatever in relation to the mat
tiers referred to in the order.
). That 1t was made without giving him any
opportunity Of being first heard in defense of
The charges therein made against him.
TWO OF THEM DISMISSED.
The second and third OF these grounds the
court dismissed as ministerial in any inquiry
which this court il at liberty, upon tbs
original aDDHCdIlOn, TO make. FOR upon tld
facts rected in the order of commitment, show
ing n case OF contempt, committed in the face
of the court which tended TO destroy it's
authority, and to embnrass and obstruct its bust
ness by violent methods, the petitioner was not
entitled of absolute right, either to demand
trial. or to notice, by rule, Of the courts nten-
ton to proceed against him, or any opportunity
to make formal answer to the charges con-
tanned in the order ofAcommitment.
CONTEMPT CASES EXCEPTIONAL
Tho IacdSion We II YndorhtadIU a oaa,-
eral rule that sentence pronounced against
a party-vwithout hearing him or giving
him an opportunity to be heard--is not
judicial determination Of his rights and Is
not entitled to respect in any other tribunal,
but declares that there Is another rule
which is equally vital to personal liberty
aud TO the preservation of organized so-
ciety. II has relation to a class of con-
tempts which, being committed in the face
OF the court, imply purpose to destroy its
authority, or to insult, or to intimidate
those charged with the duty of administer
ing the law.
COULD PROCEED IMMEDIATELY
Numerous authorities and precedents are
cited, and the decision concludes that it was
competent for the circuit court, immedi-
ately upon the commission in its presence OF
the contempt recited in its order of Sept.
3, 1883, to proceed upon its own knowledge
without further proof and without issue or
trial in any form, and says:
1t was not bound to hear any explanation OF
his motives II it was satisfied and we must con-
cusiyely presume that it was satisfied from
what occurred under its own eye and within its
hearing and that the ends Of justice demand
immediate action, and thatssn no explanation
could mitigate his offence or disprove the
fact that he had committed such contempt as
deserved instant punish nent Whether
the facts really justified such punishment was
for the circuit court TO determine It's conclu-
sion upon such facts Is not open to inquiry or
review In this collateral proceeding.
NOT ABSENT IN THE LAWS EYES.
AS to the affirmation that the order OF
Sept. 8 was void because it was made in the
absence Of the petitioner, the decision says:
Jurisdiction Of the person of the petitioner
attached instantly upon the contempt being
committed in the presence of the court. that
jurisdiction was not surrendered, nor was ID
lost by any unreasonable delay In exercising
the power TO proceed, without notice and proof,
to immediate punishment. The absence of the
petitioner from the court room In another
room near by, In the same building,
at the time the order was made was his voIun-
tary ct. The petitioner misbehavior
in the presence OF the court, his voluntary
leaving the court room, his going into the mar
shal's room and the making OF the order of
commitment was, in substance, one ccasion.
They constituted, in legal effect, one continuous
complete transaction, and the Jurisdiction OF
the court to enter an order for the offenders
arrest and Imprisonment was as full and COM
plete as when he was in the court room in the
immediate presence of the judges.
The decision is by Justice Harlan