Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-11-13
TERRY WILL TARRY.
THE SUPREME COURT DENIES HIS
APPLICATION.
Terry's Argument Cverruled ON
Every Point Raised-An Inter
esting Decision.

ESPECIAL DISPATCH TO THE RECORD -UNIoNl
WAsHINeToN, November 12th-The de-
clsion in the Supreme Court to-day in the
| matter of Judge Terry's application for
leave 10 file a petition for writ of habsas
| corpus to secure bis release from Alameda
County Jail was crusher 10 the hopes of
his friends, Mr.. Justice Harlan rendered
the unanimous opinion of the Court and
at lis conclusion announced that Justice
Field took no part in the decision OF the
case.
The Court rules against Terry on every
point in issue, After recting the nstuse of
contempts and the powers OF the United
States Courts in connection Herewith, it
upholds the Circuit Courts view Of the facts
concerning the assault, and says it cannot
go behind the determination of facts by the
Circuit Court.
OF the points made by Terry that the or
Ger OF the Circuit Court was made in his
| absence and without his having any previ-
! Gus notice of the intention of the Court 10
| take any steps toward his commitment, the
Court dismisses them as immaterial to auv
inquiry il is AT liberty to make.
AS to The question of jurisdiction. the
Court holds that jurisdiction attached the
moment contempt was committed, and the
fact that the prisoner was in room other
than the Courtroom st the time the sen-
tence was imposed or even had he fed
from the Courtroom FOR safety, would not
have defeated the power of the Court to
intict punishment upon him.
THE OPINION AT LENGTH.
WASHINGTON, November 12th.-The de-
cision OF the Supreme Court to-day in the
application of David S. Terry for writ of
Eg fln on l,.e al. f-.,
| the Alameda Jail, where he is confined for
| contempt OF the United States Circuit
| Court in the notorious Sharon viii case, is
one which will attract the attention of
every lawyer IN the country. The decision
| denying the writ was prepared by Justice
| Harlan. Justice Field, who originally
| committed Terry for contempt, took 70
| part in the decision Of the case.
Judge Ferry 5 attorneys, Shallabarger and
| Wilson, raised certain legal points IN De-
half of their client that have never before
been submitted Tor final adjudication to The
| Supreme Court. The circumstances which
| led to Terrys commitment for contempt
are familiar 10 all. In support of the ap-
| pGcation for writ, Terry's counsel con-
| tended:
| First hat the order of commitment for con-
| tempt was made III his absence.
| Second-Ihat it was made without his having
| to take any steps whatever in the matter re-
| teiTed to in the order, and
| Thnd-That it was made without giving an
opportunity OF first beii heard in defense Of the
| charge made against him
Justice Harlan, after elaborately reviewing
| the general power and duties of the Court in
| cases of habeaS corpus and of commitments for
| contempt, dismisseS the second and third pleas
| on the grounds above mentioned as immst rial
| in any inquiry which the Supreme Court Is at
| liberty to make. He says that in a case Of con-
| tempt committed in the face of the Court the
petitioner was not entitled to the absentee right,
either to demand trial or any notice, by rule,
of the Courts intention to proceed against him,
or to give him an opportunity to make formal
answer to the charges contained in the order OF
commitment.
The Justice said it is undoubtedly the general
lule, applicable alike in civil and criminal
csses, that if sentence be pronounced against q
party without hearing him or giving him a
chance to ke heard, it is not a judicial deter
mination of his rights, and is not entitled 10 re-
spect in any other tribunal. But there is another
| rule, which is equally vital to personal liberty
and to the preservation of organized society,
because upon its recognition and enforcement
| depends the existence and authority of those
tribunals which are established to proiec, The
rights of titizeGS, whether of life, liberty OF
| property, ana Whether assalled by illegal Us OF
the Government, OF by lawlessness, or the eiG-
| lenee of individuals. | have relation TO toai
| class of contempt which, being commi I'd il
the face OF CoGrt implies purpose 20 desir
or impair It's authority, or u insult or iutuidate
those charged with the duty OF administering
| the law.
After quoting Hlaeks4oF- sabsrt Rune a.
other such authority on the subject o. con emp
| of Court and punishment for the same Justice
Harlan continues " 1t results from what has
! been said that 1t was competent for the Cir ui
| Court, Immediately up Il the commission IL itS
! presence, of the contempt Tecited in the order
of september Sd, to proceed upon is own kuowl
! edge OF the facts without further proof and
without issue of trial in any form. It was moi
bound to hear any explanation of the offenders
motives, II 1t was saIisfied-and we must pre-
sumo it was satisfed-fr0m whist occurred IN
der It's ow1 eye and within its hearing, that thC
ends of justice demanded immediate action
and that go explanation could mitigate hi:
offense, or diSpTove the fact that he had CON,
mitted such contempt OF its dignity and author
1ty as deserved instant puni ,hment. Whether
the facts really justified such punishment was
Tor the Circuit Court TO determine, under its
solemn responsibility TO administer justice
fairly and impartiaily and to maintain It's OWL
rights and authority. Its action in that regard
cannot be reviewed by this Court upon an org
inal application for habeas corpus"
Respecting the jurisdiction of the Circuit
C. urt over the person OF Judge Terry after his
retirement from the Court room TO the Office o.
the Marshal, Justice Harlan, in expressing the
opinion of the Court says that Jurisdiction was
cOmplete-that it attached the momeut the
CONTEMPT was committed jurisdiction was not
| surrendered or lost by reason of any delay il
exercising the power TO proceed without iorct
and proof to immediate punishment
The Justice says that Terry's departure from
the Courtroom without making some apology
for or explanation Of his conduct, only aggTd
waited his ofiense. The jurisdiction of the C0Ur
to inflict such punishment having atlas heG
while he was in the presence of the Court
would not have been Deglec ed or los. by hi
| flight or voluntary absence
In conclusion, Justice Harlan said; 1--WE have
seen that it is a settled doctrine in the jurisprI
dence boh of England and this country-nrve1
supposed to be in conflict with the liberty OF cit
5 izens-that Tor direct eOntempts committed il
the face of Court. at least those of superior
jurisditt on, the offender may. in its discretion
be instantly apprehended and immediate i'm
prisoned without authority or ISSUE and with
out other proof than the knowledge of the Cour
upon its view of what occurred; and that &C
cJIding to an unbroken chain of authorities
reaching back to the earliest history OF jud cia
tribunals and covering the whole period sine,
! the Magma ChsTta, which power, although lisbl
to abuse is absolutely essential to the protection
of Courts in the discha ge OF their functions
The petitioners mishehavior in the pre- ence o
the Gut; his voluntary leaving the Court
loom; his going iDto the Marshats office uude
the circumstances detailed by himself, and III;
making of the order Of commitment was in sub
stance one occasion They constituted in legs
effect, one continuous, complete transaction oe
curing at the same day and at the same session
of the Court, ard j1ris lieion to enter order 20
the Offenders arrest and imprisonment was a
| full and complete as when he was in the Cosirt
| in the n rnpdi to of The IVdpts