The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1888-11-13
DECIDED AGAINST TERREY.
The Ssprsme Court Refuses a Writ
of Habeas Corpus.

WASHINGTON, Nor. l2.-The supreme
court OF the United States to day denied
the application for a writ of habeas corpus
in the case OF David s. Terry of California,
convicted of contempt of court for yio
lent scene in which he and his wife at
tackled the officers of the court The ap-
plication for writ was made on the
grounds that Terry at the time of this
offense was not in the courtroom, aud
that he did not have notice of intention TO
bring him TO trial.
Justice Harlan, who rendered the opin-
ion, says the offense was committed In full
view Of the court; that the punishment
followed practically without any inter
mission. and that the case Is not one in
which this court should interfere. Justice
Field took no part in the case.
WASHINGTON. Nov. 12.-The supreme
court to-day rendered an adverse decision
In the case of ex-Judge Terry OF California
upon his application for writ of habeas
corpus, IN which be alleges his unlawful
imprisonment under an order OF the
United states circuit court for the northern
districs of California in the jail Of Alameda
county.
After presenting the case made by the
application, the decision says: What,
then, are the grounds upon which the petit
TONER claims the circuit court was without
jurisdiction 10 make the order committing
him to jails They sre first, that the order
was made In his absence; second, that il
was made without his having any previous
notice of the intention OF the court TO take
any steps whatever in relation TO the
matters referred TO In the order:
giving him any opportunity of being first
heard In defense of the charges therein
nssSe against him. The second and third
Of these grounds may be dismissed as I'M
material In any inquiry which this court
Is at liberty on this original application 70
te Tar m. 11.s rafsffsad In the ardar
of commitment showing the case Of con
tempt 10 destroy It's authority and to en-
barrass aud ohstruct business by violent
methods, the petitioner vas not eautled, OF
absolute right, either to demand trial or
70 notice hy rule Of the courts intention 70
proceed against him, or TO any opportunity
to make formal answer 10 the charges
contained 10 the order ot commitment
The decision says II is undoubtedly gen.
erai rule that a sentence pronounced
assinsts party without hearing him OF
giving him an opportunity to be heard. IL
not judicial determination Of his rights.
and Is not eutitied 20 respect in any other
tribunal. but declares there is another rule
which Is equally vital to the personal lib-
erty aud privileges Of organized society.
II has relation 20 a class Of coniempts,
which. being committed in the face Of the
court, imply purpose 20 destroy its au-
fhorify. or 20 insult or 10 intimidaie those
charged with the duty OF adrninisteFingt the
law"
Numerous authorities and precedents
are cited. upon which the decision is con
cluded that II was competent for the cir
euit court i'm mDediatelyon the cons mission
in its presence of the contempt reeited fn
the order OF September 3, lSss. TO proceed
ufson its own KNOWLEDGE Of the facts. and
ftnprisOn the offender without further pro !
cess. without issue or trial In ary form.
aud SAWS: 1T was not bound 70 hear any
exf,iapAtion OF his motives. II II was salts /!
500, and we must e0nciusfveiY presume u
vas satisfied. from what occurred HnHer
-. own eye and within fts nearing, tnat
she eBds OF Justice required immediate
setisn and that no explanation could mill
gate fre offensc or disproye the fact tnat
ne bad committed such contempt - de-
served instant punishment whether the
fact really justified such punishment was
for the eireuit eourf TO determine. Its cob
elusion on such fscts is not open 70 IN
quify or review Ia the proceetisg
Asto the affirmation that the order of
September was void because II was made
In the absence OF the petitioner, TIE aecis-
3or, saws "JArisiicflon over the pefttioney
attached instantly on the contempt being
committed in itE presence. Thai 11Etstie-
tioa Wss not surrendered Hsr IL was iios lost
hy Auy DELAY in its exercising the power 20
proceed without notice and proof 70 In me
aiafe punishment TIE absence OF the pc
fifsoner from the courtroom In another
rs,.gvs near bv. in the same s1ildiDg, At the
sisas tbs order Was made, vas q TelHntnfy
set. The petitioners mtsbehaviog In pres
ercz cf the coslr-. bis voluntary aesviug TIE
ecnrf- roorn, his going into the msrshHfs
rooza and the making OF an order OF cora
mffFrenf wzs In substance one OCCASION
They constituted in legal effect one con
tinnous. cosnpiete transaction ard tne
fuFsss3sefsoa Of the eonEf 10 enter au order
fg- the offenders arrest aud imprisonment
was As fail aEA conpi.te A. waen De was
5r, tsas cnnrt-ro room 10 the immediate pres
eaee az the Judges" Decision By Jasttee
HarsAsl-