The record-union., 1894-05-05

vents us from recommending any pro-
ceedings looking to o1mpeachment. but in
order that there may be no further ex-
cuse for the rendition of such orders or
DEGREES, and that the courts of equity of
the United States may not be deceived as
to the extent OF. their powers in enforcing
contracts for personal services by legal
process, we recommend the enactment
of a statute which would prevent them
doing so.
I'VE also feel contrained to call atten-
ton to the abuses which have grown up
under the powers assumed by Judges of
the United States who appoint receivers
for railroad corporations. These orders,
being rendered in court under proceed
| ings instituted nominally for the purpose
OF effecting foreclosures, but really for
| purposes of averting the pursuit of cred
| ltors and the enforcement OF lawful obli-
| cations, are considered as interlocutory,
and not subject to appeal. 1t, however,
appeal is granted, it does not have the
effect of suspending the execution of the
decree, and the road passes into the hands
OF receiver who operates it, at least
pending the appeal, and this action of the
Judge is entirely independent and not
controlled whatever by the owners and
creditors of the property.
The powers exercised by the courts
| through receivers are purely their own
creation, the result of Judicial construc
| ton not ascertained or limited by the
statute, and therefore dangerous.
"Y our committee is of the opinion that
| the cases for which a receivership may be
ordered in the co,srts of the United
States should be declared by statute The
anomaly has been presented for years
of great railway corporations being
operated and the business of common
carriers carried on by the United States
| oh ito ind 1toio Of
and OF Judges possessing at once powers
pertaining to other judicial officers. and
combining with this power President
and directors of a corporation united in
one and the same person.
"The committee is also of the opinion
the power asserted by the Judges Of the
United States Courts to punish for con-
| tempt is dangerous and should be limited
by law.
"In the case reported in the Federal re-
ports in re Regins, Judge Pardee declared
that his power to punish for contempt was
] unlimited, both as to the amount of the
| fine and duration Of imprisonment. In his
| Judgment, he could decide without ap-
| peal what constituted a contempt, who
committed the act and the extent of pun
| ishment to be inflicted. In that case, he
held a number of violations of the GRIM
inal laws of the State of Texas likewise
to be contempt of his court. Under his
| construction, an assault and battery, or
any other violence or unfairness COM
mitted by an employee or servant of a
railroad company il the hands of re-
ceiver, would be considered a contempt
of his court.
IF this principle is correct one, and
| the decisions seem to be cited by other
courts and approved, il would be ex-
tremely convenient to substitute it for the
criminal laws of the States. Exercise of
police powers, and the protection of life
and property by those agencies, would be
relieved by the authority OF a United
States Judge who instituted proceedings
for contempt. Limitations contained in
the Constitution, viz: providing for trials
by jury. being confronted by Witnesses
being represented by counsel, etc., would
likewise be relieved.
! without taking issue with the Judges
as to whether they have correctly or in
correctly stated the law on this important
subject, your committee is of the opinion
that the protection of the property rights
should be left in the hands of executive
officers. and that violations OF laws should
be punished by proceedings defined and
provided by law, and that in order to pre-
vent the abuse OF authority claimed by
the judiciary, their power to punish for
contempt should bc.deined and limited
! bV lawu