The morning call., 1894-05-05


Company might be forced by him BY writs
of Injunction to protect that company
from loss and the public from inconyeni-
ence by remaining in its service at rate
of wages to which they had not given their
assent is one in which we cannot concur,
and which in our judgment is supported
by none of the decisions which he cites.
Your committee find nothing in the
testimony looking to any corrupt intention
on the part of the Judge in rendering
these orders. 1t is altogether possible he
was sincere in the conviction that he
properly exercised the equity jurisdiction
of the court in preventing loss and DAM
ages which would have resulted from
lawful strike against the Northern Pacific
Company, This view of the case prevents
us recommending any proceedings looking
to Impeachment, but in order that there
may be no further excuse for the rendi-
ton 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 statute which would
prevent them doing so.
I'VE also feel constrained to call atten-
tion 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 proceedings
Instituted nomilally for the purpose of
effecting foreclosures, but really for pur-
poses of averting the pursuit of creditors
and the enforcement of lawful obligations.
are considered as interlocutory, and not
subject to appeal. If, however. appeal is
granted, it does pot have the effect of sus-
pending the execution of the decree, and
the road passes into the hands of a re-
ceiver who operates it, at least pending the
appeal, and this action of the Judge is en-
tirely independent and not controlled
whatever by the owners and creditors of
the property.
"The powers exercised by the courts
creation. the result OF judicial construction
not ascertained or limited by the statute
and therefore dangerous.
Your committee is of the opinion that
the cases for which a receivership may be
ordered in the courts of the United States
should be declared by statute. The anom-
ally has been presented for years of great
railway corporations being operated and
the business of common carriers carried
on by the United States through its Judi
cial lines of government, 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.
1.-THE committee is also of the opinion
that the power asserted by the Judges of
the United States courts to punish for con-
tempt is dangerous and should be limited
by law.
I'm the case reported in the Federal Re-
port in re Rigins. 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 appeal
what constituted c1stempt. who COM
mitted the act. the extent of punish
ment to be inflicted. In that case
he held number of violations
of the criminal 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 un-
fairness committed by an employe or ser
want of railroad company in the hands of
a receiver would be considered a contem pit
of his court. If this principle is correct
one. and the decisions seem to be cited by
other courts ana approved, it would be
extremely 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. The limitations contained
in the constitution, viz: Prov ding for
trials by jury, being confronted by wit
nesses, being represented by counsel, etc,
would likewise be relieved. Without TAX
ing issue with the Judges as to whether
they have correctly or incorrectly stated
the law.on this important subject, your
is of the opinion that the pro-
lection of 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 prevent the abuse of
authority claimed by the judiciary their
power to punish for contempt should be
defined and limited by law"