The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-05-23


70 bring TEEN. disohey me process, shs
cours has power 70 brtnR them By force
and 30 punish shesr disobe6ience for not
coming In any case IN which the United
States government recureU . money iudg-
rasnt agsinst "A tndiridEAl . wrSf Of exe-
eusion can isscs out Of this court TO sssss
sna sell tbs property Of The defendant in
ssnd forth . writ Of creation carries Win
IL the power 10 compel obsdisnss % IL and
20 p9nish any one that vouid resist IN
of7scsr IN sssxsng property wherever the
process Itself may Sun-
Nov, thai brings No 70 this concin-
sion: That the pisce u the of5snse in con-
tempt caves 10 not the place where the de-
fendans may stand, but the offenss 10 the
striking ~ the power q the court. the
authority Of the court: the o6snss IL COM
Enttted at the p1Acs where the court sits,
and there 10 the place where the defend
ant must b brought for trial So hold
that, whiis the acts Of ths defendants were
tsmpts Of she court sitting at Seat
tie. and Seattle - the place 10
which they must b brought for
trial: and the argument - only
strengthened by eontending that this
court 10 court for certain counties and
not . court for the other counties outssds
Of this division. II Is weye NOT % there
court sitting as Wallis Waila would BE- the
came court that issued the process, that
IL would BE- the same court that appointed
the receivers, and therefore authorised in
waIia wasls 70 deal with psrsons commit
ting contempt By violating process issued
~ Seattle. II %. then the court 10 the
same court whom In session ~ Seattle Al
when at Walla WaIia and may try cases
cognixabls ~ Waiia waliA think there
would certainly b much moro ground to
doubt the propriety Of bringing perSons 70
trial Of Waiia Walia for resisting process
issued ~ Seattle than there 10 for bringing
them to Seattle for trial.
Tho third point urged In behalf Of the
defendants II, that the orders Of the court.
which the defendants are accused Of hav-
tng resisted, we're NOT put In evidence on this
trial; and Il 10 said that the defendants
have been deprived Of An opportunity 70
question the Jurisdiction Of the court to
make those orders. The court necessarily
has knowledge Of what it, own record
contains; the record Of the court - within
the knovIedge of the court itself Il 10
accessible 10 the delendants. II has been
brought TO their attention By the sfiidavit
charging them with contempt in this case
and IL 10 the foundation upon which the
whole prosecution has progressed II il
not m after Of evidence thas should have
been brought In and offered -
testimony IL offered or documentary evil
dence IL offered. IL u in the case
the case bsgins with these ordsrs The de-
PENDANTS have not been deprived Of any
right 70 question the Jurisdiction OF the
court 10 make these orders because the
Jurisdiction Of the court cannot be opes-
toned by these defendants in this pro-
ceeding. II the court was utterly without
jurisdiction TO appoint receivers for the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company. and
M In he
cesvers In the possession Of that property,
strangers to the record would nave no
right TO rssijt the officers and
justify their resistance By denying
the jurisdiction Of the court to
make those orders. The officers are
not required to 90 forth In execu-
tion Of procsss placed in their hands
and meet with resistance and then take
the chancs Of those who res,st them CONF
ing In aud denying the Jurisdiction Of the
court and the validity Of the orders or pro-
cess which they are sent to execute. This
IL an elementary proposition. IL 10 af-
hrmed in all Law books. The right TO
question the jurisdiction Of the court IL to
he exercised BY those who are affected.
whom the order 10 made; not those who
by their own voluntary act come in con-
tact with tie order after IL has been made
Aud there 10 . way In which errors Of the
court. II u does err In exercising iurisdic-
ton, are 70 be corrected. But il Is not left
20 be Questioned by those who
ward seek 10 justify Is. , nas
Of force and violence by disputing
the right Of the court. So the defendant
have been deprived Of no right in this case
In not being permitted TO raise objections
TO the jurisdiction Of the court in regard
TO this order. Il IL . fact--the record
shows il to be . fact-shat the court did
ma he nkv.tt IT,
charge and possession of the Northern Pa
cific railroad 20 lar ~ it, property and
business existed within the state OF Wash.
ingten. That order commanded and re-
quired the Northern Pacific Railroad Com.
pany. and all of its employees and agents
and every person whomsocver. to snrren-
der the property and the business
joined them from ip any manner interfer-
ing With The possession or operation Of
that road oDits business. That order was
in effect. and being in effect the court
made further order directing the mar
shat of this district to employ sufficient
iorce To protecs tho receivers in their pos
session and to prevent interference with
their operation Of tho railroad and the
business OF that company. That order
was In effect Noperson having q right to
question the power OF the court to make
those orders has ever questioned the valid
lily OF the orders that were made. Those
orders were In effect not only at the place
where they are entered of record at Sc
attic. but extend a. far a. the railroad
property extends throughout this state.
The fourth section of the act Of 1890, di-
siding the district of Warrington into di.
visions, expressly provides that the pro-
cess and orders Of the court made In
either division shall be executed and en- :
| furceabie In either or ali of the divisions.
IL was not necessary to the validity of
| these orders in Yakima county that the
same order should have been made by the
court sitting At Walla walla. The order
made at Seattle Ii an order that extends
| throughout the entire district. And hy
| the term district" Is meant what the act
OF congress declares it shall mean, thai
! Is. . Judicial district. IL 10 provided in
the snaoling act and In this same act OF
| isso that the state of Washington shall
| term district" Is used in the same sense
| IN which IL Is used in the constitution.
| The Act III lsSo subdivides the district
/ into divisions. and by the very use of a
different word they have intended that a
/ different meaning should be attached to
| IL. and not that the word division
| should be held to he synonymous with
/ district" They are used 90 contradi,-
tingnish subdivision of tho state from
/ the entire state. which Is constituted
/ one district. Now, these two orders being
| in force throughout the entire state. no
/ person any al hero within the state could
| resist the officers Of the court in msnae.
ing and operating the railroad and It's
business or saterfere with their possession,
/ Without committing a contempt OF the
/ court which made the order. and that con
tempt - an ofieHse to the court at the
place where the court sta. To enforce an
/ order or srit the court does not have a