The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-05-05
.ailroad company might be forced by

that company from loss and the pub
lie from inconvenience, 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
cited
Nothing Corrupt.
Your committee find nothing in the
testimony, nor see any corrupt inten-
ton on the part of the judge to rem
der these orders. 1t is altogether pos
sible that he was sincere in his con-
viction. This view prevents us from
recommending any proceedings looking
to impeachment, but in order that
there may be no further excuse 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 of en-
forcing contracts for personal services
by legal process, we recommend the
enactment of statute which will pre-
vent them from doing So
We also feel constrained to call at
tention to the abuses which have
grown up under the powers assumed
by judges of the courts of the United
States to appoint receivers for rail
road corporations, these orders pelng
rendered in court under proceedings
instituted .nominally for the purpose
of effecting foreclosures, but really for
the purpose of averting the pursuit of
creditors and the enforcement OF I'M
lawful obligations, are considered as
interlocutionary and not subject. to ap-
peal. If, however, the appeal is grant
ed, it does not have the effect OF sus-
pending the execution of the decree
and the road going into the hands of
a receiver, who operates it at least
pending appeal, and this action of the
Judge is entirely independent of any
control whatever by the owner and
creditors of the" party. Powers exer-
cised by courts through receivers are
purely their own creation, the result
of judicial construction not ascer-
tanned or limited by statute, and there
fore dangerous. Your committee is of
the opinion that cases for which re-
ceivership may be ordered in the courts
of the United States should be de-
clared by statute.
The Anomaly Presented.
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 through judicial lines OF
the government, and by judges possess
ing at once powers pertaining to otner
judicial officers which become binding,
with those powers of the president
and directors of the corporation united
in one and the same. person;
The committee is alsono the opinion
that the power asserted by the judges
of the United States courts TO punish
for contempt is dangerous and should
be limited by law.
In the case reported in the Federal
Reporter. in re Rigins, Judge Pardee
declared that his power to punish Tor
contempt was unlimited, both as to the
amount of the fine. and duration OF
! Imprisonment. In his judgment he could
decide, without appeal, what constltut-
| ed a contempt; who committed the ACT
| the extent of punishment 10 De llIllct-
! ed. In that case, he held number OF
violations of the criminal laws of state
! of Texas likewise to be contempt OF
his court.
Under his construction. an assault
| and battery or any other violence or
unfairness committed by an employee
! or servant of railroad company IN
the hands of a receiver would be con-
! sidered a contempt of his court. ii
this principle is correct one. and the
decisions seem to have been cited by
other courts, when approved, 1t would
! be extremely convenient to substitute
it for the criminal laws of.the states.
Exercise of police powers and the pro-
lection of life and property by those
agencies would be relieved by the au-
| thority of a United States judge who
instituted proceedings for contempt.
Limitations contained in the constitu-
ton, viz: Providing for trials by jury,
being confronted by witnesses, being
represented by counsel, ETC., ETC., would
| likewise be relieved. Without taking
issue with the judges as to whether
they have correctly or incorrectly
stated the law on this important sub
| ject, 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 proceed
ings defined and provided by law, and
authority claimed by the judiciary their
power to punish for contempt should be
defined and limited by law.