Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-05-09

tic enforcement OF lawful obligations. are
considered IS interlocutOry and not subject
to appeal. If however an appeal is grant
ed, it does not have the effect of suspending
the execution of the deere 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 Of any control whatev
er by the owner and creditors of
the property. The powers exercised by the
courts through the receivers are purely of
their own creation, the result Of judicial ,
construction not ascertained or limited by
statute and therefore dangerous. Your
committee is Of the opinion that the cases
or which receivership may be ordered in
the courts of the United States should be
declared by statute. The anomaly has been
presented for years on great railway corpo-
rations being operated and the business of
common carriers being carried on by the
United States through the judicial lines of
the government and ofthe judges possessing
at once the powers pertaining to other jul
dicial officers and combining with those
the powers of the president and directors OF
corporations united in one and the same
person.
The committee is also of the opinion that
the powers asserted by the judges OF the
United States courts to punish for contempt
is dangerous and they should be limited by
law. In the case reported-Federal Report
in re Higgins-Judge Pardee declared that
his power to punish for contempt was un-
limited both as to the amount of the fine
aud duration Of Imprisonment. In his
Judgment he could decide without appeal
what constituted a contempt, who COM
mitted the act, and the extent of the punish
mcnt to be inflicted In that case he held
a number of violations of the criminal laws
Of the state of Texas likewise to be III con-
tempt of his court. Under his construc-
ton, all assault and battery or any other
violence or untairness committed by
employe or servant of a railroad company
in the hands of u receiver would be c0nSld-
cred contempt of his court. If this prin-
cple be a correct one land the decisions
seem to be cited by other cOurts) and were
approved, it would be extremely convenient
to substitute it for the criminal laws of the
states. The exercise Of police powers and
the protection of life and property by those
agencies would be relieved by the authority
of United States judge who instituted
proceedings for contempt. Limitations
contained in the constitution, viz: provld-
ing 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 subject,
your committee is Of the opinion that pro-
lection of property rights should be left in
the hands of executive officers and that vio-
latons of laws should be punished by pro-
ceedings defined and provided by law, and
that in order to prevent the abuse of au-
thority claimed by the judiciary their power
to punish for contempt schould be defined
and limited by law.
The report was discussed for two
hours, but no action was taken by the
full committee. The report was made
the special order of the full committee
for next Tuesday. Representative w.
A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, the Repub-
Iican of the subcommittee, dissents
from the majority report on the ground
that it is an attempt to make judicial
ruling, but he has not as yet submitted
a minority report