St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-05

ton of any such orders or DEGREES, and
mat the courts OF equity of the United
States may not be deceived as to the ex-
tent OF their powers III enforcing con.
tracts for personal services by legal
process, we recommend the enactment
of statute which, will prevent them
from doing so.
We also feel constrained to call aiten-
tion to the abuses which have grown up
under the powers assumed by the Judges
Of the courts of the United States to ap-
point receivers for railroad corporations.
These orders being rendered In court
under proceedings instituted ncmtnally
for the purpose of ptfecting foreclosures,
but really for the purpose of averting
pursuit OF creditors and the enforce
ment of lawful obligations, are c0nsid-
cred as interlOcutory and not
SUBJECT TO APPEAL
Ii, however, an appeal Is granted, 1t
does not have the effect of suspending
the execution of the decree, and the
road passes Into the hands of a receivar,
who operates It, at least pending the
appeal, and this action of the Judge Is
entirely independent OF any control
whatever 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 ascertalned
or limited by statute, and therefore dan
gerous. Your committee is Of the
opinion that the cases for which receiv-
ershiD may be ordered in the courts of
the United States should be declared by
statute. The anomaly has been pre-
sented for years OF great railway cor
porations being operated, and the busi-
ness of common carriers being carried
on by the United States through the
Judicial lines OF the government. and of
the Judges possessing at once the pow
erS pertaining to other judicial officers
and combining with those the powers Of
the president and directors of corpora
lions united in one and the same person.
The cuinmiltee is also of the opinion
That the powers asserted by the Judges
Of the United States courts to punish
for contempt are dangerous, and they
should Oe
LIMITED BY LAW.
In the case rep0rted-federal report in
re Higgins-Judge Pardoe 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 a contempt,
who committed the act. and the extent
of punishment to De inflicted. In that
case he held a 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 violence or unfair
ness committed by an employee Or serv-
ant OF railway company in the hands
of receiver would be considered a
contempt of his court. II this principle
be correct one (and tho decisions seem
to be cited by other courts) and were
approved. it tWOuld be extremely con-
veEient 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: Providing for
trials by jury, being confronted by wit
neSses. being represented by counsel,
etc.. would likewise be relieved. With
out taking issue with the judges as to
whether they had correctly or ihcor-
rectly stated the law on this important
subject, your committee is of the opin-
ion that the protection 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 author
lily claimed by the Judiciary. their power
to punish Tor contempt should bs de-
fined and limited by law.