The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-03
TO CURB THE COURTS
A BILL TO RESTRICT THEIR POWER
TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.
American Federation of labor VIII
Have 1t Presented to Congress-
OutgrOwth of Strikes.


GRAFTON of Labor will begin next Mon
day in Madison-square Garden. New York
One of the most important things to be
considered by the body is bill that has
been drafted to be presented in Congress
this winter. 1t is designed 10 stop the
practice of judges of federal courts is
suing restraining orders to prevent en-
poyes from striking and is made to cover
just such cases as that Of Eugene V. Debs.
The bill was drawn by the federation at
torney and in full is as follows:
BE it enacted by the Senate and House
OF Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled:
THAT the courts of the United States
sitting as courts of equity, shall not have
jurisdiction to punish for contempt any
person charged with the violation OF any
order or decree of court whose acts in the
premises constitute, arise out Of or are
connected with the commission of any Of
n;ed under 6e s the law Of the
offensive act is committed, but in every
such case the offense against the court
S Sense De aeemed mergsa IN the greater of
States, as the case may be-
An explanation of the effect OF the bill
and some of the arguments for it has been
prepared for the attorney who wrote the
bill, to be submitted to the meeting with
the bill. The statement is as follows.
I'm drafting this bill have undertaken
to respect the independence of the courts.
a bill drawn without this object I'm view
would be unconstitutional. because the
courts are an Independent branch OF the
government, and this independence can
not be limited by the legislative depart
ment. The bill, therefore, does not apply
to courts Of the United States sitting as
courts of equity. Indeed there has never
been any cause for complaint against the
courts in the exercise of their. common
law jurisdiction. Nor does the bill apply
to United States courts when sitting as
courts of equity, except In two instances:
Il. Where the contempt charged is the
violation of an order or decree of court.
''2 Where the contempt charged makes
the offender the principal in or accessory
to a crime.
Under this bill court of equity would
have Jurisdiction TO punish for contempt
all persons guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of the court. and it would also
have jurisdiction TO punish for contempt
persons who violated an injunction, if the
violation was of such character as not to
court of cSanc se wouId ae have S the e' right
to punish for contempt, for instance, a
lawyer who, in the presence of the court,
should assault and even Kill his adversary.
because in that instance the breach Of
decorun, in so far as the court is con-
cerned, would not be due TO the violation
ther, if one manufacturer were enjoined
from using the patent or trade marn 81
another. and in violation of such inJunc-
the court could punish for contempt, be-
cause it Is not crime to infringe a
patent.
'.The cause of grievous complaint against
courts of the United States is their assump-
ton of the executive functions OF the gov
eminent. Jefferson is recorded as holding
the belief that the source of menace to our
form of government was the judiciary. 1t
has been within the observation of all per-
that they are addicted to the usurpation OF
legislative functions. Indeed. this observa-
tion long since became so common that a
name was coined to describe the effect
viz: Judicial legislation The spirit OF our
institutions is antagonistic to the exercise
There had, consequently, been great annoy
ance caused by the tendency of courts 10
,egslate Strange as It may seem. the courts
| In the case of Debs 15S United States SUI
preme Court Reports. 6f2,. there is
denable exercise of executive powers by the
courts. At page 5S4 OF the courts opinion
| this statement appears:
1--WE do not care to place our decision
upon this ground alone. Every government
Entrusted by the very terms of It's being,
with powers and duties TO be exercised and
discharged for the general welfare. has
right to apply to its own courts for any
proper assistance in the exercise of the one
and the discharge of the other. and " Is no
sufficient answer to. its appeal to one of
est In the matter. The obligations which II
Is under to promote the interest OF all. and
to prevent the Wrong-doing or one resulting
In injury to the general welfare Is often OF
itself sufficient 10 give 1t standing in
court
"A complete answer to this position is
II. That this government Is not every
government but Is solely the government OF
the United States.
- That by the Constitution. the govern
ment exercises and discharges it's powers
and duties for the general welfare through
its executive department.
IF the judiciary can exercise and dis
charge any OF the powers and duties OF the
government for the general welfare then
1t can exercise them all. for TO grant the
power Is to grant IL without limitation
Clearly, such was not within the contempIa-
ton of the trainers of our national Consti-
tuition because IL lis expressly stated that
the executive power shall be vested In a
President of the United States Another OBJ
vious reason why the action OF the courts
| in the Debs case Is wrong appears on the
face Of the courts opinion: for. after maxi
| ing the statement above quoted. the court
undertakes 10 find a justification for its
position. and learns that IL is without direct
authority anywhere.
'I can comprehend no circumstance which
would be morc potent i'm a case of this kind
| than Is the fact that from the time OF the
adoption OF the Constitution until the case
| of Debs was decided. the United States
courts had exercised no such power as they
| had exercised In that case. and had not been
called upon TO exercise any such power.
I II would be an astounding proposition for
any one to urge that for 80 many years