Evening star., 1898-02-25

rant. or any RUE or order OF any court sf
ths United 0tates. or any other legal or ju-
dicial writ or process. shall be guilty Of q
ndsdemoanor and shall be punished after
that section stopped with the words courts
OF the United 6tates,' the section would fan
within the rule announced by the Court OF
Appeals and referred to by me at the out
other legal writ or process, It 10 made broad
enough to cover any order or process issued
by any judicial officer OF the United States
The Warrant.
Now, that being the law. we come to the
particular record that we have here to see
whether the warrant OF commitment shows
that the Justice had Jurisdiction to commit
for contempt. The language Of the warrant
Is in these words:
q The President Of the United States to
John r. Leonard. warden Of the District
Jail. greeting:
You are hereby commanded to receive
into your Jail and custody Perry Carson.
I'VE days from the date hereof. unless
sooner discharged. by due course Of law.
witness my hand and seal, this fifth
day of January. A. D. 1885,
petitioner was imprisoned. and, Of course,
falls to show upon the face OF 1t that the
Justice of the peace had Jurisdiction. If
there were nothing but that, II thu original
petition and the return showing the au-
thority upon which the warrant claimed to
hold the petitioner were the only things
here. there would be No question in the
world that that warrant on its face show
ed no authority, because 1t fails 10 show
that the Justice of the peace had jur-
isdiction. 1t does not show that the
tempt; much less does It show that the
contempt committed in the pres
ence Of the Justice Of the peace. But we
have before us the record Of the justice Of
In 70 .,f wv oh 10 la6
this warrant. That is brought in by the
amended petition and 1t is proper that the
court should look at that
Gut of Presence.
But when We come to the further ques-
ton of the power Of justice of the peace
to punish for contempt committed out Of
his presence. starting with the settled doc
trine that that power does not exist at
common law, In order to have him exer-
else that power it should be conferred by
statute But the statute that confers upon
him the power to punish for contempt of
his process is confined to one particular
process, the summons for witness: and the
familiar doctrine that the inclusion of one
thing in a statute is the exclusion of all
others will apply there, 1 think, and that
under the statute he could not have any
greater power than that conferred by the
express language of the statute.
1T Is also to be borne in mind that the
section 1905 at the same time passed sec
ton 725 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, which section confers upon
courts Of the United States having general
jurisdiction the power to punish for con-
tempt of any process. When the legisla-
ture passed this particular act relating to
the District Of Columbia 1t confined it to
particular process, showing. I think, be-
yond any question the intention Of the leg
islature not to confer upon justices of the
peace any greater power than that speci-
fled in section 1905. And there may be a
reason for 1t.
''It was argued by counsel who repre-
sented the government that unless a JUS
tice of the peace had power to punish for
disobedience of his process, for contempt.
he could not enforce his judgments.
But that does not help the matter out at
all; on the contrary. 1t seems to Indicate
SO far as it indicates anything. that the
justice of the peace was proceeding to pun
tSh for a supposed contempt committed by
the petitioner in resisting the execution Of
writ of fieri facias issued by justice Of
the peace. 1t goes on to reoite the affidavit
OF somebody that such an obstruction was
made, and then issued a rule upon The pc
tltfoner to show cause why he should not
be punished for contempt. When you come
to the judgment there is no judgment con-
victing the party Of contempt at all; the
judgment of the justice of the ueace is
that the person shall be fined 81 or be i'm
prisoned for five days. When We have the
Judgment before us, 1t does not show that
tHe uersOn was committed for ,contemJt.
except by inference: and If, py inference.
you assume that he was committed for
contempt, it was a contempt committed
out OF the presence of the justice of the
peace, in an effort to prevent the execution
OF process OF which the justice had juris-
diction.
1T being an inferior tribunal, there must
De recited In the commitment itself every
TACT that is necessary to give the court
jurisdiction. In other words, III order to
have this commitment valid a process by
which the petitioner could be held 1t should
De recited that the petitioner did something
and that something should be briefly stat
ed, In the presence OF the court 80 that
any other court looking at 1t could see that
1t was a contempt.
II should recite that he did so and 40
In the presence of the justice of the peace
he should be called upon to show why he
should not be punished for such contempt:
tnat ne tailed to give any excuse and
therelpon the justice adjudged him guilty
OF contempt and decided that he should he
nred so much or imprisoned so long All
fhat should be recited in the commitment
AND commitment that does not recite SO
much. to show that the justice had t,,ris-
d1cdon when brought before any court
upon a writ of habeas corpus the party
would be entitled to a discharge because
The commitment failed to show that the
special tribunal committing him had the
jurisdiction to commit.
The result in this case Is of course
that the petitioner Is improperly held and
Is entitled to his discharge. An order will
be made accordingly