The times., 1899-03-17
AN INTERESTING DECISION.
The Injunction Plank of the Chicago
Platform Hard Hit.

Earu
Richmond. Va. March 1S.-The Supreme
Court OF Appeals, which is solidly Demo-
cratic. struck a blow to the Injunction
plank in the Chicago platform and its ap-
piication in this State today. by handing
down unanimous decision which declared
as unconstitutional the act passed by the
last legislature. in relation to the punish
ment of contempt cases.
Judge Keith, President of the Court.
wro:e the opinion. At the last session
Of the legislature, Delegate Saunders Of
fered a bill designed to carry into effect
in Virginia the provisions of the ..injunc-
tion plank" of the Chicago platform The
measure was passed. The Saunders bill
amended the law in relation TO the pun
ishment OF contempt cases by making
provision for jury trials for offences alleg-
ed to have been committed out of the
presence of the courts. This was follow
ing the Chicago platform. The injunction
plank grew out of the punishment OF Debs
and others for disregardins the iniunctions
of Federal judge. The platform sought
TO take from the courts the power to pun
ish in such cases and to provide for jury
trials. The case was that of Carter versus
the Commonwealth, from the Circuit Court
of Lynchburg
At the November, 1897, term of the Cir
cult Court 4 rule was issued against Car
ter to appear before it on the first day of
the next term to show cause why he should
not be fined and attached for contempt by
attempting to obtain a continuance of the
action of Grubbs vs. Carter by means OF
false kilograms. When the matter came
up for trial Carter asked to be tried by a
jury, which motion was overruled and the
court entered Judgment against him for
fine of S25 and costs and that he be
I imprisoned for two days in the Jail Of
LyDchburg and afterward until his fine
and costs were paid. not exceeding two
months. To this Judgment Carter obtained
writ of error from one of the judges of
the court and the errors assigned by him
are First that upon the facts as shown
! in the record he was not guilty Of con-
! tempt; second, that the court erred in re-
4 fusing to have jury empaneled for his
| trial.
The opinion says the facts show Carter
| to have been guilty of a contempt and the
| court holds that no error was made in re-
fusing jury trial. Therefore the judg-
| ment of the lower court is affirmed. After
| quoting the legislative enactments for the
! punishment OF contempt cases and citing
/ many authorities, the opinion concludes
! that in the courts created by the Consti-
tuition there is an inherent power of self
| ueitHCe anu seiI-pT InaL lnla
power may be regulated, but cannot be
destroyed or so far diminished as to be
| rendered Intellectual by legislative enact
J ment that 1t is a power necessarily resi-
/ dent in and to be exercised by the court
! itself. and that the vice of any act which
seeks to deprive the court of this inherent
| power is not cured by providing for its
exercise by jury; that while the legis-
! lature has the power to regulate the juris-
diction of circuit. county, and corporation
courts. it cannot destroy. while it may
confine within reasonable bounds. the au-
| thority necessary to the exercise OF the
! jurisdiction conferred.
1T was suggested in argument that to
maintain the position that TO entrust iuries
with the power TO punish for contempt
would impair the efficiency and dignity of
| courts disclosed a want of confidence in
that time-honored institution. May it not
| be said in reply that to take from the
| courts jurisdiction which they have pos
! sessed from their foundation betrays a
want OF confidence in them wholly unwar-
ranted by experience? The history of this
| court, and, indeed. all the courts of this
Commonwealth, show the jealous care with
which they have ever defended and main
tanned the just authority and respect due
| to juries as an agency in the administra-
| tion of justice, but our duty as we con-
ceive it, requires us not to be less firm in
vindicating the rightful authority and
| power of courts