Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-17
LAW KNOCKED OUT.
THE SAUNDERS CONTEMPT ACT
PRONOUNCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE INHERENT POWER OF THE COURTS
Their Right to Protect Themselves
Against Contempt Must Not bc
Abrfdgcd-Four Other Decisions OF
the Supreme Court Yesterday.

| the supreme court 1cste'""''
The Virginia Supreme Court has pro-
badly never so fully considered the ques-
ton of contempt as in the case of Garter
VS.. the Commonwealth, from the Circuit
Court of the city of Lynchburg, decided
yesterday. The opinion was written by
Judge Keith. p. and is learned and ex-
haustivc, going into nearly the entire sub
ject Of contempt of court. Ii holds the
Saunders law, passed by the last Legis-
lature, allowing courts TO punish only for
direct contempt. to be unconstitutional.
Carter was plaintiff in a suit against a
man named Grubbs, pending in the Cir
cult Court Of Lynchburg. He was notified
bv j. Emory Hughes, his attorney, that
his case was pending, he then being IN
| NOttoway county, where he resided. lie
wired he had typhoid-fever. a rule was
entered against him to show cause why
he should not be fined for contempt OF
court, it being alleged that he was not
i'll. but that he simply wanted to secure a
| continuance Of his case.
| In his answer TO the rule. Carter recited
| that the statement as to his health was
false, and made without due considera-
ton; that he had no idea of interfering
with or impeding the course Of, justice;
| that he did not make the statement for
| the purpose of securing a continuance,
and that no disrespect 10 the Court was
! intended. Carter demanded trial by jury,
which was refused, and he was fined s2J
and costs and sentenced to two days in
jail Garter obtained a writ OF error
from one of the judges of the Supreme
80. Il
that upon the facts shown in the record
he was not guilty Of a contempt. and 90
that the Court erred in refusing 10 grant
him a jury trial.
SUMMED Up.
The opinion quotes apparently all the
legislative enactments regarding con-
tempt and concludes by affirming the de-
cision OF the lower court. The opinion
says:
Reading the Constitution Of the State
in the light Of the decisions OF eminent
courts. which we have consulted, we
feel warranted in the following conclu-
sions:
THAT in the courts created by the Con-
stitution there is an inherent power OF
self-defence and self-preservatlon that
this power may be regulated but cannot
be destroyed or so far diminished as TO
actment hat it is a power necessarily
resident in and to be exercised by. the
Court itself, and that the vice of an act
which seeks TO deprive the court Of this
inherent power Is not cured by providing
for its exercise by jury; that while the
Legislature has the power TO regulate
the jurisdiction of Circuit. County, and
Corporation courts. it cannot destroy,
while 1t may cOnfins within reasonable
bounds. the authority necessary TO the eX-
ercse of the jurisdiction conferred.
1T was suggested I'm argument that to
maintain the position that to intrust
jures with the power to punish for con-
tempt would impair the efficiency and
dignity Of courts disclosed a want of con-
fdence in that time-honored institution.
May il not be said in reply that to take
from the courts a Jurisdiction which they
have possessed from their foundation be-
trays want of confidence i'm them wholly
unwarranted by experience? The his
tory of this court. and. indeed. of all
the courts Of this Commonwealth, show
the jealous care with which they have
ever defended and maintained the just
authority and respect due to juries as an
agency I'm the administration Of justice.
but our duty. as we conceive il. require
US not TO be less firm I'm vindicating the
T. w. Saunders, member Of the House of
Delegates from Franklin county. was the
patron of the law referred to. and was
counsel for Carter i'm the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Montague represented
the Commonwealth.
y. q W. Must Pay the Taxes.
In an opinion written by Judge Keith.
T., the court af,irms the decision of the |
Circuit Court of the city CT Richmond in |
the case Of the Norfolk and Western |
Railway Company W. the Board Of Public |
Works.
The railway company claimed that two |
tugs and six barges, valued at $4,000 by |
the Board of Public Works. and used by |
the company in the transportation Of |
coal from Lamberts Point to northern |
ports were not subject to taxation in |
Virginia. They are registered in Phla- |
delphia. under the regulations Of the
Treasury Department but they are not /
taxed there, nor anywhere save in Viz
ginia.
The opinion holds that the fact that
the vessels are engaged in interstate
commerce does not exempt them from
taxation nor does the fact that they are
registered i'm Philadelphia fix that as the
situs for their taxation. The court holds
that the facts clearly show the property
to be owned BY a Virginia corporation,
and may be lawfully taxed In this State.
The court is OF the opinion. however,
that the vessels should have been assess
ed for taxation in the county of Norfolk
and not in the city, as Lamberts Point Is
in the county.
The Notes Were bought.