The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-03-17

lNno Prepared the Unanimous opinion
Against the Injunction Plank of the
chicago P.auoim).
for offences alleged to have been COM
mftted out of the presence of the courts.
This was fonoweug the Chicago plat
form. The injunction plank grew out Of
the punishment Of Debs and others for
disregardmg the iniuncuons of a Federal
Judge. The platform sought TO take from
the courts the power 90 punish in such
,a5,s and to provide for jury trials.
TIE CASE IN POINT
Tho case was that of Carter VS.. tho
commonwealth. it came up from the
circuit Court of Lynchburg on am appeal
from Judge whites decision. Judge
Keith wrote the opinion,
Al the November, 1897. term Of the Cir
cut Court a rule was issued against Car
t,r to appear before it on the first day
of the next term TO show cause why ne
should not be fined and attached tov con-
tempt by attempting % obtain contin-
uancc of the action of Grubbs US. Carter
hy means OF false telegrams. fn answer
10 this rule hc appeared and stated that
Doe is "a resident of the county OF Notto-
way and that having received a telegram
from his attorney j. Emory Hughes, that
his case was pending and that he must
come 10 Lynchburs on the next train. he
wired ln response: sick with typhoid
rcvcr and can't come that that state
ment as TO his health was false and made
without due consideration; that ne had
no idea of interfering with or impeding
the course of justice, and that he did not
make the statement for the purpose of
obtaining continuance and nothing was
further from his mind; that no disrespect
60 the court was intended; and be prays
that his fault may be overlooked.
y JURY DENIED.
When the matter came up for trial Car
ter asked TO be tried by jury. which
motion was ovcrrulcd. and deeming his
answer insufficient the court entered a
Judgment against him for % fine Of So
and costs. and that he be Inn
prisoned Tor the term OF two days in the
jail of Lynchburg and afterwards until
his fine and costs We're paid provided
that this latter period shall not exceed
two months. To this judgment Carter OBJ
tlined d writ of error from one Of the
judges OF this court and the errors as
sigaed BY him are First that upon the
facts as shown In the record he was not
guilty Of a contempt, secondly, that the
court erred In refusing to have a jury ems
panelled for his Trial.
The opinion says the facts show Car
Ter % have been guilty OF contempt. !
and the court holds that no error was |
made in refusing "a jury trial Therefore !
the Judgment OF the lower court IS az |
nrmed.
After quoting the legislative enactmcnts |
for the punishment OF contempt cases 1
and citing many authorities the opinion !
says Reading tho Constitution of the
state IA the Hight % the decisions Of emf
neut courts which We have consulted We
feel warranted IN tho following conclu-
sions:
CONCLUSIONS.
THAT IN the courts created by the Con-
stitutlon there Is an inherent power OF
self-defence and self-proseryatlon: that
ais power may be regulated but cannot
be- destroyed or so far diminished as 10
be rendered inenctual by legislative
enactment. that It is power necessarily
resident IN and 10 DO exercised By the
,ourt Itself and that the vice Of an act
which seeks 10 deprive the court OF this
inherent power IL not cured by providing
'or It's exercise By jury; that while the
Legislature has tho power 10 regulate
he jurisdiction OF circuit. county and
corporation courts. 1t canot destroy, while
I may conhne within reasonable bounds,