Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-30
INHERENT POWER.

We regret that we have not seen the
opinion Of the Supreme Court of APP
pcals of Virginia, submitted with it's
recent decision, refusing to obey the
legislature of Virginia and pronouncing
null and void that body's action in reg
ulation and restriction of the absolute
and unlimited power claimed by our
courts in matters OF injunction and
contempt of court. In last Saturdays
Richmond Times we were editorially
informed that the court had made Il
decision holding that the act OF the
Virginia Legislature, depriving courts
Gin certain cases) of the powers of pun
ishing contempts of courts. is void and
of no effect"
and upon this n deluge of adulation and
eulogy was poured upon the court and
it's decision. without any further de-
tails or information. In the Times of
the Sunday following we are told spe-
officially that the act OF Assembly null
lifted by the court is
"the famous anti-injunction bill was
introduced in the Virginia Legislature
on February ., 1898. the Richmond Dis
patch explained that this bill was de
signed TO carry out the declaration of
the Chicago platform against govern
ment by injunction, and to render i'm
possible in this State those sweeping
injunction orders which have become
so common in recent years in some OF
the States of the unon.'"
But, practically. the fact that we as
sumo the annuled act to be that en-
bodied in the Code of Virginia as to
contempts, makes no difference on the
main point raised by the courts re-
fusal TO obey the legislature and re-
Voting against the authority bestowed
on that body to erect courts and reg
ulate" them. For the court. as the
Times informs us. makes no pretension
to any constitutional warrant for it's
action in this case, but speaking
through Judge Keith, says:
THAT in the courts created by the
Constitution there is an inherent power
that this power may he regulated. but
cannot be destroyed or so far dmin-
ishcd as To be rendered Intellectual by
legislative enactment; that it, is a pow
81 necessarily resident in and TO be eX-
erc!sed by, the Court itself. and that
lUc VICE OF IN act Wnlcn seeks TO de-
privc the court of this inherent power
is not cured by providing for its ex-
ercise by a jury; that while the Legis-
lhture has the power to regulate the
Jurisdiction of Circuit, County. and
Corpora tiOn courts. it cannot destroy,
while ii may contine within reasonable
bounds, the authority necessary TO the
exercise of The jurisdiction conferred"
The same constitution that authorized
the Legislature 10 create courts. also
authorized that body to regulate"
their jurisdiction and that OF Judges.
except so far as the same is conferred
by this constitution" The constitution
then confers among other things juris-
diction as to "the constitutionality OF a
law" hut it Immediately adds TO this
proviso requiring n majority of the
Judges elected, necessary TO declare Il
law unconstitutional and that ito de-
clare any law null and void" must be
by reason of it's repugnance 10 the
Federal Constitution. or to the Consti-
tuition OF this State"
Judge Keith would have surely shown
this repugnancc 10 one or the other.
or both. of these constitutions. il he
could; but there is no such rcpuGnance.
and on the contrary. several fatal re-
pugnances between fundamental pro
visions of both, and the pretensions set
up by the courts ana judges with re-
spcct to contempt and injunction
wherein all the guarantees of both as
TO liberty and property. if not life, as
TO due process of law" trial by jury"
the right to call and examine witnesses
in self defence. &c. are all set at
naught by a pretended inherent pow
err utterly repugnant to all our con-
sttutions. institutes. principles ana the
spirit OF our free government by
representation.
There are no such inherent rights or