The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1902-08-08

erlin College VS.. Blair ct al., 10 Fed.
Ala is also relied on by the petitioners,
especially the reference therein to the
18th rule Of EQUITY practice in tn e
courts Of the United States. Said rule
was heldnot applicable to that con.
troversy, for the reason that the par.
ties the court was asked to dismiss
from that suit, we're held under the
facts there existing to be indispensa.
BILE, and In their absence the court
would on that account have been pre-.
vented from entering decree dispos.
ing of the rights Of all the claimants
to the property in dispute,
If there can be a case In which It is
proper to proceed to decree in the alb.
sence ofaparty, who could with proprI.
ETY. have been made defendant but
for the fact that thereby the jurisdic.
tion Of the Court would have been GUST.
ed, it isthis case, and the discretion
which ] must presume the court ex.
erclSed was l think wisely resorted to,
as under all the circumstances the
Fuel Company was a diSpensable par.
ty, the bill seeking no relief against
1t, and It's presence before the court
not being essential to the equitable
disposition OF the questions raised, so
far as the other defendants we're con-
cerned.
The limitation of the Jurisdiction Of
the Courts of the United States, by
the citizenship and non.residence OF
the parties, has caused modification
OF the general rule Of the English
Chancery practice relating to who
shall be made parties to equity suits.
A discussion OF the notifications now
existing, Is not deemed essential in
this cause, further than to say that
in cases like this II the jolnder Of
party, interested though he be in the
subject matter OF the controversy,
would GUST the jurisdiction OF the
court, he need not be made party
proridod final decree between the
parties before the court can be made
and nor be inconsistent with equity
and good conscience.
With the questions Of fact passed
upon by Judge ackson have In this
proceeding nothing to do. 1t is only
with questions OF practice that l now
deal, with matters relatingto our code
OF procedure by which the rule of our
conduct Is regulated, which in fact
constitutes the law, Of which it has
been beautifully said that there Is
nothing so high as to be beyond the
reach Of It's power, and nothing SO low
as to be beneath It's care !.
Having Jurisdiction Of the cause and
finding that its orders had been inten-
tionaIlX dlsregarded, the Court e1ercis-.
ed that right inherent to all judicial
tribunals TO punish those SO in con-
tempt. Not TO do so would result In
inextricable confusion, in riot, disord-
er, bloodshsd and anarchy. Such pun.
ishment is expressly authorized by the
Act of Congress Of March 2, 1881,
which limits the power Of the United
States Circuit and District Courts to
punish for contempt, TO cases Of mis-
behaviorln the presence Of or near to
the Court, to the misbshaylor OF any
of the officers Of said Courts in their
official transactions, 0Ad diobedience or
reastance to any Lqteful trrit, process, Orasr,
rule, decree or command Of de- court. Since
courts have been organized this power
has been found necessary TO the due
administration of justice. Its exist
ence has been declared by the Supreme
Court OF the United States, and its
absolute necessity has been announced
by that court of last resort E1 Iarte
Robinson, 10 Wall. 800; In re- Dehs,
I5S U. S. 5O4. To the judgment of that
great tribunal provided for by the Con-
stitution Of our fathers all must sub
nit, and to it we all confidently
turn for advice and direction, bowling
to its authority even though It's decree
causes US to pass under the rod OF its
discipline and justice.
l find tito be my duty to remand
the petitioners to the custody Of the
Marshal and OF the Iallor, and an
order to that effect will be entered.