The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1902-05-22
LING IN NEW BHRRELS
....I27 CHEApSIDE. BALTIMORE
REV. MR. CAMPBELL MUST ANSWER
CONTEMPT CHARGE.
Richmond Courts Decline to intervene Until
Judge Campbell HAS First Passed
Upon the Case

Upon the Case
Kev Gil Crawford State superintendent
of the Anti-Saloon League has gone to
Amherst 20 meet the charge of contrmnt
OF court in publishing criticism Of Judge
Campbell His numerous appeals to the
Richmond court for a writ of habeas
corpus have proved futile and the fight
was made in the Amherst court.
The matter was before several Judges
in Richmond Monday. Judge Wellord
to whom the original application for
the writ was made and who heard the
argument ON Saturday. declared that
the course pursued 10y the Amherst court
was within proper bounds and practi-
cally held that neither his nor any other
Richmond court could take Jurisdiction
in the matter
Judge Witt, OF the IIustings Court.
likewise declined to interfere. President
Keith. OF the supreme Court of Appeals.
said one of the judges had no right to
grant a writ of habeas corpus in vaca-
tion. Judge l.. C. Minor. of the Law
and Equity Court, did not have time to
hear the proceedings. and an appeal was
mide in vain To Judge Lamb of the
Chanccrv Court
The decision OF Judge Wellford is quite
interesting. The disobedience of the
rule issued 10y Judge Campbell against
Mr.. Crawford was. in itself, said the
Judge, contempt Of court. unless it could
be proved that the act upon which the
rule was issued-that is, the article writ
ten in the Christian Federation-was
not an act of contempt If that could
be done, the rule would be void
That the court had n right. however.
to issue tberule, Judge Wellford declared.
is undoubted That when this rule was
disregarded, the court had a right to
follow it mp with an attachment is equal
ly certain. Both the statute and the
common law give the court this general
right. The question therefore turned
upon the ground for the issuing of the
rule. II it could be shown that this
ground was not sufficient, or was not
/ lawful, then the rule could not stand and
] the prisoner would be dismissed And
right here came in the question of juris-
/ diction. Judge Wellford declared that
/ in his opinion the Richmond court had
no authority at this stage to conduct
this investigation OF the grounds for the
rule. This matter will have to be pass
ed upon first by the Amherst Conrt II
MIR. Crawford was not satisfied with
the verdict there, he had the right OF ap-
peal to the Circuit Court, and finally to
the Supreme Court.
The habeas corpus proceeding was ac-
curately defined by Judge Wellford. He
said that its principle was to insure for
man a speedy trial and dismissal from
imprisonment il the evidence was sufli-
cient to sustain such an act. Ii n man
were arrested on an attachment issued
by circuit court on the last day of its
term and were to be imprisoned until
the next term OF that court. say six
months of, the writ of habeas corpus
would be a proper proceeding But in
the ease OF Mr. Crawford there vas no
confinement. The rule merely summoned
him for one day to Amherst to stand
trial There would be no long wait
His case would be gone into at once
No other court has a right to step in
say whether Judge Campbell was right
or wrong in issuing the rule. and set
tie the matter. IL is to be supposed, he
said, that when Mr. Crawford went be-
fore Judge Campbell and the latter in
vestigated the ease which he regards az
contempt he would decide Justly. Ii
was Judge Campbell's privilege to loob
into the matter in the first instance
S Judge Welliord said that il was not il
his province to say what he thought o
action which the Amherst Judge regard,
as contempt. He has no right to do s,
at this stage. II as stated before. Mr.
Crawiord is not satisfied with judy,
oampbeil's decisions the s.atute pro
vides ample relief in the appeal.