The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04
Geo. P. Haardt & Bro., l3 Commerce St. Telephone 3o
Telephone :30o

sarily obstructs justice in the court of final Jurisdiction, one of the first steps of which must be taken by him in the examination, and holding of offenders to answer in the District or Circuit Court Assaults upon him, while he remains in office, because he has discharged its du- ties, are assaults upon a representative of the court, because he has borne true allegiance to the law and the court. If the law-breaker may attack him as a representative, the court may defend him as a representative.
 It is true that the Commissioner, as an individual. is under the protection of the State laws. Local authorities are some times unable to give him adequate and prompt protection. The State law takes no concern in the Federal officer, as such, or in protecting his authority, or in pre- venting violence to him because he has discharged his duty. It is not an offense against the State to resist the authority of Federal officer. The Government es- l tablished by the Constitution, is not de- pendent on State laws for means to pro- tect its officers in the discharge of duty. The executive may undertake this duty | instead of relying on the laws or officers of the State. In re Neagle. 131 U. S., 1. On the same principle, the court may do so in behalf of its officers. if it has any power it may lawfully exert to that end. How far the Government will entrust the protection of it's officers in that behalf, is a matter of Governmental policy. The fact that the laws of one Government operating to shield the individual only, may in that way furnish protection to the officer of another Government, may be reason why the latter power does not pass statutes of it's own to shield its officers; but 1t does not touch its power to do so. or render it improper to rely on means of it's own, instead of invoking the laws of another power. Ex parte Seibold, 100 L. S. 31. Whatever the | reason for the omission to pass statutes against the evil now under discussion, it affords no reason why the court, if 1t has the power, ought not to exercise it's authority to protect its officers against the evil.
 It is not the duty of the cout to notice every contempt Many contempts may well be left to be rebuked by the good sense of the people, and the respect they entertain for the institutions of their country, without, in any way. impairing the authority of the court. Courts will punish for contempts only when the ends of justice will be best subserved thereby. The character of the offense charged here,
 
 it. The assault was committed nearly six teen months before indictment found. Three grand juries ignored the matter if it was brought to their notice. The defendant has been prosecuted for the assault in this court and the State Court. The animosties engendered by the as- sault as the court is advised, have given place to kindly relations. The admoni- tion to the defendant has been sufficient. The case and it's discussion have brought home to those who might be disposed to repeat the offense, full realization that assaults upon officials, because they have dischal ged their duties, are blows at good government degrading 10 those who in- dulge in them, which an outraged public opinion, as well as courts, will resent. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to the court that any public good will flow. at this late day, from pun ishing the offense.
 This conclusion renders 1t unnecessary to consider the interesting question, whether the court having timely notice of the offense, and allowing the first term at which it could be punished, to pass without noticing it. may punish the offense summarily after other terms have intervened, when the defendant has all the while remained openly with the ju- risdicfon.