The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-25
THE CONTEMPT CASES.

The order OF the United States Supreme
Court in the case Of the Louisville lawyers,
Watts and Sachs, does not necessarily i'm
ply reversal Of the United States District
Court on any point of law, though IL a diff
ference Of opinion should develop the judy
ment OF the higher court would, of course,
prevail. The general principles Of the law
Of contempt and the right Of court to
punish it are so well settled that no diff
ference OF opinion is likely to arise on that
point. 1t belongs exclusively to the court
offended to judge of contempts. and what
constitutes them, and no other court can in
collateral way, question an adjudication
Of a contempt made by another competent
jurisdiction. The act of 1879 establishing
United States courts provided that they
shall have power to punish by fine or i'm
prisonment. at the discretion of the court
contempts of their authority" and 1t de-
fined contempt as being 'disobedience or re-
sistance by any person to any lawful writ
process. order, rule, decree or command Of
said courts" The bankruptcy law gives
United States District Courts as courts Of
bankruptcy special authority to compel
obedience to their orders or DEGREES by
process of contempt. In the case of Eugene
v. Debs, who was convicted Of contempt for
violating an order of the United States Cir
cult Court at the time Of the railroad strike
In 1894 and sentenced to six months i'm
prisonment the Supreme Court unanimous
~ denied his appeal and he served out his
time. In the case Of Watts and Sachs the
corpus, and also a writ of certiorari return
able on April 6. The habeas corpus caused
the release of the defendants from jail and
the certiorari directs the lower court to
certify and return to the higher court the
record in the case. This will bring the
case before the Supreme Court for review
as to questions Of law or error in proceed
ings. AS yet the release OF the defendants
is only temporary, and they are under bond
to abide by the decision of the higher court
and to report to the District Court when
ever their presence is demanded. The Su-
lower court on any question Of fact deter
mined by the latter upon evidence before
it. but it may find that the lower court
erred on some question of law. 1t could
hardly deny to the lower court the right
to decide whether the acts of the defend
ants constituted contempt or not, and it
would be still less likely to deny the au-
thority of the lower court to fix the meas
ure of punishment. If contempt really ex-
listed. The opinion has been freely ex-
pressed that the punishment was unneces-
sarily severe and that the ends of justice
and the dignity of the court would have
been as well served by an Imprisonment of
| forty-eight hours as by one of sixty days.
1t is within the power of the Supreme Court
to discharge the defendants from further
proceedings or to greatly reduce their term
of imprisonment though the latter would
be an unusual interference with the order
OF a lower court in a purely discretionary
matter. The issuing of the writ of certio-
rari Is no indication Of the final action of
the Supreme Court. 1t was necessary
step to bring the case before the higher
court for review Of the record.