Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-04

terpretati ton in order to efeetuate the object
in view and not to- defeat that object. When
the statute requires. thatqimmedlately upoli
the return to the writ1 aad the proaactioh
of the party detained the court or justice,
should proceed to inquire into the legaiity
and propriety of suchsconfinement or oe-
. tention, and if 1t should appear that sucn
detention was without legal warrant oF
authority, should discharge the party such
application could hardly be intended TO pe
addressed to the judge or justice VINO hau
heard and pre-determined upon lne SUI.
ficfency of the cause for the commlttal anu
detention OF the party. and whose !uoiciai
act constituted the cause of the grievance
of which the party complained. Such pro-
ceeding would seem to be nothing more ~
effect than simple travesty of justice; ana
we are convinced that such proceeding
was never contemplated by the provisions
of the code.
but this error I'm the issuance and re-
turn to the writ does not reach the vital
and important question intended to be pre-
scented by this appeal. At most. wouia
REQUIRE the quashing of the writ and re-
turn, but that would leave the question OF
the legality of the Imprisonment of the APP
pellant undetermined. g
No Authority for Imprisonment.
s'The question. however. of the legality
of the commitment and detention of the
appellant as for contempt of court. or be-
cause of his failure to answer the ques-
the court to be answered, is presented by
the appeal; and the appellant contends that
upon the facts as disclosed by the case
there was no sufficient warrant or author
ity for the commitment to and detention
of the appellant in prison; that there was
no contempt of court committed by him,
and that he was in law fully JuSt1ned IN
declining to answer the question which he
was by the court required to answer. ana
therefore the order and commitment by the
court, whereby the appellant was con-
fined in JAIL was null and void for want
of jurisdiction in the premises, and the APP
pellant Is entitled to be discharged from
such unlawful imprisonment. These ques-
lions are raised by the demurrer to the
return to the writ.
1T IS we'll settled principle that the WIFI
OF habels corpus can not be made to serve
the purpose of ii writ of error or of an APP
peal; and that under such writ mere errors
or Irregularities of the proceedings under
which tie applicant for the writ was i'm
prisonei will fun nish nc ground for review
o. reversal of such proceedings. But where
the commitment was made without 1urlsdlc-
ton by the court, or want of legal authority
therefor, as in the case of the commitment
for contempt of curt where it is shown that
there was no ground for the contempt
charged, there. and in like cases, the court
Will hy writ of habeaS corpus discharge the
prisoner. This IS an established principle 81
series of cases in both English and
American courts; ana it finds clear and
definite expression in several recent decis-
ions in the SUPREME Court of the United
States. As for instance. In the case of ex
parte Fisk, 113 T. s. u.s. in an opinion de-
livered by Mr.. Justice Miller, after stating
the general principle that the exercise of
the power of punisfime Mt for contempt of
their order by courts of general Jurisdic-
ton IS not subject to review by writ of
error or appeal, or hy5Writ of habeas cor
pus, that learned Justice was careful to
qualify this general principle by proceeding
to declare that when Dfioweyer, a court of
tie United States .unaertakes by this pro-
cess of contempt to punish man for re-
fIsing to comply With an order which that
court had no authority to make the order
ITSELF being without, Jurisdiction, is void, and
the order publishing for contempt Is equally
void. Tt Is we'll settled now when a proceed
ing for contempt Is such case results In inn
pr.sonment this eourtawill by this writ of
habeas corpus discharge the prisoner
Same Principle in Other Cases.
1.-THE same principle has been laid down
in subsequent cases as the settled law.
In re Ayres 1913 U. s. 443, AS. In the case
of Holman agt. city of Austin, 81 Texas.
66S, the question involved was in effect
the same as in the present case. In that
case the question was, whether the ques-
tion asked the witness and which he re-
fused to answer was proper to be asked.
For refusal to answer the question the wit
ness was adjudged to be In contempt, and
he was committed to prison. The court on
habeas corpus determined as matter OF law
that the question was an improper one to
be asked. and that the witness did not COM
init contempt In refusing to answer It.
and was, therefore, entitled to be discharg-
ed. In deciding the question the court
said IL the question be improper; IL the
court iHterrosate a Witness about q mat
ter over which IL has no Jurisdiction, and
about which It has no right to inquire, the