The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-25
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
TENNESSEE LlNCHERS MUST
STAND TRIiL ron CONTEMPT.
supreme COUrt nOI,iS sheriff, His Deputies
and ~ CILsI"ns Of Chattanooga I'm Con-
tempt TOr TIE Hanging Or n Negro
After Ceart Had Granted an Appeal.

ia wv
and ~ GIttIcns OI Chattanooga In Con-
tempt TUr TIE Hanging Or n Negro
After Cea Had Granted an Appeal.
WASHINGTON. Dec. -. II Supreme
Court to-day .decilel adversely to Sheriff
Shipp Of Chattanooga, his seven deputies
and eighteen citiyeuS Of that city in their
contentious that the court vas without
jurisdiction to hOld them liable for con-
tempt in connection with the lynching last
March Of Ell johnson, a negro. whose
appeal WIS before the court at the tune.
The opinion OF the court, delivered by
Justice Holmes, was unanimous. except
that Justice Moo ~ took ne part in the con-
sideratiOn 81 the case, and in addition was
an interested party he having. IA Attorney
General, flei the original information upon
which the proceedings were based.
The opinion also brushes aside The other
questions raisrt NV the defendants AMI
directs that the case proceed To trial on its
merits. No INDICATION was given az to the
procedure to he taken, but AZ the Depart
Inent OF Justice too. the initiative in the
matter, the court will probably wait Zoe
Attorney-Gcrcfi B~ouaparte TO make the
next move.
Proceedings in contempt Of the Supreme
Court are exceedingly rare, so there are
practically no presidents to follow; but
the usual course in all original actions is
20 refer the matter 10 a commissioner to
take testimony, which il then reported to
the court. In view, however. of the fact
that the main quest ion now involved ia one
of fact whether the eighteen citizens
actually took part IN the lynching and
they each and all. in their affidavits. deny
tina they did and whether or not the Sheriff
and his deputies sympathiZed with the
mob and made no effort 10 safeguard HIM
the defendants may insist upon their con-
stitutional rights % trial by jury.
A recent decision of the court in what
was known As the Ballman case, involving
contempt for refusing TO produce account
books in a criminal proceeding, may have
some bearing on the present case. rs II
was held that contempt proceedings were
in the nature OF a criminal action and must
be brought 10 the supreme Court by writ
of error and not Nv appeala SO. therefore,
while the coust to-day declared that il had
disposed Of tpe preliminary questions OF
law recommended IN the case, there may
he others brOfipht forward which must be
decided before the CaSe can proceed on it,
merits.
In delivering the opinion Justice Holmes
said:
"The first Question raised was az to the
JuIINhINilOH u Nv ' AitAHt 'OulNg AZ VIII
alleged that II did not exist unless there
were involved the Construction or appli-
cation of the Constitution, and that the APP
plication for habeas corpus made by John
sons counsel was merely a pretence. Even
II the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction 10
entertain Johneou's petition for habeas
corpus, and If the Supreme Court had 20
jurisdiction Of the appeal. the Supreme
Court, and that court alone, could decide
that such was the law. IL and IL
aInna papaasaytlv had IN IapiHQ yNhQfhar
the case was properly before II. On
that question, at least, IL was its
duty TO permit argument and to take the
time required for such consideration as IL
might need. Until it's judgment declining
jurisdiction should be announced il had
authority frog the necessity of the case to
make orders 10 preserve the existing con-
ditions and the subject of the petition, just
as the State uourt vas bound to refrain
from further proceedings untn the same
time.
The fact that the petitioner was entitled
20 argue his case shows what needs no
proof, that the law contemplates the posi-
bility of a decision either way, and there
fore must provide for il. OF course the
provision of the Revised Statutes that until
final judgment on the appeal further pro-
ceedtngs in the State court against the
prisoner shall be deemed void, applies
to every case. There il no implied ex-
ception il the final Judgment shall happen
TO be that the writ should not have issued
or that the appeal should be dismissed"
Justice Holmes said hat the grounds
upon which JohnsoD's petition for habeas
corpus was presented could not I've re-
garded a. frivolous or q mere preteuse.
The murder Of the petitioner had made il
impossible To decide that case, and IN was
unnecessary 10 pass upon 10 as preliminary
to deciding the QUESTION before t~hepourt.
Therefore, he continued, we shall
cay no more than that il does not appear
TO US clear that the subject matter OF the
petition was beyond the jurisdiction of the
Circuit Court and thSt'in our opinion the
facts that might ave been found would
ave required the gravest and most anxious
consideration before the petition could
ave been denied
As to whether the acts charged consti-
tuted contempt. the Court was of opinion
that they did and 9hat their character
did pot depend upon n nice inquiry whether
after the order made Ivy the Supreme Court
the Sheriff was 10 be regarded as bailee of
the United states, or stilt held the prisoner
In the name of he State alone. Either way
the order suspended further proceedings
by State against the prisoner and re-
quired that he should he forthcoming to
abide the further order of the Court, 1t
might he found that what created the mob
and led to the crime was the unwillingness
Of its members to submit TO the delay re-
Iuired for the trial of the appeal. From
that time the intent to prevent that delay
and the bearing 81 the appeal was a short
step. IL that step was taken the contempt
was proved.
The preiiminaTie- thus being settled. the
Court says the trial ~ the case will proceed.