The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-06-14

sequently, on the same evening he I'D.
ylsed Mckenzie that oil the writ could
effect was to stay further proceedings,
leaving the property in the condition
1t Was then In, predicating his advice
upon what he understood to be the
law as laid down in the Goddard case
In "a u. 8.
Judge Noyes had ordered the mar.
shall to deny access to the safe deposit
boxes containing the 9dusts to all per.
sons, including Mckenzie, without the
order OF the court. This had been done
because Of threatened breaches of the
peace, growing out Of the acute con-
ditions then prevailing. Mckenzie
seems to have done what an Ordlnar.
lily prudent man should have done nm.
der the circumstances: he sought and
followed the advice Of his counsel, and
refused to turn over the gold dust In
his possession.
This is all that was before the court.
and for this refusal he was sentenced
to years imprisonment in JAIL
For the purposes of this report l
assume 1t to have been within Nc
Kennels power to have complied with
all the mandates Of the court, but that
his declination was upon the advice
of counsel
Upon this application the following
questions present themselves:
(a) Has the president power to
pardon in cases of sentence for con-
tempt of court?
(b) II 80, is this a case for the exer-
else Of the power7
The Power to Pardon for Contempt.
The constitution, article 1, section
2, confers upon the president the
power to grant reprieves and par
dons for offenses committed against
the United States, except in cases of
impeachment" "
In Passmore Williamson's case, 20
Pa. ST., 8, the court, speaking Of
contempt of the United States district
court, says, page 10:
This was distinct and substan-
tive offense against the authority and
government Of the United States" And
on page 10:
ut must be remembered that con-
tempt OF court Is specified criminal
ofense. 1t Is punished sometimes
by Indictment and sometimes in a
summary proceeding. as 1t was in this
case. In either mode of trial the adj
judication against the offender is
conviction, and the commitment in
consequence is execution. C Wheaton,
38.) This Is we'll settled .
The contempt may be connected with
some particular case, or It may con-
sist In misbehavior, which has tend
ency to obstruct the administration of
justice, generally. When 1t is connect
ed with pending case, the proceed
Ing to punish 1t Is proceeding ITSELF
It Is not entitled in the cause pending,
but on the criminal side. WALL.
134.)
"Disobedience to lawful process Of
a court of the United States Is equally
with misdemeanor in its presence a
contempt Of court within the pardon
Ing power"
The power of the president to par
don for contempt of court has been re-,
peatedly affirmed In the official opin-
ions of attorneys general Of the United
States. For example, by Attorney Gen.
eral Gilpin In Dixon's case. in 1841,
8 Op., 622; by Attorney General Mem
son, In Conger's case. in 1874, a Op.,
BIZ; by Attorney General Mason In the
case of Rowan and Wells, In 1845, a
OPP. 1853. And similar opinions have
been thus expressed, that the presi-
dent may grant conditional pardons.
or commute sentence.
We need not here consider those
cases where party Is committed in
order to enforce his performance of
some order or duty; or inquire
whether such cases are within the
pardoning power, or not, for, very
clearly, In this case the commitment
was punitive, as punishment for a
past Offense. and not coercive, to en-
force the future performance of any
order. Whatever may be said of the
former class. the latter are, under the
authorities cited. clearly within that
power.
Applications are extremely rare and
the pardoning board power has been
exercised In cases Of contempt &C.
cording to the records Of the depart
ment but four times within seventeen
years. These cases follow. (All from
California)s
Allejandro LAWN was adjudged
guilty of contempt in the United States
district court. southern district of
California. and sentenced to imprison-
ment for one year. The offender was
pardoned by President Harrison.
Dong Sun. Chinaman. was, by the
district court. northern district of
California. adjudged guilty Of contempt
and sentenced to six months imprison-
pardOned by President Cleveland on
December z. 1906.
III The case of Wong Gin was similar
to that Of Dong Sun; and President
Cleveland pardoned him on February
y