The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-11-13
Contempt Of Cou-+

Editor Of The Times-Dispatch.
slr.-Ihe communication ln your issue
OK Friday or your Danylile contributor 10
tine subject of law % contempt OF court
ia tbs state indicates confusion OF
Thought a~d "a rather hastv reading ~
the legislation and decisions ln point
Tie says nrst that 'tlc opinion in the
hurdette case. instead az setting aside
tAe statute. seems % have confirmed its
consttluQnalty' yet later lc ar irfrs
ti-at the constitutionality OF that statute
was not called ia question in that case.
He then says that whatever the com
mon law on tie subject may be. "stN1
statute law has precedence over common
law thus SUGGESTING. though not iudI-
eating. that there ia some conflict ha-
tween the common law and the statute
ia MONT. Puf There Sc none He seems
20 have overlooked the fact that when
the burdettc case was decided. the pres
eut statute was ia fuii force and eject.
and must have been taken into consid-
GRAFTON by the Court Of Appeals which.
If ~ had ror""ived conflict would have
most certainly so stated.
He further states broadly that Judge
Christian S decision cannot stand unless
this particular statute IS declared uncou-
sututiOnal' (sic).
What particular statute? There Is only
one. although the courts possess both q
common law and statutory power 20
history
the statutory law IN point is that the
legislature OF 1878 passed what is
known as the Saunders act providing
for troll hv ir~v in cases 81 indirect
contempts" On March 6, 1903. the Court
Of Appeals, IN Carriers case. pronounced
this act VOID for unconstitutiOnulity. The
Constitution OF 1912 provided only that
the General Assembly may regulate the
exercise Of tho court % the right 70
punish contempt on March l5 1905 the
present et"+~ta u-ae annrOved on No
veTber q. 1904. the judgment in Burdette's
case was Sronouaced.
In che opinion fl the Burdette case.
Pr -dent Ko'th said. TN dealing with
Indirect cOrtau1nfs-that is such as are
cO0mitted not in the presence Of tho
corrt-the offender must be BROUGHT into
court by a rule or some other SUFFICIENT
process; but the power OF the court 10
punish IL the same in both cases"
with this deliverance on the subject
what frrrfr~~ DOUBT can remain2 The
law IS settled. The pr ncipie involved in
g. he brow Jheqo-FfYo shrd HfwvD uefstv
the Tvuchft~~ c,~so. a~1 shaf IN the Bur
dette case were one and the same. and
should the Lynchburg case, or one sim
fi~r fn 90 no tNouo,ht so the attention
OF tine Court NJ Anpeals. T believe. with
your contributor that "there can posi-
hlv he only one outco~~e." though 7 dif-
fer. with hiro ne 10 what That woufd f,o
The substance OF the entire law in
point Is stated by the Supreme Court Of
Artansas in state morrill, Is Ark 800
cited with approval in the Carter case.
as follows:
1.-THE LEGISLATURE may regulate the ex-
ercise or hut cannot ahrid0e. the exnrees
or necessary irnplied rowers granted ~
this court nv the Constitution II IL
could II might encroach upon both the
/ judicial and executive department and
draw to iteoif o'l the oovers OF Govern
ment, and thereby destroy that admir- bic
4 system Of checks md balances to he
/ found in 1.-THE organic framework Of both
/ Federal and state institutions. and ~ 10
vorite IN the the government Of tho
] American neOple "
Richmond