Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-10-17

Gates that tho court was attempting
20 enforce this latter ruther than to
punish becauso % The former
Whatever, therefore, may be said
Of the power OF tho court 70 proceed
upon the restraining order because Of
any merger Of II into q final decree,
there can be no question Of its power
to proceed a. u ala. upon this latter.
With power 10 proceed under the an,
al decree there was Jurisdiction 81
the subject matter H. as is denied.
the defendant was in court upon this
proceeding there was uisu Jurisdiction
81 the person. ", further. aa Is not
denied. he was given an opportunity
70 Introduce proof and % be heard
on his own behalf according to tho
rules and practices Of our system 81
jurisdiction. then there was duo pro-
cess ~ INV. no constitutional right
was Invaded and there h no ground
calling for RELIEF from this court
These questions are. Of course. alto
ecthcr aside from the inquiry a. a.
whether the order committing for
contempt WAS or was not erroneous
II may be that the court impropcrlv
interpreted this finai decree n
may be that the court was mistaken
10 holding that under the terms Of
that decree the petitioner had been
affirmatively ordered to do anything.
II IL further possible that thnt court
may have erred In finding upon the
facts that the petitioner had violated
the order which the court found was
contained In the decree. But all of
these n errors at an, were errors
within the exercise OF the courts
Jurisdiction. not outside Of A. They
were remediablo by the proper appel
late procedure 20 the supreme court
Of the state. a right which that court,
In Canavnn vs.. Canavan. i3i Pac.
asa, held 20 exist.
II was stated By counsel for ne
uuoner on the argument that writ
81 error was sued out from the su.
preme court Of New Mexico to review
the order 81 contempt. but that this
had been, or would be- quashed be-
cause Of the irreguiarity In its is-
suance. But however. that may be,
the failure 20 prosecute proceedings
IN error In the state courts cannot
Justify discharge upon habeas corpus
by the federal courts. TO permit this
would be To violate the very elemen-
tnry principle Of procedure that the
write OF hubcas corpus can not be in
Nokcd to perform the functions of "A
writ of error. This e. especially true
where the federal courts are called
upon To deaf with proceedings IN tho
state courts, and where principles OF
comfy and OF orderly procedure pre-
scribe That tho national courts shall
not Interfere by habeas corpus 10 dis
charge "a prisoner until he has ex-
hnusted the remedies afforded hy the
state Tor determining whether he Is
Illegally restrained of his liberty.
Different Case.
The present Is quite different
case from stevens vs.. McCiaughry,
decided by the Eighth circuit court OF I
appeals on July 10, 1918. There the
prisoner had been sentenced twice
Tor what the court held TO have been |
the same federal offense. lie WAS |
discharged upon habeas corpus by tho /
circuit court OF appeals-and this /
no appeal had been |
.aken-at the expiration Of his first
sentence upon the ground that the
SQUIRT In imposing the latter half OF 1
he sentence had acted outside tho
aw and without Jurisdiction. In tho
iasc at bar however there was
'hargc that Canayan had violated
inai DECREE confosEedly la full force. !
70 this charge he appeared and had
ull opportunity 60 present proof and
o be heard on his own behalf. The
curt upon such hearing held that he
lad Violated the decree. II had iur.
sdt,tion Co cOnstrue this decree and
O decide what II meant thereby Il
Il NIsaffs I
IS matter of fact. he had violated
/. ]; had Jurisdiction To punish
uch a violation; either us for civil
r. criminal contempt. II did so pun
ia by "a sentence which az To charHc-
er and length was within its powers. :
'etitioner had the right OF review,
hitch he has not effectively claimed |
nd now he asks that this court ig- |
oring all that has been done in the
tate court declare MIN entitled To-
= 4