2.
By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may
determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for
disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
member. The same provision is substantially contained in the
constitutions of the several states.
3.
The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach
persons who violate them, and punish them for contempts. This power of
punishing for contempts, is confined to punishment during the session of
the legislature, and cannot extend beyond it; 6 Wheat. R. 204, 230, 231
and, it seems this power cannot be exerted beyond imprisonment.
4.
Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for
contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process,
and for disturbing them in their proceedings. Bac. Ab. Courts and their
jurisdiction in general, E; Rolle's Ab. 219; 8 Co. 38 11 Co. 43 b.; 8
Shepl. 550; 5 Ired. R. 199.
5.
In some states, as in Pennsylvania, the power to punish for contempts
is restricted to offences committed by the officers of the court, or in
its presence, or in disobedience of its mandates, orders, or rules; but
no one is guilty of a contempt for any publication made or act done out
of court, which is not in violation of such lawful rules or orders, or
disobedience of its process. Similar provisions, limiting the power of
the courts of the United States to punish for contempts, are
incorporated in the Act March 2, 1831. 4 Sharsw. cont. of Stor. L. U. S.
2256. See Oswald's Case, 4 Lloyd's Debates, 141,. et seq.
6.
When a person is in prison for a contempt, it has been decided in New
York that he cannot be discharged by another judge, when brought before
him on a habeas corpus; and, according to Chancellor Kent, 3 Com. 27, it
belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts, and
what amounts to them; and no other court or judge can, or ought to
undertake, in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of
a contempt made by another competent jurisdiction. This way be
considered as the establisbed doctrine equally in England as in this
country. 3 Wils. 188 14 East, R. 12 Bay, R. 182 6 Wheat. R. 204 7 Wheat.
R. 38; 1 Breese, R. 266 1 J. J. Marsh. 575; Charlt. R. 136; 1 Blackf.
1669 Johns. 395 6 John. 337.
No comments:
Write comments