United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 99

←

United States Statutes at Large, Volume 4
United States Congress

Public Acts of the Twenty-First Congress, Second Session, Chapter 99

→

3011021United States Statutes at Large, Volume 4 — Public Acts of the Twenty-First Congress, Second Session, Chapter 99United States Congress

March 2, 1831.

Chap. XCIX.—An Act declaratory of the law concerning contempts of court.^[1]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the power of the several Cases for summary proceedings.courts of the United States to issue attachments and inflict summary punishments for contempts of court, shall not be constructed to extend to any cases except the misbehaviour of any person or persons in the presence of the said courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehaviour of any of the officers of the said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any officer of the said courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person or persons, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts.

Cases for indictment.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons shall, corruptly, or by threats of force, endeavour to influence, intimidate, or impede any juror, witness, or officer, in any court of the United States, in the discharge of his duty, or shall, corruptly, or by threats of force, obstruct, or impede, or endeavour to obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice therein, every person or persons, so offending, shall be liable to prosecution therefor, by indicement, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished, by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding three months, or both, according to the nature and aggravation of the offence.

Approved, March 2, 1831.

↑ The decisions of the courts of the United States on the law applicable to contempts of court are,
The courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction of crimes against the United States. But, independent of statutes, the courts of the United States have power to fine for contempts, and imprison for contumacy, and to enforce obedience to their orders, &c. The United States v. Hudson et al., 7 Cranch, 32; 2 Cond. Rep. 405.
The Supreme Court will not grant a habeas corpus, to bring before it the body of a person confined for a contempt of a circuit court of the United States. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225.
Where a court commits a person for a contempt, their adjudication is a conviction; and their commitment, in consequence, is execution. Ibid.
One who was not a Quaker, who refused to be sworn as a witness, on the ground of conscientious scruples, arising from a declaration formerly made, was committed, by the circuit court of Massachusetts, for a contempt of the court; the liberty to affirm being strictly confined to Quakers, by the law and practice of Massachusetts. The United States v. Coolidge, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 364.
That a counsellor, practising in the highest court of the state of New York, in which he resides, had been struck off from the roll of counsellors of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, by the order of the judge of that court for a contempt, does not authorize the Supreme Court to refuse his admission as a counsellor of the Supreme Court. Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Peters, 108.
The Supreme Court does not consider the circumstances upon which the order of the district judge was given within its cognisance; or, that it is authorized to punish for a contempt, which may have been committed in the district court of the northern district of New York. Ibid.
If, from any collateral evidence, it should appear that there is reason to believe the respondent has perjured himself, the circuit court will recognise him to answer at the next term of the court, to such matters as may be found against him. United States v. Dodge, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 313.
Unfair practices towards a witness who is to give testimony in court, or oppression under colour of its process, although those practices and that oppression were acted out of the district in which the court is sitting, may be punished by attachment, provided the person who has thus demeaned himself comes within the jurisdiction of the court. But, it is also believed that this mode of punishment ought not to be adopted, unless the deviation from law could be clearly attached to the person against whom the motion was made; and unless the deviation were intentional; or unless the course of judicial proceeding were or might be so affected by it as to make a punishment in this mode obviously conducive to a fair administration of justice. 1 Burr’s Trial, 355.
Any publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel, &c., in reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is a contempt of the court, and punishable by attachment. Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wallace’s C. C. R. 77.
For contempts to inferior jurisdictions, not of record, nor having a general power to fine and imprison, unless committed in presence of the officer, and punished instanter, there is no other mode of punishment than by indictment. Ibid.
It is not a contempt to serve a party, while attending at the court as a party in the cause, or as a witness, with a summons. The privilege extends to exemption from arrest, but no further. Blight’s Ex’rs v. Fisher et al., Peters’ C. C. R. 41.
It is a contempt of court to serve process, either of summons or capias, in the actual or constructive presence of the court. Ibid.

[p487-1] The decisions of the courts of the United States on the law applicable to contempts of court are,
The courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction of crimes against the United States. But, independent of statutes, the courts of the United States have power to fine for contempts, and imprison for contumacy, and to enforce obedience to their orders, &c. The United States v. Hudson et al., 7 Cranch, 32; 2 Cond. Rep. 405.
The Supreme Court will not grant a habeas corpus, to bring before it the body of a person confined for a contempt of a circuit court of the United States. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225.
Where a court commits a person for a contempt, their adjudication is a conviction; and their commitment, in consequence, is execution. Ibid.
One who was not a Quaker, who refused to be sworn as a witness, on the ground of conscientious scruples, arising from a declaration formerly made, was committed, by the circuit court of Massachusetts, for a contempt of the court; the liberty to affirm being strictly confined to Quakers, by the law and practice of Massachusetts. The United States v. Coolidge, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 364.
That a counsellor, practising in the highest court of the state of New York, in which he resides, had been struck off from the roll of counsellors of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, by the order of the judge of that court for a contempt, does not authorize the Supreme Court to refuse his admission as a counsellor of the Supreme Court. Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Peters, 108.
The Supreme Court does not consider the circumstances upon which the order of the district judge was given within its cognisance; or, that it is authorized to punish for a contempt, which may have been committed in the district court of the northern district of New York. Ibid.
If, from any collateral evidence, it should appear that there is reason to believe the respondent has perjured himself, the circuit court will recognise him to answer at the next term of the court, to such matters as may be found against him. United States v. Dodge, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 313.
Unfair practices towards a witness who is to give testimony in court, or oppression under colour of its process, although those practices and that oppression were acted out of the district in which the court is sitting, may be punished by attachment, provided the person who has thus demeaned himself comes within the jurisdiction of the court. But, it is also believed that this mode of punishment ought not to be adopted, unless the deviation from law could be clearly attached to the person against whom the motion was made; and unless the deviation were intentional; or unless the course of judicial proceeding were or might be so affected by it as to make a punishment in this mode obviously conducive to a fair administration of justice. 1 Burr’s Trial, 355.
Any publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel, &c., in reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is a contempt of the court, and punishable by attachment. Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wallace’s C. C. R. 77.
For contempts to inferior jurisdictions, not of record, nor having a general power to fine and imprison, unless committed in presence of the officer, and punished instanter, there is no other mode of punishment than by indictment. Ibid.
It is not a contempt to serve a party, while attending at the court as a party in the cause, or as a witness, with a summons. The privilege extends to exemption from arrest, but no further. Blight’s Ex’rs v. Fisher et al., Peters’ C. C. R. 41.
It is a contempt of court to serve process, either of summons or capias, in the actual or constructive presence of the court. Ibid.

[1]

United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/21st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 99

Navigation menu

Search