227 (1937).
[24] John Charles Fox, The King _v._ Almon, 24 Law Quarterly Review 184, 194-195 (1908).
[25] John Charles Fox, The Summary Power to Punish Contempt, 25 Law Quarterly Review, 238, 252 (1909).
[26] 1 Stat. 73, 83.
[27] Act of March 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487, now 18 U.S.C.A. 401. For a summary of the Peck Impeachment and the background of the act of 1831, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James Landis, Power of Congress Over Procedure in Criminal Contempts in Inferior Federal Courts--A Study in Separation of Powers, 37 Harvard Law Review, 1010, 1024-1028 (1924).
[28] 19 Wall. 505 (1874).
[29] Ibid. 505, 510-511.
[30] Gompers _v._ Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 450 (1911).
_See also_ In re Debs, 158 U.S. 504, 595 (1895).
[31] U.S. 42 (1924).
[32] 38 Stat. 730 (1914).
[33] 266 U.S. 42, 65-66.
[34] 247 U.S. 402 (1918).
[35] Ibid. 418-421.
[36] 263 U.S. 255 (1923). In his dissent in this case, Justice Holmes stated that unless a judge has power to "lay hold of anyone who ventures to publish anything that tends to make him unpopular or to belittle him * * *. A man cannot be summarily laid by the heels because his words may make public feeling more unfavorable in case the judge should be asked to act at some later date, any more than he can for exciting feeling against a judge for what he already has done." Ibid. 281-282.
[37] 313 U.S. 33, 47-53 (1941).
[38] 314 U.S. 252, 260 (1941). _See_ pp. 783-784 (Amendment I).
[39] 128 U.S. 289 (1888).
[40] 267 U.S. 517 (1925).
[41] Ibid. 534, 535.
[42] Ibid. 539.
[43] Sacher _v._ United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952).
[44] Dennis _v._ United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
[45] 343 U.S. 1, 11, 13-14. Justice Clark did not partic.i.p.ate. Justices Black, Frankfurter, and Douglas dissented. Justice Frankfurter"s opinion is accompanied by an elaborate review of exchanges between the trial judge and defense counsel, excerpted from the record of the case. On the const.i.tutional issue he said: "Summary punishment of contempt is concededly an exception to the requirements of Due Process. Necessity dictates the departure. Necessity must bound its limits. In this case the course of events to the very end of the trial shows that summary measures were not necessary to enable the trial to go on. Departure from established judicial practice, which makes it unfitting for a judge who is personally involved to sit in his own case, was therefore unwarranted. Neither self-respect nor the good name of the law required it. Quite otherwise. Despite the many incidents of contempt that were charged, the trial went to completion, nine months after the first incident, without a single occasion making it necessary to lay any one of the lawyers by the heel in order to a.s.sure that the trial proceed.
The trial judge was able to keep order and to continue the court"s business by occasional brief recesses calculated to cool pa.s.sions and restore decorum, by periodic warnings to defense lawyers, and by shutting off obstructive arguments whenever rulings were concisely stated and firmly held to." Ibid. 36. Justice Douglas summarized the position of all three dissenters, as follows: "I agree with Mr. Justice Frankfurter that one who reads this record will have difficulty in determining whether members of the bar conspired to drive a judge from the bench or whether the judge used the authority of the bench to whipsaw the lawyers, to taunt and tempt them, and to create for himself the role of the persecuted. I have reluctantly concluded that neither is blameless, that there is fault on each side, that we have here the spectacle of the bench and the bar using the courtroom for an unseemly demonstration of garrulous discussion and of ill will and hot tempers. I therefore agree with Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter that this is the cla.s.sic case where the trial for contempt should be held before another judge. I also agree with Mr. Justice Black that pet.i.tioners were ent.i.tled by the Const.i.tution to a trial by jury." Ibid.
80.
[46] 330 U.S. 258, 293-307 (1947).
[47] 203 U.S. 563 (1906)
[48] Gompers _v._ Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441-443 (1911); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925). _See also_ Bessette _v._ W.B.
Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 327-328 (1904).
[49] 267 U.S. 87, 119-120 (1925).
[50] Michaelson _v._ United States, 266 U.S. 42, 65-66 (1924).
[51] 154 U.S. 447 (1894).
[52] Penfield Co. _v._ Securities and Exchange Commission, 330 U.S. 585 (1947). Note the dissent of Justice Frankfurter. For delegations of the subpoena power to administrative agencies and the use of judicial process to enforce them _see also_ McCrone _v._ United States, 307 U.S.
61 (1939); Endicott Johnson Corp. _v._ Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1943); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. _v._ Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946). In the last mentioned case Justice Murphy dissented on the ground that delegation of the subpoena power to nonjudicial officers is unconst.i.tutional as "a corrosion of liberty." In the Endicott Johnson Case he expressed dissatisfaction with the exercise of this power by administrative agencies but confined his dissent to emphasizing greater judicial scrutiny in enforcing administrative orders to appear and produce testimony.
[53] 1 Stat. 73, 81.
[54] Ibid. 81-82.
[55] 1 Cr. 137 (1803). _Cf._ Wiscart _v._ Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 (1796).
[56] McIntire _v._ Wood, 7 Cr. 504 (1813); and McClung _v._ Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 (1821).
[57] 12 Pet. 524 (1838).
[58] Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 74, 93, 94 (1807).
[59] Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (1869).
[60] _See also_ Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506 (1869).
[61] In United States _v._ Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 339 (1906), Justice Brewer, speaking for the Court, approached a theory of inherent equity jurisdiction when he declared: "The principles of equity exist independently of and anterior to all Congressional legislation, and the statutes are either annunciations of those principles or limitations upon their application in particular cases."
It should be emphasized, however, that the Court made no suggestion that it could apply pre-existing principles of equity without jurisdiction over the subject matter. Indeed, the inference is to the contrary. In a dissenting opinion in which Justices McKenna and Van Devanter joined, in Paine Lumber Co. _v._ Neal, 244 U.S. 459, 475 (1917), Justice Pitney contended that article III, section 2, "had the effect of adopting equitable remedies in all cases arising under the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States where such remedies are appropriate."
[62] Boyce"s Executors _v._ Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 (1830).
[63] 1 Stat. 333; 28 U.S.C.A. 1651.
[64] 14 Stat. 475 (1867); 26 U.S.C.A. 3653 (a).
[65] 36 Stat. 557 (1910); 28 U.S.C.A. 2281.
[66] 50 Stat. 752 (1937); 28 U.S.C.A. 2282.
[67] 38 Stat. 220 (1913); 28 U.S.C.A. 2325.
[68] 48 Stat. 775 (1934); 28 U.S.C.A. 1342.
[69] 38 Stat. 730 (1914) (Clayton Act); 29 U.S.C.A. 52, and 47 Stat. 70 (1932) (Norris-LaGuardia Act); 29 U.S.C.A. 101-115.