*1 ordinary to reduce petitioner Congress to allow intended the amount reported by actually received and income v. Corp. See Warren Service income he failed to realize. Commissioner, 104 F. 2d Commissioner, v. supra; Josey 678; Farrelly- Commissioner, 2d v. 95 F. Tiscornia 453; Co. B. Goerke 923; A. Walsh, Commissioner, v. 13 T. Inc., Commis T. Merckens v. Commissioner, 860; 7 B. A. v. Safety v. sioner, 7 B. T. A. 32. United States Compare, Commissioner, 36 F. Heating Co., v. supra; Voliva Car A. 444. 2 T.B. Appeal McKay Co., 2d of Denholm & 212; as the injured insofar mayWe petitioner assume that realty. the lease affected value cancellation of only when its. that would become a deductible loss But Regula- had been fixed a closed transaction. extent Art. White 171, p. 46; No. United States v. tions Co., 274 Mfg. U. S. 398. Dental judgment the Circuit Court is Appeals
Affirmed. UNITED STATES et NYE v. et al. al. April Argued 1941. Decided March No. 558. *3 Varser, with
Mr-. R. whom Lycurgus Messrs. J. Bayard were on the Henry brief, petitioners. Clark and O. L. *4 Wechsler, with whom Solicitor General Mr. Herbert Louis Attorney Berge, Assistant and Mr. Biddle, General Schwartz on the for the United States. brief, B. were *6 Douglas of the opinion delivered
M«. Justice Court. under contempt adjudged guilty,of
Petitioners were U. 1163, 28 S. C. (36 Stat. of the Judicial Code 268§ dismissal of suit to obtain a a efforts §385) for their for in the federal District Court Elmore brought by one Elmore, Carolina. admin- of North the Middle District brought action, in of his istrator of the estate son, part- Bernard, and one Council against pauperis, forma Remedy alleged that his Co., and B. C. trading as ners, Bas C medicine, of a known a of the use died as result son ap- The court by them. and sold and manufactured De- Elmore. to represent B. Guthrie pointed William On April 19, April 29, filed an answer fendants lawyer his Judge notified the and Elmore District desired to have letters he the case dismissed. episode involving improper of the substance found as follows: petitioners was conduct body. illiterate and feeble mind and Pe- Elmore is in- liquor and titioners,1 through persuasion, the use Nye termination of the action. Elmore to seek a duced lawyer prepare the letters to the Dis- his own directed a final admin- Judge prepare to Guthrie and trict and probate filed the local istration account to be court. to, probate court, had him took Elmore dis- Nye $1. the clerk charged administrator, paid as and a.fee 1 Nye’s Council, daughter to the son one of the was married Mayers (Meares) Nye’s was ten defendants in the Elmore action. acquainted was with Elmore. who ant let- postoffee, registered then Elmore to the He took not however, postage. Elmore, paid ters paid anything. place These events took promised or ' ' Durham, Carolina, North more than miles from the District Court was located. where asking September 30, On Guthrie filed a motion requiring Nye “why an order to show cause he should for be attached and held for of this Court.”3 not Mayers The court a show cause Nye issued order Evi- hearing. who filed their answers. There was a introduced and on mo- argument dence was was heard writing The court found tions to dismiss. filing pro- the letters and final account were inspired request deferred action on Elmore’s The court had pending investigation by request Guthrie and dismissal at an *7 20, 1939, Nye July and son him. Elmore’s were examined under On episode. August 29, 1939, the court as to On before the defend oath ground dismiss Elmore's action the been to on he had ants moved discharged hearing A as was and administrator. held on that motion discharge. respecting his The evidence so adduced Elmore testified the September the basis of motion for an to on order show cause was 30, 1939. for to prayed: The an order show motion cause “2. the also That attention the call the of United Attorney Court to States District request district the entire record this this cause with to the said District Attorney investigate question States to United the toas conspiracy a whether or not was by entered into and between R. H. Nye, Mayers, W. E. Timberlake and L. C. County, all of Robeson Carolina, North to defeat the justice administration of orderly and the process of this and Court further toas whether or not they have guilty been perjury of subornation of and further whether conspired practice practice to a fraud and did upon a fraud this Court. 3. this through That matter the office of the United States Attorney District for this district inquired be submitted and into Jury for the Grand such action and attention the Jury Grand shall proper. 4. deem For such other procedure further and toas may proper.” Court seem by Nye cured the and express “for definite purpose of preventing the the civil prosecution of action in the fed- eral and with intent court to obstruct and to the prevent the merits”; trial of case its and that the on conduct of Nye Mayers and “did and the impede obstruct due admin- justice of istration this cause; has conduct a long delay, hearings caused several and ex- enormous pense.” It accordingly held that their conduct was “misbehavior so near to presence of the court toas justice” obstruct adjudged administration of each guilty of It contempt. Nye ordered pay the costs of the contempt proceedings, including Guthrie, $500 to Mayers fine of and it ordered $500; pay a a fine of $250. The finding District Court filed its of facts and judgment February on On 8, 1940. March 15, 1940', petitioners appeal filed notice judgment.4 a from the The Circuit Court of Appeals judgment.5 affirmed that 113 F. 2d We granted the petition for certiorari the interpretation because power the federal under § courts Judicial Code to con- punish matters tempts grave importance. raised met with We are at threshold question Circuit Court of jurisdiction ap- Appeals over government peal. concedes that if this was a case the notice contempt, appeal civil was effective under the, of Civil 73 of Rules Procedure. It Rule how- argues, contepipt criminal —in which ever, case timely if was not appeal Appeals Criminal Rules *8 4 Elmore, 13, 1940, Guthrie, with the assent On March of submitted voluntary in judgment of non-suit the for wrongful to a action death upon payment Of “substantial sum.” a 5 party was made a The United States when the case was docketed Appeals. appearance in Circuit entered the Court of It its its but attorneys part apparently no in proceedings took further the in that court.
42 8(c) if § the form of proper made not govern,6 and 940, 45 Stat. (43 1925 Stat. February 13, the Act of is 230) applicable.7 § C.S. 54,28 U. contempt. civil think this was a case of not
We do States, McCrone v. United recently stated We always readily do acts not particular S. 61, U. “While con- as civil or criminal to classification lend themselves pun- the is civil when considered a tempts, of purposes the remedial, only wholly is serves ishment a deterrent not intended as and is complainant, The facts of case do against public." offenses proceedings While that standard. not meet entitled action and Court were Elmore’s District appeal, not until those party was a United States (Gompers v. Bucks Stove though relevant circumstances Co., 445-446) U. not conclusive S. are Range & Nye fact contempt. the nature as.to includ- proceeding, the costs of pay was ordered .As Mr. Guthrie, is not decisive. Jus- $500 to also ing Wilson, in Union Tool Co. stated v. Brandéis tice fine com- imposed partly is as 107, 110, “Where a U. S. punishment, complainant partly to the pensation is fixes the order dominant and feature the criminal of provides appeal Rule III an May 7, 1934. 6 Promulgated days entry judgment after of- of conviction within five shall Ibe taken present case, In denying for new trial. a motion or of an order judgment than more a month after the appeal filed the notice govern, Appeals In the Criminal Rules Court. case of the District requires petitions XI points out that Rule also government appellate judgment court shall a be for certiorari to review entry days judgment of thirty after the that court. made within certiorari petition for a was filed about present case the writ In the Appeals. judgment of the Court Circuit two months after the bring judgment any or decree before appeal intended “No application review shall be unless appeals circuit allowed court entry months three after such duly made within therefor judgment or decree.”
its for purposes character of im- review.” The order poses unconditional payable fines to the United States. It awards no relief private to a suitor. The prayer for relief8 charged9 carry acts the criminal hallmark. Co., Cf. Gompers v. Bucks Stove Range supra, p. & 449. They clearly do not any purpose reveal to punish for “in adjudication sought aid of in the prin- cipal Cramer, suit.” Lamb v. 285 U. S. 220. When there “significant” is added the (Bessette fact v. W. B. Conkey Co., Mayers 194 U. S. 329) Nye that were strangers, parties, action, not to Elmore’s there can be no reasonable doubt that the punitive character of the order was dominant. jurisdiction
We come then to the of question Circuit Court Appeals. disagree gov- of We with the ernment contention appeal its this case governed by was Appeals Criminal Rules. Those promulgated rules were pursuant to the of provisions ofAct March (48 399; Stat. 28 U. S. 723a) C. § alia, which inter provided, Court should have power “the to from to prescribe, time time, rules of prac- procedure tice and with respect any or all proceedings finding guilt or of verdict, by the court if after a jury - waived, plea or guilty, has been criminal cases.” adopted The rules were “as the Rules of Practice and in all .proceedings plea Procedure after of guilty, verdict by jury finding guilt a or guilt by the trial court jury waived, where a is criminal cases.” 292 U. S. In this plea case there was no of guilty, there was 8 Supra, note 3. 30, 1939,
9 On October the District Court denied motions to dis saying miss rule cause question to show “the deter is respondents, them, guilty mined whether or either of is presence Court, in the misbehavior or so near to ob thereto justice Court, the administration struct in this is mat and that a ter of fact be determined not evidence and on motion.” (cid:127) finding there was no jury, and guilt by a verdict of
no waived. To be jury where guilt by court *10 “in criminal applicable the Act are the rules and sure, government with the agree we do not But cases.” designates merely the rules the of language qualifying the “in criminal cases” when the proceedings the stage of It is our view that the rules applicable. rules become to which are to be ap- kinds of cases the describe amended Act 8, March 1934 the of The Act of plied. 904) gave which (47 this Court 24, 1933 Stat. February any of respect proceed- “with all rule-making power The legislative in cases.” verdict criminal his- ings after clear that the amendment in abundantly it makes tory because, was made “it here, material would far as 1934, so there should be different to be desirable that not seem procedure cases of where appeal manner of times and jury distinguished of a from verdict cases there is a finding guilt by of the there is a court on the in which jury.” Rep. H. No. 73d 2d Cong., Sess., of a Waiver In Sess., p. light 2d Cong., 257, 73d Rep. No. 1; S. p. of the language promulgat- the order history and this of categories the of we conclude cases the rules ing expanded by rules cannot interpreta- the embraced of case. type include tion governed this appeal means that conclusion That February 13, the Act of 1925. The Court (c) of §-8 by in opinion as to whether the Circuit divided equally is application absence of an for allow- Appeals, Court power had the to decide the case on appeal, the ance the action of that court in Hence taking merits. appeal is affirmed. over jurisdiction to the merits. come then We whether the conduct of petitioners is con- question ... near” the presence “misbehavior so stituted justice” the administration of “as"to obstruct within court That Code.10 sec- the Judicial meaning § (4 487). of March Stat. from Act tion derives 83) that courts of (1 provided Stat. The Act of punish by power United States “shall have ... courts, of said all imprisonment, at discretion fine or authority in any hearing cause or before the contempts of arose,11culminating in impeachment Abuses pro- same.” H. ceedings against Peck, James á federal district judge, and disbarred one imprisoned who had Lawless pub- lishing opinions of one of his a criticism a case which Judge acquitted.12 was on Peck was appeal. But history episode makes abundantly clear that it occasion drastic for a delimitation served as Con- power broad undefined inferior gress federal Act of 1789. courts under *11 acquittal day Judge Congress The after Peck’s took change the 1789. to Act of The House steps directed its the Judiciary inquire on “to into the expe Committee by defining diency statute all offences which may of be contempts the courts of of the United punished States, limit the for punishment also to same.”13 Nine and courts provides: power “The said This shall have section to im necessary oaths, punish, by all and to fine or pose and administer contempts court, discretion of the of imprisonment, at their au power punish contempts thority: Provided, That such to shall not be except any cases any to the misbehavior extend of construed to person presence, near obstruct or so thereto as to in their' the ad justice, any misbehavior of the officers ministration of of said transactions, their official the disobedience courts in or' resist officer, by any juror, witness, by any party, ance such or or other writ, order, person any process, decree, rule, to lawful or command of the said courts.” King, by' Contempt & Publication See Nelles the United seq. et 401, 409 'States, L. Rev. 28 Col. 12 Stansbury, Report (1833). of the Trial of James H. Peck
13 Cong. Deb., Cong., Sess., 21st 2d Feb. Cols. 560-56L Journal, p. Cong., 2d Sess., see House 21st And bill which brought be later Buchanan days James charge 1831. He had March came the Act of Judge during the had Peck and trial told prosecution of to predict, “I will that whatever venture the Senate:14 upon impeach of the Senate this may be decision man in been last the United ment, Judge Peck has Mr. been power, exercise Lawless has States to 2, 1831, March “declaratory Act of its' last victim.” court,” concerning contempts of contained two of the law which provided: the first of sections, courts of of the several power United “That summary and inflict punish- issue to attachments States court, shall not construed contempts to ments the misbehaviour any per- cases any except to extend courts, in the of the said or presence so persons son or the administration justice, thereto as near obstruct any officers the said courts the misbehaviour and the transactions, disobedience or official their re- the said by any officer of courts, party, juror, sistance persons, or any any other witness, person or lawful order, rule, decree, or command of the process, writ, courts.” said Act, from which 135 of § 2 of that the Criminal
Sec. 1118, 18 U. S. C. (35 §241) derives, Stat. Code15 provided: shall, any persons corruptly, or or person if
“That intimidate, endeavour fr/oe, influence, or or threats witness, officer, any or any juror, court of the impede *12 Stansbury, op. cit. p. provides: presently corruptly, by That section “Whoever or by any threatening communication, or force, or or letter threats impede any influence, intimidate, witness, any or shall endeavor to any before United States thes United States or commissioner court of commissioner, any grand juror, acting petit as such or or or officer any States, may court or in or of United officer who or officer any serving any proceeding or other at examination before United be States, discharge United of his or duty, cor- shall, by or threats or ruptly, force, obstruct, or or impede, to obstruct the due impede, endeavour or administration justice every therein, person or offending, so persons, be liable to prosecution therefor, by shall indictment, and on shall, conviction thereof, punished, by fine not ex- ceeding by five hundred dollars, imprisonment, or not exceeding months, both, according three or the nature aggravation of the offence.”
In 1918 this Court in Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, U. S. 402, 418, stated that “there can be no doubt” that first section of the Act of March 2, power 1831 “conferred no not already granted im no posed already limitations not existing”; and that it , danger “intended to prevent was by reminiscence gone had before, attempts of what to exercise power which . . possessed not . had been sometimes done in exercise legislative power.” The inaccuracy of historic, observation been has plainly demonstrated. Landis, Congress & Frankfurter Power Over Procedure Contempts in Criminal Federal Courts —A “Inferior” Powers, Study Separation 37 Harv. Rev. 1010. L. Congress responding grievances arising out of the judicial exercise of as power by dramatized the Peck im Congress peachment proceedings. was intent on cur tailing power. The two sections of the Act of 1831 when read together, March be, must clearly category indicate that the of criminal cases which confinpd. could be tried without a jury was narrowly the previously That undefined power of the courts was acting commissioner or officer States as such commissioner, in the discharge duty, corruptly by of his or who or threats force, or or any threatening communication, letter or shall influence, obstruct, or impede, influence, or endeavor obstruct, impede, or the due ad-' justice therein, ministration shall be fined not more than one dollars, imprisoned or year, not thousand more than or one both.” *13 48 recognized early that Act was
substantially by curtailed Holmes, lower federal courts. United States v. Fed. Poulson, parte Ex Cas. 15,383, p. 363; Cas. No. at Fed. Bridge, Fed. United States New Bedford v. 11,350; No. Seeley, Fed. 104; United States v. No, 15,867, p. at Cas. Emerson, 4 16,248a; United States v. Cranch Cas. No. Kent’s Commentaries 15,050; Fed. Cas. No. C.) 188; (C. ,ed. 300-301. And when .the Act came (3rd 1836) pp. Robinson, in Ex 511, parte Wall. before Court acknowledgéd Field, Court, speaking Justice for Mr. limited the those courts. And see. power it had Bradley, far the de parte Ex 7 Wall. 374. So concerned, persisted Court are that view cisions of this States, Newspaper v. United when Toledo Co. to the time Wall, 107 U. 265; parte decided. See Ex S. supra, Petitioner, Petitioner, Cuddy, Savin, 267, 276; 131 U. S. Court, Eilenbecker v. District 285; 131 U. S. 31, 38. U. S. construction of we come to the history,
Mindful of in light specific facts of Code Judicial § 268 the words question is whether “so near this case. geographical a or a causal connotation. thereto” have light in ordinary in their of their Read context are to be construed as we conclude meaning, Robinson, parte In Ex supra, p. terms. geographical at provisions it of those 511, was said that as a result “can punish contempts only exercised to power and decorum” court. “Misbehavior of insure order presence” their in that cate- any person plainly falls Savin, parte Terry, Ex gory. 289. And U. S. Petitioner, it supra, was also held include attempted witness, jury one in the bribes of a room and within the court room one in im- hallway few feet of adjoining the court room. See Cooke v. United mediately States, phrase 267 U. 517. The S. “so near thereto as justice” to obstruct the' administration likewise con- vicinity be in the notes that misbehavior must & Publication Contempt by Nelles King, court. *14 States, It is not suffi- United 28 530. Col. L. Rev. direct re- charged cient the some that misbehavior has in context, work lation to the of the “Near” this court. not juxtaposed “presence,” suggests physical proximity to In .relevancy. if near thereto” are the words “so fact, in close, not read come as geographical sense, government being There admits, surplusage. may, course, be will many types of “misbehavior” which justice” “obstruct the administration of but may which “in” not be “presence” or “near” to the the court. categories Broad of such acts, however, expressly were recognized the Act of March §in 1831 and subse- quently 135 of Criminal Code. It been has held § though misbehavior by that an act of covered the latter may also be if provisions a committed in the Petitioner, Savin, of the Court. “presence” supra. And v. States, see Sinclair United 279 U. S. Yet view those history provisions, meticulous for regard categories separate those of offenses must be had, so that n theinstances where there is right jury no trial will be If narrowly restricted. “so near given thereto” be a then meaning, by judicial causal process of § regained will have construction much generality Congress in 1831 emphatically which intended to remove. oj Problems Thomas, Contempt oj Court (1934) See c. If phrase VII. not restricted to acts but vicinity of the court be allowed to embrace acts which tendency” “reasonable have a to “obstruct the adminis- justice” (Toledo tration of Newspaper v. Co. United then States, supra, 421) p. conditions Congress which sought to alleviate largely have been restored. oj The Fox, History oj See Contempt Court IX. (1927) c. result will be- which offenses Congress desig- as true under nated 2 of the Act of March § crimes contempts 1831 will be absorbed as wherever they may by take We cannot place. process of interpretation the distinctions which Congress obliterate drew. dealing We only are here with problem of statutory construction, question not with as to the a. constitu- tionally permissible scope of contempt power. But why no that is reason we should adhere to the construc- tion adopted Newspaper States, Toledo v.Co. United supra, Congress leave task of delimiting the' interpreted. Though statute thus the statute in ques*- tion has been on the books over a it has century, during received long not its life the broad interpretation gave which that decision it. Rather, broad con- relatively struction is recent. So far as decisions concerned, the did not any Court are statute receive such *15 until expanded interpretation- Toledo Newspaper Co. v. in States, supra, was decided 1918. United deci- prior plainly sions of Court to 1918 we recognized, as Congress noted, through 2, that the Act have of March had limitation on the imposed power 1831 a to punish for contempts^ holdings view consistent the with the —a during years federal courts the lower immediately fol- lowing the enactment of the statute. The early view Poulson, expressed parte was best Ex supra, decided in In case it was held that 1835. that the Act of 2, March power the court no to gave punish 1831 a newspaper publishing for for an publisher “offensive’’ pending to a case. It relative was held article that of the Act “alludes to that first section kind of misbe- is calculated to disturb the which order havior disorderly tumultuous or court, noise, behavior, such it as prevent so near to to its or proceeding either p. of its business.” orderly dispatch That recognition words “so near thereto” plain a. proximity. And to prior 1918 the de- physical connoted did not depart from theory, this Court cisions
Cn
earlier,
they may
expanded
however
have
notions of
sure,
To be
the lower
“misbehavior.”
federal courts
intervening years
expressed contrariety
had
a
of views
meaning
giving
on the
of the statute16
it
and some were
scope17
approved
expanded
an
which was later
in Toledo
supra.
Newspaper
sig
United States,
Co. v.
But it is
century
that not
nificant
until after the turn of this
did
appear suggesting
line
the first
of fracture
the stat*
summary punishment
publication.18
ute
authorized
legislative history
Thus the
of this statute and
career
its
presents
question
demonstrate that this case
of cor
plain misreading
language
history
recting
a
so as
give
respect
meaning
Congress
which
full
to-the
un
to
mistakably
legislative
intended
statute to have.
Its
interpretation prior
history,
its
the character and
contempt proceedings,
nature of
admonish
not to
us
give
vitality to the
renewed
doctrine of Toledo News
supra,
paper
recognize
States,
v.
but
United
Co.
legislative
contempt power
substantial
limitations on the
Judge
episode.
occasioned
which were
Peck
And
original
necessitate an adherence
construc
requirements
that,
the statute so
unless its
tion of
are
clearly
will
satisfied, an offense
be dealt with as the law
illegal
the run of
Mr.
with
acts.
deals
Cf.
Justice Holmes
16
geographical
near
is
parte
That “so
thereto”
term
see Ex
Schu
lenburg,
Co.,
Hittmon
(1885);
v. Mutual
F.
Ins.
79 F.
Life
Ore-Purchasing Co.,
Morse Montana
(1897);
v.
105 F.
*16
Cuyler
&
Co.,
v. Atlantic
N. C. R.
(1904).
(1900);
F.
131
95
And
King, op. cit., pp. 532,
&
539-542.
see Nelles
17
expanding
concept
th4
“presence”
For cases
of
and
near
“so
Bride,
see In
(1895);
71
McCavlly
re
thereto”
F. 943
v. United
(1905);
States,
App.
United States v. Zavelo, 177 F.
D.
25
C. 404
States,
Kirk v.
United
192
273
(1910);
(1911);
536
F.
In re Inde
Co.,
pendent Pub.
(1915).
The conduct kind It is of a highly reprehensible. true) to be impedes and the ad- judicial process the corrupts which the fact it is not reach- But justice. of ministration contempt does summary procedure the of through able proceed impunity. conduct can. with mean that such not of 2 of the descendant Code, 135 of Criminal § Section category of 1831, embraces a broad the Act of March it be denied that the con- certainly And cannot offenses.. family of here in comes far closer question duct thev the more limited than it there described does.to offenses in 268 of Judicial § described contempts of classes miles from the place of took complained The acts' Code. Elmore which affected The evil influence District Court. or in court “presence” possible was in ho sense con- is the crime of “near thereto.” So far as is judge Elmore’s letter the fact that the received cerned, inconsequential. in there was an may concede that obstruction
We long delay as evidenced justice, administration large reprehensible pe which the expense conduct And it would under the titioners entailed. follow that rule tendency” Newspaper of Toledo v. “reasonable Co. States, supra, the court below did not err in United for the affirming judgment of conviction. But rea be overruled. The fact stated that decision must sons effect there was obstruction purpose an bring justice administration did not con the court in vicinity any demned conduct within It meaning of the term. was not normal misbehavior vicinity disrupting quiet the court and order actually interrupting the court or conduct of its Petitioner, Savin, supra, at p. business. Cf Hence, within it was not embraced the Judicial Code. § *17 it misconduct, their for punished can be If petitioners be where will Criminal under the Code must be criminal safeguards surrounding the normal afforded is judgment below prosecutions. Accordingly, Reversed. Stone, dissenting: Me. Justice mooted The court below did not pass on question, jurisdiction appeal it here, whether under the acquired provisions section, of the Juris- applicable (e), of February Act members Only four dictional Court opinion Assuming are of it did. for that present purposes jurisdiction it that had to decide the I think right judg- and merits, its decision was that ment below should be affirmed. here only meaning ap-
We are concerned with the and plication of an which un- Congress act has stood amended on the statute books for one hundred and ten It years. gives statutory recognition to the power of the federal punish summarily courts to for be provides power “shall not construed to ex- any except tend cases misbehavior of any person persons or presence the said so courts, or near as to obstruct justice.” thereto administration of issue is whether The not this statute has curtailed an authority which federal courts exercised before its en- it actment. has. Concededly only question before us is whether it authority has so limited as to pre- summary punishment clude contemptuous action petitioner denied, it is not is which, “misbehavior” al- though not presence court, and which, it is admitted, seriously obstructed the jus- administration of in a cause tice pending the court. The question is for if important, such conduct as this record may discloses not dealt with summarily only recourse of fed- a, eral court the protection of the integrity of proceed- intim- corruption from acts it, before ings pending *18 indictment the room, to await is the court idation outside the adjournment of or without with offenders, of the may of the case exigencies the as pending proceedings require. con- present of the distance denied that the
It is not lessen in miles did not court from the action temptuous enough “near” in it that sense injurious effect, its and justice. opinion of the administration to obstruct ground the on its conclusion supports of the Court implic- so nearness and only geographical means “near” un- summarily punishable is that no itly holds some the court or is of presence in the it is either less of its with or disturbance interference kind of physical of the con- to the court so that the nearness good order, obstructing justice which in temptuous act has an effect a more it at distant place if took it would not have surrep- it follow that seems to point. From all in jurors parties or tampering witnesses, with titious to although unknown would it, of the presence court, in presence, because its but that summarily punishable room court or while the wit- if took outside the place it juror way was on to attend court it party or his ness, geographical not be because nearness is punishable would making contemptuous in action element an not an justice. to obstruction
These contentions assume that “so near thereto” can
ignore
geographical position
to
and
only refer
history
judicial interpretation
entire
statute.
in
may
proximity
connote
causal relationship
“Near”
space,
under this
proximity
statute,
well
and
as
as
opinion
recognize,
seems to
even the proximity to the
contemptuous
court,
space,
signifi-
is
action,
only
relationship
its causal
to
cance
the obstructions
justice
which result
disorder or public
from
disturb-
This Court has hitherto,
ances.
without a dissenting
connoting
thereto” as
near
“so
phrase
regarded
voice,
the proximate
which are
contempts
including those
jus
administration
obstruction
cause of actual
nearness
physical
of their
tice,
because
whether
operation
whose
of causation
because
a chain
court or
geo
than
on other
depends
the obstruction
producing
Savin, Peti
court. See
to the
relationships
graphical
Petitioner,
The Savin and the Toledo dissenting judges mous court. contemptuous be held to in which the acts Craig cases, court, from a publication, were the at distance no made contention derogatory judge, to the comments limitation on the phrase imposed geographical that the a particu was that the power position the court. Their not in have charged fact contemptuous did lar acts cannot obstructing contention which justice, effect of said, In urged case, here. the Toledo Justice Holmes 423: “I think that ‘so.near as to obstruct’ means page merely not actually so near as to obstruct —and near enough possible to threaten a obstruction.” And Craig case, commenting after on the fact that no cause he pending court, said, p. before 281: “Suppose charged petitioner falsely unjustly the judge with him having excluded from knowledge of the facts, how pretended it be the charge can obstructed the ad justice. . .” ministration . Complete agreement with dissents, in these- requires cases neither the- Court’s any decision here nor lends it support.
I do not my understand to maintain that the brethren bribery secret or intimidation of a witness the court may not be summarily room punished. Savin, Cf. supra; Sinclair, so, If supra. only it is because of the effect of contemptuous act obstructing justice, which is pre- cisely the same if the bribery or intimidation took place outside court If house. it may be so punished I can *20 hardly believe that Congress, use of the phrase “so near thereto,” intended to lay down a different if rule the contemptuous acts took place across the corridor, the street, another block, or -a mile away.
If point were more doubtful than it seems to me, I should still think that we should leave undisturbed a ¡statute construction so long applied and not hitherto doubted in this Court. We recently declined to never Act can the Sherman the contention that consider standing deci- long union, labor because of apply which to the a construction contrary, sions of this Court Hosiery Apex fit to See change. not seen Congress had Leader, 487, 488. Co. v. U. S. con-
In view of our earlier decisions and of serious if courts are sequences justice to the. administration of pres- like the stop, summarily, obstructions powerless long think ent, responsibility departing I from left accepted construction of this statute should be legislative Government, branch of the to which it rightfully belongs.
The Chief and Mb. concur Justice Justice Roberts opinion. in this
UNITED RESLER, STATES v. doing business RESLER TRUCK LINE as BRADY TRUCK
LINE. Argued
No. 616. April March 1941. Decided