them. It was also silent as to any rules of procedure for determining what constituted contempt. As to what particular acts constituted contempt, as well as the mode of procedure against the offender, was to be determined in accordance with the established rules and principles of the common law with reference to existing conditions. Under this act it was contended that the authority which the courts had to punish for contempt at their discretion had been greatly abused, and, in order that the citizen might not be subjected to annoyance on account of the commission of acts not contemplated by the law, and that the freedom of the press as well as the liberty of the individual might be preserved in the spirit guarantied by the Constitution, Congress defined the limit to which the courts could go in such cases. Section 725 of the Revised Statutes is in the nature of a limitation of the power of the court to punish for contempt. An examination of the record discloses the fact that the petitioner is the editor of a daily newspaper published in the city of Raleigh, N. C., where the court was held. It also appears that on the 29th day of May a receiver was appointed for the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad Company in a proceeding pending before the court for that purpose. That on Sunday after the receiver was appointed the petitioner published an editorial in his paper, in which the court was severely criticised for its conduct in appointing such receiver. It is alleged in the rule against the petitioner that divers other editorials reflecting on the official integrity of the court had been published in said paper. The record does not show that the alleged misbehavior of the petitioner was in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; nor is there anything to show that the alleged misbehavior of petitioner interfered with the court, or that it tended in the slightest degree to disturb the orderly proceedings of the court. The inherent power of the court to punish for contempt is based upon the theory that it is essential that the court should possess ample authority to secure the free and unobstructed exercise of its functions in the enforcement of the law. Therefore it is only such acts as tend to interfere with the orderly proceedings of the court or with the due administration of justice. that can be properly punished as a contempt of court. Words written or spoken at a place other than where the court is held, and not so near thereto as to interfere with the proceeding of the court, do not render the author liable. Any loud noise or other disturbance in the presence of the court, or in the street or other place so near thereto as to interfere with the orderly proceedings of the court, would undoubtedly tend to obstruct the administration of justice, and under such circumstances the court is empowered to summarily punish for contempt. That newspapers sometimes engage in unwarranted criticism of the courts cannot be denied. In some instances they construe the liberty of the press as a license to authorize them to engage in a wholesale abuse of the court, but these instances are rare, and do not warrant a departure from the well-settled principles of the law as declared by Congress and construed by the courts. If judges charged with the administration of the law are not to be criticised on account of their official conduct, the lib erty of the press is abridged, and the rights of individuals imperiled. While all citizens should entertain due respect for the courts of the land, it does not follow that editors and public speakers are to refrain from legitimate criticism of the acts of any tribunal. Such criticism should be invited by public officials, in order that the people may fully understand what is being done by those who are acting as their agents in the administration of the law. Public questions are generally settled in the right way, and the fact that such is the case is due in a large measure to their free and untrammeled discussion by the press of the country. The courts are constituted for the purpose of protecting the rights and liberties of the individual, and the enactment of any law which gives a judge the power to prevent the free and unrestrained discussion of questions which may come before the court for adjudication would in many instances defeat the very object for which the courts were established. There may be instances where the publication of editorials or other matter in newspapers would bring the author within the limitations of the statute. For instance, if a newspaper editor should publish an article concerning a trial which was being considered by a jury, and should send a copy of the paper containing such article to the jury, or a member thereof, during the progress of the trial, for the purpose of influencing them in their deliberations, it would present a question whether such conduct would not be misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice. In order to determine whether this court. has jurisdiction to hear this cause in the proceeding now instituted it is necessary to ascertain whether the court whose action is complained of had authority to impose the judgment. It appears that the distinguished judge who adjudged the petitioner to be in contempt of court exceeded the authority granted in the act of 1831, and that the court was without jurisdiction. Such being the case, the judgment of the court is void, and therefore a nullity. In Ex parte Buskirk, 72 Fed. 21, 18 C. C. A. 410, the court, in considering the question of whether one committed for contempt. might be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus, says: "In the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States it is no longer an open question that, if the court whose action is complained of had no authority to pass the sentence imposed, the same is therefore void, for the reason that the court acted without jurisdiction, and, further, that in such cases the party seeking relief may be discharged on habeas corpus. Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 Sup. Ct. 1263, 32 L. Ed. 274; Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782, 7 Sup. Ct. 780, 30 L. Ed. 824; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637, 14 Sup. Ct. 225, 37 L. Ed. 1207. The proceedings of a court which has acted in excess of its jurisdiction are void, as much so as are the proceedings of a court which has acted without jurisdiction. In either its order of commitment is a nullity, and the party prejudiced may be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus." Ex parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13, 25 L. Ed. 538; Ex parte Clarke, 100 U. S. 399, 25 L. Ed. 715; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 26 L. Ed. 861; Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 371, 27 L. Ed. 232; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 Sup. Ct. 724, 28 L. Ed. 1117; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. 935, 29 L. Ed. 89. In view of the foregoing the court finds that the petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty, and it is therefore considered and ordered by the court that the said Josephus Daniels be discharged from the custody of the marshal of the United States, and that he go hence without day. CLIFFORD v. WILLIAMS et ux. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D. June 28, 1904.) 1. FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-HABEAS CORPUS-CUSTODY OF CHILD. 2. SAME JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS-STATES-FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. Where, after the remarriage of plaintiff's divorced wife, and her removal to another state, taking with her an infant daughter awarded to her custody in divorce proceedings, another order was made in such proceedings awarding custody of the child to plaintiff, the refusal of his former wife to comply with such decree, and her obtaining a decree of adoption in the state of her domicile, without proof that the courts in such state had refused to recognize plaintiff's decree, did not confer jurisdiction on the federal Circuit Court in the state of the wife's domicile to issue a writ of habeas corpus to determine plaintiff's right to the custody of the child, on the ground that full faith and credit had been denied to plaintiff's decree awarding him the custody of the child. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a citizen of California to obtain custody of his minor child. Heard on motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Motion granted. W. H. White and J. J. Burt, for petitioner. HANFORD, District Judge. This cause involves a controversy between divorced parents for the custody of their child. The petitioner is a citizen of California, in which state the parties were domiciled when they were divorced. The divorce was granted by a court of the state of California, and by its decree the custody of the child was awarded to the mother, in accordance with the laws of California, for the reason that, being a little girl, of tender years, it required the nurture of its mother, although the divorce was granted to the father on account of her fault. The decree, however, recognized the parental rights of the father by according to him the privilege of seeing the child peri ¶ 1. Jurisdiction of federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings, see note to In re Iluse, 25 C. C. A. 4. odically. The mother, after being married to her co-respondent, Herbert O. Williams, removed from California to the state of Washington, bringing the child with her, without obtaining leave of the court to change the child's domicile, and the respondents are now citizens of the state of Washington. The court which granted the divorce subsequently made a new order, awarding the custody of the child to the father upon his application, of which notice was served upon the attorney of record for the mother. The respondents have, by formal procedings in a court of the state of Washington, attempted to acquire a legal right to the custody of the child by adoption, which proceedings are alleged in the petition to be invalid, for the reason that the petitioner did not consent to such adoption of his child, and the court in which the proceedings were had did not have jurisdiction. The respondents deny the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and on that ground have moved to dismiss the case. I am impressed with the plausibility and force of the arguments made in behalf of the petitioner-that it is desirable that the national courts should have jurisdiction of controversies involving conflicting orders and judgments of courts of different states-but the court has no power to invest itself with jurisdiction, and cannot assume it unless jurisdiction has been conferred by an act of Congress. The Constitution of the United States establishes the range of the judicial power of the national government, and ordains that the judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish, and it makes a direct grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, but makes no similar direct grant of jurisdiction to the inferior courts which Congress is authorized to create. Congress is intrusted with power to create tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and to define their jurisdiction, so as to make distribution of the limited powers which the judicial branch of the national government may exercise. Therefore, whenever one of the inferior courts contemplated by the Constitution is called upon to adjudicate a controversy, it must appear that the jurisdiction invoked has been conferred by an act of Congress. These principles are fundamental, and as incontrovertibly established by the often-repeated declarations of the courts as the fact of the distribution of the powers of the national government into three coordinate branches. The jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate the controversy between the parents of this child having been challenged by the respondents' motion, the court cannot consider any question touching the merits of the controversy until we find a particular statute which clearly confers jurisdiction to adjudicate such a contro versy. Where is the statute? In the prosecution of this inquiry, it is logically necessary to first ascertain the nature of the case and its object. Originally, in England, the great writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum was one of the high prerogative writs by which courts acquired jurisdiction of a person actually imprisoned or deprived of his liberty; but in this case the writ was issued as process of the court to acquire temporary custody of a child which has not been incarcerated in any prison, for the purpose of adjudicating a controversy between its parents as to their respective rights to its custody. The object sought by the liti gation is not to release the child from restraint, but to determine finally the legal rights of the parents. The case being a civil action at law, and the jurisdictional process being the writ of habeas corpus, two theories of jurisdiction must be canvassed; one requiring consideration of the general statute defining the jurisdiction of United States Circuit Courts, and the other the statutory provisions relating particularly to writs of habeas corpus. Looking now to the statutes, we find that Congress, by the general law defining the jurisdiction of United States Circuit Courts, has conferred upon them jurisdiction inclusive of civil cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, and cases in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states. If this grant of jurisdiction were absolute and unlimited, there would be no difficulty in resolving the question now under consideration in favor of the court's jurisdiction; but the statute does not give jurisdiction of all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, nor of all cases involving controversies between citizens of different states, but limits the jurisdiction of all such cases by a prescribed amount of money or pecuniary value involved; and this case cannot be brought within the terms of that statute, because the right of a parent to have the custody of a minor child is priceless, and the value of a person's liberty cannot be estimated in money. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 118, 12 L. Ed. 70; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 Ú. S. 487, 6 Sup. Ct. 148, 29 L. Ed. 458. Under this general law, Circuit Courts have jurisdiction of suits in which the litigants claim lands under grants from different states; and this case suggests the propriety of conferring jurisdiction of suits in which the rights claimed are based upon judgments or judicial orders of courts of different states, without regard to property as the subject of litigation, or the amount involved. This, however, is a matter proper for Congress to consider, and arguments in favor of such enlargement of jurisdiction can have no influence upon a court called upon to decide a question as to its jurisdiction under existing laws. The special grant of power to issue writs of habeas corpus is contained in chapter 13 of title 13, including sections 751-766, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 592-597]. As significance has been ascribed to the arrangement into sections of the different parts of the law, it is necessary for a correct analysis to consider the several sections separately, and also to treat the chapter in its entirety as one law. Sections 751 and 752 provide that the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and District Courts, and the justices and judges of said courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty. Section 761 provides for a summary hearing, and authorizes the court. or justice or judge to dispose of the party as law and justice require. These sections seem to contain the entire grant of power, and they do not contain any clause or sentence indicating limitations of the power. It is unnecessary to prove that the power given by this law is not without any limitation, because unlimited power is not contended for in the argument in behalf of the petitioner. The question is whether the power granted by these sections is coextensive with the judicial power |