Within recent years the question of the constitutional extent of the legislative control over the powers of the courts has been discussed with especial reference to the regulation of the courts' power to ,punish for contempt, and to issue writs of injunction.16

That, generally speaking, the power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts is beyond question. It may, however, be argued that where the existence and jurisdiction of a court are wholly within the control of the legislative body, as is the case with the inferior federal courts, authority exists in the legislature to determine the circumstances under which contempt may be held to have been committed, the form of trial therefor and the punishment which, upon conviction, may be inflicted. The power has, indeed, in a measure, been exercised by Congress which by law of March 2, 1831,17 limited the contempt powers of the federal courts to three classes of cases: (1) Those where there has been misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to interfere with the orderly performance of its duties; (2) where there has been misbehavior of an officer of the court with reference to official transactions; and (3) where there has been disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court.

The constitutionality of this law does not seem to have been questioned, but it may well be questioned whether it could constitutionally be held to control the Supreme Court which derives its existence and much of its jurisdiction directly from the Constitution.18