72 FEDERAL REPORTER. �imprisonment added to the payment of a fine. It is in this view that it bas always been beld that where a statute author- izes or prescribes the infliction of a fine, as a punishment either for a contempt of court or for a defined oflfence, it is lawful for the court infiicting the fine to direct that the party stand committed until the fine be paid, although there be no specifie afBrmative grant of power in the statute to make such direction. �In United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 33, 34, it is said that the implied powers of fining for contempt and imprison- ing for contumacy are powers -which cannot be dispensed with in a court, because they are necessary to the exercise of ail others; that they reault from the nature of courts of jus- tice ; and that, so far, our courts possess powers not imme- diately derived from statute. Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510. It might properly be held that the order to commit the defendant for non-payment of the fine was a punish- ment ordered for contumacy or contempt in not obeying the order to pay the fine, and so a punishment for a second contempt, and not a punishment for the contempt of violating the injunction. But the order to commit was lawful on broader grounds. �In Kane v. The People, 8 Wend. 303, 215, it is said that where a defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor he may be committed to prison until the fine imposed on him for the offence is paid. �In Ex parte Watkins, 7 Peters, 568, 575, the existence of the same practice at the common law is recognized. �In Son V. The People, 12 Wend. 344, on a conviction for a misdemeanor a fine was imposed, with an order that the de- fendant stand committed until the same be paid. The court might have imposed a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. On certiorari the supreme court held that the proceeding was regular; that the imprisonment awarded was no part of the punishment, but only a mode of enforcing payment of the fine ; and that, if the fine was paid on the defendant's being arrested, the sentence gave no author- ity to imprison. ��� �
