The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-11-22

| SouiI vi out oI court; on the Dench Or IN cham-
bers; holding his District Court or his commits
SION 4; In the trial of case under the Constitu-
ton, in open court or in the hearing of proceed
ing by ha6eds corpus, in chsmbers-all Of which
statutes plainly impose class Of duties on the
Federal Judges, besides certain commissioners
appointed by them, and also amy magistrate
OF county, city, or town corporate and all
| OF which judges, &c, in the fulflment of those
duties, act as special officers, for a purpose, out
OF court having no general jurisdiction, and
being Invested of judicial power. And these
statutes, giving them the right to act, viii pro-
tect them only while acting within the scope of
the statutory license, and no further they have
no common law powers or privileges. Now, we
ask, what follows from these premises? Is it
not certainly this: That unless the statutes.
which give their acts vitality provide means
OF enforcement of the same, and a punishment
for diSobedience to their wrts, orders, &C.. they
must submit to be condemned in the exercise
OF thelr commission The Legislature of New
L DIRK, In the matter of proceedings supple.
mentary to execution in the Code. by proyi
Ding remedy for the Judge while engaged ont
OF court In such proceedings to enforce his or.
ders and punish disobedience iYpliedIv endorse
our argument IN this behalf, and tactiy declare
our position impregnable. The last section of
the chapter, under this head expressly provides
Tor contemits. If the judge in the discharge
OF his duty here, had power to punish. as in
court, why this enactment? We need not
bring more references to the statutes imposing
on judges Out-ofcourt duties-dJ uno disce ON.
mes. We are sure that there cannot he found
III the so-called Judiciary Act, or in any other
law OF Congress, a single section or clause Civ
ing a Federal Judge, outside of bis proper court,
any possible ground TO punish dsobedience to
orders The party injured by the disobedience
or the contempt, as it may be called, must re-
| sort to hls action or criminal complaint for the
inTjury-the judge having gone the length of
the law es it is, there he may rest from his
labors-'fd ter scripta est. Tide the Act of
Congress of March ,, 1883, to wit:
II any person or persons, to whom such
writ OF ho6edS corpus may be directed hall
refuse to obey the same, or shall neglect or re.
1use TO make return, or shall make false re
turn thereto, in addition to the remedies here
totore given by law, he shall be deemel and
taken to be guilty of a msdemeanor"
| This applies as well to disobediencc to bqbeas
corpus issuing out Of court, as to that writ
issuing from judge at chambers. In either
case, 1t seems to be powerful remedy and 10
dispense with commitment. Whether it does
or not, the Judge at chambers has no other re-
sort. The following statute certainly does not
AFFORD hlm any means Of comfort in the wav of
penal ylsiiation-it expressly applies to courts:
and before Judge Kane could have ordered
inilcuon under its behests, he must have re-
solved his chambers into Court; and himself as
Commissioner, III closed Court, into United
States Judge, in open Court
That the power of the several Courts of the
| United States, to issue attachments and inAict
| summary punlshments for contempts of Courts
shall not be construed to extend to anv cases
except the miS6ehaUiOur of a person or persons
In the presence Of the Courts or so near tlsre
to as TO O6Struct the administration of Justice
the misbehaviour of any Of the officers of said
diso6ed'ence or resistance OF any onIcer or saId
Courts, party, jury, witness, or any other person
or persons to any lawful writ process, rule, or
der, decree, or command, of said Court"
1t may be observed that this section predi
Gates punishment only in cases of resistance to
"any lawful writ" 1t may well be questioned
whether this remarkable haJeas corpus of Judge
Kane was ta'cInI tcrt being based on such
complaint or subject-matter as warranted Its
use. This we have shown, we think, was with
out any basis in the law. The only fault we
ma with Judge kane's prisoner is, that he paid
any the least attention to the writ in Wheeier's
behalf; instead of making return to it, he should
have treated 1t as an uniarfuL aort, as it plain
ly was wicked contrivance of 2 glaveholder.
by perversion, If not periurT, 10 entrap poor
roman and her ftpAreaf What denominations
have not Leen peTpetrated in the name of Just
ice, and by misuser Of her most sacred instru.
ments?
V. Conflict aud confusion hare arisen ~ the
matters Of tie hdJeas CORPS us.S yo.aaitnca,
Oy reason Of ne agagSktHg betreeR tie acts
OF tts k@SA'iet Jidye dOHe IN his proper Court
and htS acts as Commissioner ont Of Court.
1t may be seen, on reference to the section of
the Judiciary Act which we Lcva inserted I'M
der our third heed above, that Congress. after
licensing the Courts, which had been created
by 1t under the Constitution, to use certain
wrlts and to exercise certain powers, extend to
the Justices of the Supreme Court aAd Judges
OF the District Courts, power to grant writs of
hd6edS corpus, with iimitations-thus constitu-
ting each Of them, independently of any court
character, sort Of High Commission or Star
Chamber tribunal, STRICTLY AND ONLY TO GRANT
HABEAs CORPUS, TO INQUIRE INTO CAUSES OF
COMMITMENT or restraint Of persons, and to de-
termlne the questions involved in the same
lhls IS perfectly manifest on a perusal of the
act, so much OF which as thus licenses these
Judges we here repeat "And that either of
the Justices of the Supreme Court, as well az
Judges of the District CGaris, shall have power
to grant writ. OF habeaS corpus for the purpose !
OF an inquiry into the cause of commitment"
Now, who does not see that it is under this !
corpus issued to bring before hlm the Wheeler |
slaves. IL need no 0sottOn in Court to get al. |
owance of this writ, when issued as this was
by Judge Kane. 1t certainly was not allowed
IN the District Court, between the hours Of !,
and III O'Clock, Z. NJ as that Court was no,
then III session. Every lawyer knows that this
writ is never issued out III a court of record. |
without motion OF some sort to the Court IN
session. and when so issued, goes forth in due
form, with the seal of Court, attorneys and
clerks names, test of Justice or Judge, directed
TO the person restraining; not so when iss, 81
by Judge out of Court-he has no clerk, seal. ,
or ofilcer to serve the writ, and it must issue
without seal, &C., and may be served by any
PERSONAL this from the necessity of the case |
nor can such proceeding before the JUDGE be |
mixed up and blended with his doings Ter |
wards in Court; he may not transfer paper. be- !
fore him in such proceeding, to the files Of the |
District Court nor may there be recorded there
IN any of his acts done outside, as High Com
missioner or Chamber Judge; they belong not |
to the District Court, and are no part Of Is iu-
dicial transactions; he may not, in the Z strict 4
Court, hear motions in respect to his decision,
and orders made by him IL such proceeding be-
fore him as Commissioner. Nor may his lack
OF jurisdiction, in respect to subjectmatter or
the person, in a proceeding before him as such ,
Commissioners, be compensated for by plenary !
Jurisdiction in his District Court. They are |
distinct spheres of action, and the law as well /
as Justice requires him to keep his action in /
each separate and distinct.
Let us apply these principles to the Wheeler /
slave case. Here is proceeding beoun, at
least, before Judge Kane, as Commiss;oner. ont
of Court. He does Mr.. Williamson a grievous
wrong, in the exercise of his power under this
hdbedS corpus proceeding hefore h., q. tbo /