The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-09-27
THE NATIONAL WASHINGTON D. C., SEPTEMBER 27 1855

Federal Court for contempt In refusing obedi-
ence to a writ void for want of Jurisdiction.
will conclude by recapitulating the grounds
upon which / think this writ should be awarded.
l. At common law, and by our statute of
1885, the writ of habeas corpus ad su6iciendum
is writ of right, demandable whenever petit
ton in due form asserts what, if true, would
entitle the party to relief.
g. That an allegation in petition, that the
petitioner is restrained of his liberty by an order
of Judge or Court without jurisdiction, shows
such probable cause as to leave it no longer
discretionary with the Court or Judge to whom
application is made, whether the writ shall or
shall not issue.
8. That where person is imprisoned by an
order of Judge of the District Court of the
United States, for refusing to answer writ of
habeas corpus, he is entitled to be discharged
from such Imprisonment, if the Judge of the
District Court had no authority to issue the writ.
4. That the power to issue writs of habeas
corpus by the Judges Of the Federal Courts is
a mere auxiliary power, and that no such writ
can be issued by such Judges where the cause
of complaint to be remedied by it is beyond
their jurisdiction.
s. That the Courts of the Federal Govern
ment are Courts of limited jurisdiction, derived
from the Constitution OF the United States and
.
and that when the jurisdiction is not given by
the Constitution, or by Congress in pursuance of
the Constitution, it does not exist.
6. That when it does not appear by the record
that the Court had jurisdiction in proceeding
under our hnbeaS corpus act to be relieved from
an illegal Imprisonment, want of jurisdiction
may be shown by proving the facts in the case.
7. That where the inquiry as to the jurisdic-
ton OF Court arises upon rule for a hd6eds
corpus, all the facts set forth in the petition
tending to show want of jurisdiction are to be
considered as true, unless they contradict the
records.
8. That when the owner of slave voluntari-
ly brings his slave from slave to a free State,
without any intention of remaining therein, the
right of the slave to his freedom depends upon
the law of the State into which he is thus
brought.
9. That if slave so brought into free
State escapes from the custody of his master
while in said State, the right of the master to
reclaim him is not question arising under the
Constitution of the United States or the laws
thereof and therefore a Judge of the United
States cannot issue writ Of hdbeas corpus, di
rected to one who it is alleged withholds the
possession of the slave from the MASTER com
manding him to produce the body of the slave
before said Judge.
10. That the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has no jurisdiction because a controversy is be
tween citizens of different States, and that a
proceeding by hobeas corpus is in no Legal
sense controversy between private parties.
IL. That the power of the several Courts Of
the United States to inflict summary punish
ment for contempt of Court, in disobeying a
writ of the Court, is expressly confined to cases
of disobedience to lawful writs.
II. That where it appears from the record
that the conviction was for disobeying a writ
of habeas corpus, which writ the Court have nc
jurisdiction to issue, the conviction is curan,
non .judici, and void.
For these reasons, 1 do most respectfully, but
most earnestly, dissent from the Judgment o.
the majority of my brethren, refusing the writ
applied for.