Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-08-07
IErom tho r.i,aleIphia .hnerican.l

THE WHEELER SLAVE CASE AGAIN.
dj,pGeotiou for n Wa 81 HobeaS Corpus Rynscd-
Hghly Importr"t O''"'ongt ChHrt J"St'fs LHr,'.
Chief Justice Lewis, oil the Supreme Court OF
PENNSYLVANIA, yesterday fled the following opinion IN
the Wheeler slave case. i'll answer 10 III argument had
before him on al application for Il writ OF h9dcaS
corpus:
Wynkoup, United SIate, Marshal, and Charles llorlz,
keeper of the Piliiadel;I ;u county prison.
LEWIS, {. J.-This il an application Tor n writ OF
h1lcaS r0rpwS. l. appears By the copies OF The war
rants annexed 10 the petition. that the prisoner Is cor
fined for II contempt .! tue District Court "i Inc 1.
States, "in refusing 10 answer a writ nj hG5ca% r3rp">
awarded hv that Cuur: against him u: the relation oi
John II. Wheeler
The counsel of Mr.. williamson very fIaakly stated,
in auswcr to an m;riro:a;ory on thr SUBJECT ti"'
they did not desire the useless iorn!aliIy OF Issuing Inc
writ of kdbs0S cOrpns, il, on view ui the course al dc-
,ainer exhibited, / should be Of opinion TINT the nd
Indication OF the United States District Court was
! conclusive. The hnbtas corpus act does not require
the writ to be granted i'll nl cases whatever. when
ever il appears upon The face Of the petition, OF, w:Iicni
is the same thing, by the dc;alrcr annexed 10 u ana
forming part of II, that the prisoner ia "~detailed upon
legal process, order or warrant for such matter or "i'
fences for which by the law he said prisoner Is mol oali'
able" the case iscxcrp;td ont of the act; see act ION
Feb, 1885, sec. |. IN like mnnucr, where the cast
has been already heard upon the same evidence by
another Count. the net of Assembly d"cs hot ooiig'
the Judge to gran: Il RiL5.s c0rpaS for the purpose I"
rrlirarinS il; although, perhaps, they may deem II
r~xpcdicnt 10 do 81 III soinc extraordinary INSTANCES
Ex uar.e Lawrence, , Bin. sol.
We COME, therefore, nj once, TO the cause OF &C.
tanner. L. it n illegal process, order or warrant Tor III
offence which by law is not ballable!' Mr.. justice
Blackstone, in BruSs Croshy's case, 3 Wilson, leS
declared, that "all courts agr uncontrolled in matters
of contempt. The sole adjudication of conitinpts
and the punishment thereof in any manner, belongs
exclusively, aud without interfering, to eucl rcspec'
tive court. In conclusion, no disorder would i'l!o"
if courts could by writ Of hnbCas corpus examine ant
determine the contempis Of others. This power t'
COMM; results from the first principles OF Justice; i"'
if tIcv have the power 10 decide they ought H. have
the power 10 punish ut would OCCASION the VI
most confusion il every court of this State shouit
have power 10 examine thu commitments Of The niiirI
courts o: the State for cJatcmpts; 80 that the .ludg
uirnt and commitment: q: each respective court, as |,
contrmpts. mast be final and without control.
Wi!son, 2ii. Ills doctrine was fully recognized D.
the Court Of Common Pleas OF England, i'll the cas-
referred to. Ii has since been approved OF III nuue
rous other cases III that country and in this.
III ex-parte kcHrney, Wheaton,, -, it was aiilrme'
by the Supreme Court nj the United States, IN arcor
dance with the DECISION IL Brass Cro-by's case,
Wilson, lSS, that "wEGr: 4 Court commits d party TO
contempt, their adjudication is q conviction, and the'
commitment III cgIietiuence is execution: : ne"
ton, SO, 5 Cund. Rcp-:!1. In the case last cited,
was also expressly decided, that "a writ OF ha0ea
corpus was not deemed Il proper remedy where
party was committed for q contempt by a court
competent Jurisdiction, and that if granted, the Cou
could not inquire into the cause of commitment
Wheaton, -. Many authorities to the same cfte'
are cited by Chief Justice Cranch in Nugeuts cas-
| American Law Journal, Ill.
II is alleged that The District Court had no jurl
dictiun. II does not appear that its jurisdiction WI
questioned on the hearing before it. The Act OF Coz
1rrs, of 18th September, l7Sg, gives il power to /
sue .'grits of habeas corpus which may be necessal
for its jurisdiction, and agreeably to the principl
and usares of law and the same net expressly a
thorizes the Judge Of that Court 10 grant writs Of h
bras corpus "for the purpose of inquiry into the eau
of commitment; provided, that writ. of k.5cds corp
shall i'm no case extend to persons in jail, unles, whr
they are III custody under the authority % the Unit,
States. or committed for trial before some Court of q
some. ar are necessary 10 be brought into Cnur:
testify, Other nci- NJ Congress give the Unit!
States Judges jurisdiction III writs OF h0JcGs corPHS
cases therein specified. Ii does not appear tia: I
writ issued for persons in jail, or III disregard OF STA
proces. or State authority. Ii may he that in acti
at law, where the Judgment oil II United States Cot
is relied on as a Justification, the Jurisdiction shou
be afirnatively shown. But ia a writ Of ha6ens ca
+ pus, issued by u Judge having no appellate pow
over the tribunal whose Judgment il shown rs I
cause of detaiuer, where the jurisdiction of the lati
depends upon the existence OF certain facts, aud
objections to its authority arc made on the bearil
the Jurisdiction ought to be presumed. u against t
party who have raised the Question at the proper TN
but failed tn do SO. tits true that the jurisdiction be 1
alleged in the proceedings, the Judgments AM deere
of the United States Courts are erroneous, ana may u
on writ OF error or appeal, be reversed tur that eau
But they are not absolute utilities. Ii other part
who had No opportunity object TO their proceedlr
aud WHO would no. have writs OF error, may disl
gard them as utilities, it does not follow that the p'
ties themselves may SO treat them. kerpe's les.
vs.. Kennedy, oCr. is, Skiiern's Exo'r. We. Ma,
E1o'r, . Cranch 267, Mccormick VS.. Suiivans,
Wheat 49,.
1t IL alleged that the right Of property canuot