The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-08-18


more Williamson reached this city, we briefly remarked
upon it. not so much presumipg TO critcise il in a
legal point Of view as 10 commend public attention It's
apparent reasonabeness and point Of view
and 10 suggest the utter Confusion into which the whole
administration of Justice would fall If the law not
what il was stated to be by Chief Justice Lewis II has
not surprised us 10 perceive that the abolition journals
which besotted with three socalstic crotche ha-
bituay assume the nuly of all constitutions and laws
which stand in the way Of their erocous anatiesm and
which day by day magn and yituperate all the admins
traitors of aw-shoud have broken out into their accus
toned spasms Of hgherew deirousness the occasion
of Chief Justice Lewiss decision But ocniss 10 the
amazenlont we experienced when the New York Times
without stopping TO examine the subject undertook Flip
PANTY to characterize what had said "twaddle
and implicitly though directly, TO call in question the
Judgment by Chief Justice Lewis In refer
ence to the main question well TO that of confusion
we invite our readers generally peruse the following de-
cson in the Supreme Court Of the United States, as de-
vcred by Judge Story and which we transcribe from the
| 7th volume Of Wheaton's Reports:
I" Eo parte Kearney.
sMr. Jones moved for ho1ea corpus to brig up the
body of John Kearney in Jail 10 the custody Of the
marshal, under commitment Of tho Circuit court for the Dis
rct of Columbia alleged contempt The petition stated
OF Indictment court, the
examined witness and refused to answer certain
question which put him. because he conceived u tend
ed materially mpicate him. and to criminals him as
pareep criinis. The objection was oyerruled by the
court and he having persisted in refusing to answer the
question: was committed jail for the supposed contempt
and for no other
Mr. Jones, for the petitioner now argaed-l That this
power isGe the writ Of haas corpus in
every where the personal liberty OF the citizen re-
strained under the judicial authority of the Union The r
rdicton settled by uniform series of decisions 1t had
been exercised in of reason in where The war
Of commitment Detective in not showing good
certain oath affirmation and at last the of
Boman Swartwout setted the power of the court to be
anil with the general judicial power Of
| the Union.
40. He insisted that ct made out to justify the
exercise of the jurisdiction upon the present application
The jurisdiction of this court cannot depend upon the nature
of the commitment by the other The writ OF haJeaa
is writ Of right and the nature and grounds of the
commitment to be looked into the return This court
have power issue the writ where inferior court
for contempt because If process Of
tempt be branch of criminal judicaure, considered
punishment for offence this court has authority to
troll all inferior courts and magistrates. In England the
court Of pleas although tribunal Of original and
jurisdiction only has from the earliest times exercised
authority of issuing the writs of ha5eas copus to inquire
into the of commitmentsby other jurisdictions
"Mr. Swami, district acrney) contra, admitted that
this court had general power of issuing the writ of habeas
coru, suicsssiu all the other and officers Of
the United States, but insisted that this not in
which the court could exercise the authority Because the
circuit court for the District of Columbia inferior ri
buna il did not therefore, follow that appeal lies to
this court from its judgment in criminal This court
has appellate jurisdiction In criminal cases. " can only
the decisions of the circuit court in such where
there is certificate of division of opinion Of the judges be-
low. Here there doubt the court had jurisdiction OF
the case which the party committed for refusing to
question put him. and which the court had de-
ermined he bound to This cannot revise
the principal by appellate process neither Il
tvrIc hnsi 10
Of justice must have disceory power of Furnishing
contempts and IL appeal allowed upon every inter-
ocuory Judgment of this Sort would be the greatest
| possible embarrassment and confusion.
Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court
/ and, after stating the case, proceeded as follows
"Upon the argument Of this motion, two questions have
been made FIRST whether this court has authority % ssue
abcas corpus where person in Jail under the warrant or
order of any other Of the United States secondly if
it have WHETHER upon the stated facts fit made out
/ to justify the exercise of such authority
Gas TO the FIRST question: it unnecessary to than
that the point has already passed in iudiean in this
In the Of Bolman and Swartwout q Cranch
75) expressly decided, upon full argument that this
possessed such authority and the question has
| since been at least considered at rest
The second point is Of much Importance. 1t is to
be considered that this has appellate jurisdiction
condcd to it in criminal by the laws of the United
States II cannot entertain writ Of to revise the
Judgment of the circuit court in any where the party
has been convicted of public Offences and undoubtedly the
denial of this authority proceeded upon great principles of
public policy and convenience every party had right to
bring before this court every in which Judgment had
passed against him for crime, misdemcanor, felony
the justice might be materially delayed and obruc
ed, and in totally frustrated. IT. then, this court
cannot directly revise Judgment of the circuit court in
criminal case what there suppose that it was in
tended to vest it with the authority to do it ndrecuy2
at is also to be observed that there is question here
but that this commitment made by of competent
Jurisdiction, and in the exercise of unquestonabe author
ity The only objection is not that the court acted be-
yond its ursdiction but that it erred in its Judgment
OF the law applicable to the II, then, to
of the court given in the Of criminal trial. and thus
asserting right to control its proceedings, and take from
them the conclusive effect which the law intended to give
them II this application for habeas corpus, after
Judgment indictment for offence within the urisdc
ton of the circuit court could hardly be maintained that
this court could revise such Judgment the proceedings
which led to set it aside and discharge the prisoner
There is in principle distinction between that and
the present for when commits party for a
tempt their adjudication is conviction, and their commit
men in consequence, is execution and the law
tied upon full deberaon in the of Brass Crasb Lord
| Mayor of London. G Wilson, 1881
"ndced, in that the point before the cout
in this. 1t application to tho court of commoa
pleas for habeas corpus bring the body of the Lord
Mayor, who committed for contempt by House of
Commons. The habeas corpus granted and upon the
the of contempt for which the party
mtcd were set FORTH 1t argued that the House Of
Commons had authority to commit for n contempt and