Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-11-10
Case of Passmore Williamson.

panied by MeSsrs. Meredith, Gilpin aud Hop
per, his counsel, and offered the following pc
tition =
PETITION.
United States Of America vs.. Williamson. District Court
OF the United States, Eastern districts OF Pennsylvania
To the honorable the Judge of the District Court of the
United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania.
The petition of PassmOre Williamson re-
spectfnlly showeth
That he desires to purge himself of the con-
tempt because of which he is now attached,
and to that end is willing to make true answers
to such i~nterrogatories as may be addressed to
him by the court touching the matter hereto
fore inquired Of him by the writ of habeas cor
pus to him directed at the relation of John I'll.
Wheeler.
Wherefore he prays that he may be permit
ted to purge himself of said contempt by max
ing true answers to such i~nterrogatories as may
be addressed to him by the honorable court
touching the premises.
P. WILLIAMSON.
Affirmed and subscribed before me, Nov. 2,
1855. CHAS. F. HEAZLITT, Us Com.
Judge Kane, after consideration, replied to
the petition as follows = .s
PASSWORDS WILLIAMSON The court has re-
ccived your petition, and, upon consideration
thereof, have thought right to grant the prayer
thereof. You will therefore make here in open
court, your solemn affirmation, that in the re-
turn heretofore made by you to the writ of
Mbeas corpus which issued from this court at
the relation of John H.. Wheeler, and in the
proceedings consequent thereupon, you have
not intended q contempt of this court or of its
process moreover, that you are now willing
to make true answers to such interrogatories
as may be addressed to you by the court, touch
ing the premises inquired of in the said writ Of
AGbcas corpus"
The required affirmation was then made in
the form dictated by the judge.
Mr.. Van Dyke, the district-attorney then
submitted an interrogatory in writing, which
was not read aloud at that time.
Mr.. Gilpin said Mr.. Williamson was per-
fcctly willing to answer the in~terrogatory sub
mitted by the district-attorney, but as he did
not know what other heterogeneous might fol-
low this, he thought it best that it and its an
swer should be fled.
Mr.. Van Dyke said he was willing either to
file the interrogatory or to submit it for an i'm
mediate reply.
Mr.. Gilpin and Judge Kane both remarked
that they had understood the diStrict-attorney
to intimate that if the question propounded
was answered in the affirmative he would be
satisfied. The court further said, that it was
for the petitioner to make his election whether
or not the i~nterrogatories and the replies should
be fled.
After consultation with his counsel, the pc
titioner preferred that the questions and an
swers should be filed.
The court directed that the interrogatories
should be fled. This was done, and the par
ties retired for a time.
Mr.. Gilpin then read the interrogatory that
had been propounded, and the reply Of Mr..
Williamson.
The defendant and his counsel then retired,
and after some time returned.
The i~nterrogatory was as follows
ISrERRoGAroRY.
United States VS.. Passmore williamson, Nov. >, 1855,
and now John c. Van Dyke, Attorney for the United
States, by leave granted files the following interrogatory:
Interrogatory-Did you, at the time of the
service of the writ of hdbeas corpus at the re-
lation of John FL. Wheeler, or at any time du.
ring the period intervening between the SER
vice of said writ and the making of your return
thereto, seek to obey the mandate of said writ,
by bringing before this honorable court the
persons of the slaves therein mentioned
If to this i~nterrogatory you answer in the
affirmative, state fully and particularly the
mode in which you sought so to obey said writ,
and all that you did tending to that end.
And, therefore, it is ordered that defendant,
Passmore Williamson, do make true answers
to said interrogatories.
The reply made was as follows. The reader
will, however, understand that this reply was
amended at the suggestion of the court, to con-
form better to the views of the district-attor.
ney. The following is the reply as amended !:
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT.
| did not seek to obey the writ by produc-
ing the persons therein mentioned before the
court, because / had not, at the time of the
service of the writ, the power over, the custo-
dy or control of them, and, therefore, it was
impossible for mt to do SO. / first heard of
the writ of habeas corpus on Friday, July 20,
between | and 2 o'clock q. m., OH my return
from Harrisburg. After breakfast, about 9
O'Clock, | went from my house to Mr.. Hopper's
Office, when and where the return was pre-
pared.
At 10 o'clock | came into court as command
ed by the writ. l sought to obey the writ by
answering it truly the parties not being in
my possession or control, it was impossible for
me to obey the writ by producing them. Since
the service Of the writ | have not had the Gus
tody, possession or power over them ; nor have
/ known where they were except from COM
mon rumor or the newspaper reports in regard
to their public appearance in the city or else
where.
Some discussion arose between the district
attorney and the counsel of Mr.. Williamson.
Van Dyke contended that the reply of the de-
PENDANT was cvasive and contradictory. The
judge said the difficulty, he thought, could be
easily overcome by amending the answer, and
to the suggestion of the court it was amended
in the following manner
| did not seek to obey the writ by produc-
ing the nersOns in the writ mentioned before