The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-08-02
The Wheeler Slave Case.
APPLICATION FOR HABEAs UORPUs -JuDGg Lxwrs's

"
ftIom the Philaceiphia Bulletir, Aug. IL
An application was macu yesterday to tne Hon. Ellis
Ls~s, Chief Justice, fcra Srit OF haoeas corpus 10
toy of TIE Marshal Of tire Un.ed states, IN Moyamen
sing prison, pncer commitmen, by the District Court
Of the United States for contempt OF Court 10 mating
an alleged false evasive return to the writ
the Wheeler slave case. The foo cling Is sbatract
Of tie opinion OF Judge Lewis given this mornrg
ply TO the motion The supreme Court was III Chambers
at the time
his is an application for hsbeas corpus. Annexed
10 the petition And forming part Of it, is commitment
by the United States Distinct Court tor contempt Of
that Court in refusing to writ Of habeas corpus
Of John H. Wheeler TIE counsel for the prisoner
ky stated that Trey did not desire the for
malty of writ Of habeas corpas, IL, upo
view OF the OF retainer, ! should be OF
opinion that the acuscston Of the District Court
conclusive The habeA corpus act does no. require that
the writ shouc issue in all cases whatever. While the
prisoner is detained by legal process, warrant
Ger, fer offence not bailabe the excepeed out
the act (Sse act Of 18th February 1855, section
20 where the has alresdy been decided upon the
evidence by another Judge there lie NO obligation
TO issue writ for q rehearng. % Bin., 3pfl We
come, therefore. at ence to Inc cause OF detaner.
Judge OF contempts against itself IL would lead 70 end
ess confusion il one court was TO reconscer contemps
a6inoicated by another This doctrine established
in the Lord May or Lon5en's case; Wis, 1sS. The
same ootrne rmed by the Supreme Court OF the
U.i,ed states in Kearnsv's case; 4 whes IS. Many
other the effect cited by Chief Justice
Cranch, in Nugents case, American LAW Journal I.
Put II Is alleged that the District Court has no jursdc
hearing before court The act OF Congress- OF 1885,
gives power To issue writs of habess corpus when
necessary for the purposes Of It's ana &C.
the Judge of that court TO issue writ for the pu--
Iose Of inquirrg into the cause o. commsuent, pro-
vided It snail not extend 20 persons in jail, uniess
committed under the authority Of the United states,
CT for trial before court o. the United states.
or where the prisoner Ia required 10 give testimony.
Other acts OF Congress- auth,rze the District Judge TO
issue wrts OF kabeAs corpus other specified cases IL
s not that IL issued in this cass fos persons
IN jn, sppesr TO have been awarded In vo-
lat n OF State process state authority u may be
tbAt la action of Law where the judgment o. the -
Court ia relied defence. the addiction must be
shown, but in writ of hatcas corpus before judge
who has sppeiant jurisdicton, Wherever ths jurs
cton Of tie T. e. Court depends upon the exsteacs OF
has been rated On the hearing befors It, every
tact neoeftary to give jurisdiction ought TO
OF the O. & Court are erroneous where they do
not slese jurisdictions and may be reversed appeal
wit OF FOR this cause but they are not to De
treated absolute nultss oy the parties who might
have reversed IL, m error hcccrm OK W. Sullivan,
10 Whsa 1e2. II thrd persons who had 70 such oppor
turity may regard thsm IL Goes not follow that fhe
perstns themselves may regard them AZ nallisies 10
col sttrsl proceedings II ia alleged that the wit Of
tates corpus cannot be used for the purpose OF
deciding The right OF property. II IL rae thAt the
hates corpus set dees not auihorzs the issuing
OF a witt for that purpose, but writ OF haoeas
corpus at common law mar be used to oever an inian,
10 Tho psrtufs or An appept ce 10 o MISTER. Common
w.ath W Robinson 1T II 35s. see no ressen Why
the writ AZ common Law may not te issued for the pur
rose az Delivering slave "a ON Illegal restraint aud re-
tVrLrg him 10 his master Conoedng, then for the
purroseo Of argument--which we by no means iatmNs
TO Re true in poiat of cfthat the lis riot Court com
ntted deciding tnat the prisoner refused TO
answer The visit, and in giving construction 10 ihe
answer actually evtn--thst sew In making an i'm.
proper use OF TIE writ ts II yola,ed the right OF
70. prisontr in ether pointssi II is not In my
pr.r 20 rsvtse i,s ceesloa on soy ot these sronnds
y the STATE Court h,d issued writ OF tsbeas corpus
cnectsa 70 The United states Marshal ard had acjadi-
cate tha' ne was guilt, o. contempt 10 refusing 10
sn,..r IT. And united him to rrisor, the District
Court OF the nitcd states old nave pewA to re-
tate BIN Suoh an Interference With tae judgment OF
the state courfs would not be tolerated The respect
claim for our own iursdetoa ws ohseSsuly coacsds
10 the cee.soss other az com ostsct ursdic
tcs For tsss rsAssss the vr.' Of hsssas csrpxs u
refused