Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-10-27
PAssMORE WILLIAMSON CASE.

Judge Kane is n tyrant coolly and with malice
atore thought. lie serves SHAREHOLDERS for his pay
and is resolved to serve them faithfully TO the end.
The outrage upon the personal liberties of the
citizens of Pennsylvania was not the result OIL
thougltlcssness or passionate impulse, but dcliber.
ately and after due reflection lie has resolve to sub
jugate Pennsylvania to the Federal power, to scout
and defy her laws and introduce sla very upon her
soil. All this is clearly manifest in his last decision.
a few days since Jane johnson appeared before
him by her council and asked that the writ of ha
beas corpus against Williamson be discharged.
We copy the Pittsburgh Dispatches comments
and selections from tho opinion;
Judge Kane refused to discharge the wr:t-lst.
because Weller, on whose application it was issued
had no legal night to tho custody of her or her
children I'd, because il was issued without her
know ledge or consent; Sd, because neither Wi.
hanson nor any other person had or havo her in
custody, or illegally restrain her; and 4th. because
under said writ, Wheeler seeks to return her anl
her children TO slavery, and not to give them liber-
~. These points were sustained by nm affidavit of
the woman. before Judge Loring, L. S. Commits
sioner for Massachusetts.
Judge Kane refused to receive the motion until
after argument as to her right be heard in that
court.
On Friday he read a very long opinion, review
ing his previous course in tho case. sustaining the
views heretofore expressed by him. lie then de-
cided that the paper could not be fled, for thi
following reasons:
The very name Of the person who authenticates
the paper is a stranger to any proceeding that is
or has been before me. She asks no judicial ne
ton for herself, and does not profess to have any
right to solicit action in behalf of another on the
contrary, her counsel here assures me expressly,
that Mr., Williamson has not sanctioned her appli-
cation. She has therefore no status whatever in this
Court.
Were she here as party, to abide its action.
she should have a right to be heard according to
the forms Of law were she here as a witness, call
ed 3y n party, her identity asceItained, she might
be examined as to all facts supposed to be within
her knowledge. But our records cannot be opened
to every stranger, who volunteers to us a sugres-
ton as to what may have been our errors, and how
we may repair them.
know that the irrit Of AQbeas corpus can only
be inroked by the paTfy ,cho is restrained Of liberty
or By some one IN his dehaJ. l know. too that it
has been the reproach of the English Courts that
they have too willingly exacted proof that the APP
~plication was authorized Ivy the aggrieved. before
permitting the writ 10 issue. But, as get, the
Courts of the United States have, | think, avoided
this error. The writ issues here, whenever it is
shown by affidavit that it's beneGccnt agency is
needed. 1t would lose its benefcent agency, if it
could not issue without a petition from the party
fD'' - 1'HN WV hLoA nv ilAd uNltGhtCh y
represent him. His very presence in court to de-
mand the writ would, in some sort, negative the
restraint, which his petition must allcge. In the
most urgent cases. those in which delay would be
disastrous, forcible abduction, secret imprisonment,
and the like, tie very grievance under which he i ;
suffering precludes the possibility of his applying
in person or constituting a representative. The
American books are full of cases they are with
in the experience Of every practitioner at the bar,
in which the writ has issued ut the instance of
third persons, who had no other interest or right in
the matter than what every man comedies to SYM
pathy with the oppressed. | need only refer to
the case | have quoted from in 3 Mason, and the
case of Stacy in 10 johnson, for illustration of this
practice.
OF course, if it appears to the Court at any time
that the writ WAS asked for by an intermeddling
stranger, one who had no authority to intervene.
and whose intervention is repudiated, the writ will
be q%uashed. But it is for tie defendant, to whom
the writ is addressed, to allege II want Of authori.
ty IN the relator. The motion to quash cannot be
the act Of a volunteer. Still less it come 10 Us by
written suggestion, from without our iurisdic-
tiOn, in the meme of the patty who is alleged TO be
under constraint, and whose very denial that she
is 80 may be only Il proaf that the constraint is
may add that I have examined all Tie author.
tiles which were brought before me By the learned
with mort of them | was familiar before.
But there is not one among them, which in my
judgement conflicts with the views | have ex-
pressed.
The application to enter this paper among he
records Of the Court must therefore be refused.
49,. But by far the most important portion of
Judge kane's opinion is that wherein lie decides
that a STARE dedieT Atay iagaAy drire 4 cofle Of siares
hfoHgh feaRSylroHid-may send them from Balti.
more, via Harrisburgh, to Pittsburgh, by railroad.
ship them at our whalf for the New Orleans
narket-and that PENNSYLVANIA uAs NO POWER To
PREVENT 1T! Here il is:
This brings me to the second part of the no.
ition affirmed in the Courts opinion. namely
he right of a citizen of one State to pass freely
With his slaves through the territory Of another
state, In which the institution Of slavery is not
recognized.
| need not say, that before the compact Of union I
vas formed between the States, each of them was
n absolutely sovereign and independent coInmu.
ity and that, except 50 far as their relations TO
ach other and foreign nations have been qualified
" the L ederal Constitution, each of them remains
o. As such, it is bound by that great moral code.
which, because Of it2 universal obligation, is called {
he Law Of Nations. What it could not do if freed
rom federal Restrictions, it cannot do now every /
upon its policy, which duty to other
would in that case involve, binds it still, !
ust as Ii the Union had leen dissolved Or had
lever been formed.
All the statistics unite in regarding the riqht of
ransit for persons and property through the terri. I
DRY OF a friendly State as among those which can
0t under ordinary circumstances be denied. Vat (
b, 2 oh. 10, Z 1872, 4; PqfsuderC b. 3, oh 3. :
8, 81 RutheIt. Inst. B. . Oh. 0 l Eent Com. 8
3, 50. 1t is true that the right is not an unouali- !
ed one. The State may impose reasonable con. t
itions upon its exercise, and exact guarantees c
gainst its abuse. But subject to these limita- q
ions, it is the right Of every citizen Of n friendly I
i
The right is the same, and admits Just the same s
publications., as to persons and to property. The
anne argument that denies the right Of peacefully I
ones property through the territories
t a State, refuses the right Of passage to its own.
r. And the question, what is to lie deemed prno.
rty in such n case, refers itself necessarily 10 the
NV Of the State from ichich the citizen brings il.
different test would sanction the cunfiscatinn Of
at the will Of the sovel eign through whose
.erritory it seeks to pass. Ii one State NAV de.
that there shall be no property, no right Of
wnership in human beings; another. in a spirit of
tactical philanthropy, only a liule more energetic
deny the protection Of law to the products of