The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-08-03

The appointment rendered to the able and faithful
chief clerk Of the Office that Of temporary Commits
soner, until the Office could be permanently filed
IMPORTANT OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS,
OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE WHEELER SLAVE
CASE.
We have to congratulate the country upon
the manliness and Independence of the State of Pennsy
Vauia Chief Justice Lewis of the supreme court of that
State upon petition for a writ Of ha5edS corpus the
relation Of Passmore williamson has refused to issue the
writ having decided every principle of right required
him 10 decide shat Williamson having been committed by
competent for contempt in making false return
under oath before that court could not be discharged by
any other court and must remain in prison TO pay
tie penalty Of bis wiful perjury. We rejoice to that
Chief Justice Lewis has the to give official express
son bis legal convictions IT. yielding TO the clamor Of
abolition manacs, he, disregardng the law had under
taken 10 release williamson the marshal of the United
States would of have refused obedience 10 the
der In that case the chief justice having entered upon
the of error would have been constrained to perse
we're in IT, and to order the commitment of the marshal
by State sheriff Thereupon, the marshal would him
self have applied for writ Of habeas corpus to the
United States court; and if the sheriff refused TO
obey this writ and the marshall then the sheriff
would lie committed by the United States judge and SO
on al fnum until the sheriff and all his deputies and
tue marsha and all his deputies held in confinement
one by the other and all law all justice utterly pros
trate ia Pennsylvania in order to enable Passmore Will
hanson 10 commit robbery and perjury with IMMUNITY.
Fortunately the State of Penusy and for the Uni
ted States Chief Justice Lewis had too much respect for the
rules commit this outrage upon the courts either
of the State or Of the United States Once more then the
State Of stands forth the great bulwark Of
the constitution and of the Union.
The following the opinion Of Chief Justice Lewis in
the Wheeler slave case in argument had be
fore him on an application for writ Of habcas corpus
Commonwealth er REL P. williamson f. NJ. Wynkoop,
United States marshal and Charles Hertz, keeper OF the
Philadelphia county prison.
LEWIS, G. This is application for writ OF habeos
eo II appears by the copies of the annexed to
tine petition that the prisoner confined for contempt OF
the district of the United States Sin refusing to answer
writ Of h5ca corpus awarded by that court against him
the relation Of John IL. Wheeler"
The coanse Of Mr. Williamson very frankly stated, in an
e 10 nm inter the subject that they did not de-
sire the useless ormay issuing the writ of habeas corpus
III on the of detaner exhibited should be of
opinion that the adjudication of the United States district
court was conclusive The habeos act does not require
the writ granted in all whatever Whenever 1T
appears upon face Of the petition which is the same
thing by deaner annexed to it and forming part OF it,
that prisoner detained legal process order or
warrant for such offences for which by the law the
act fsee act February 1885, ID In like MANNER
where the has been already heard the same evil
denca by the act OF assembly does not obge
Che Judges grant hcbeas corpus for the purpose OF
hearing it, although perhaps they may deem expedicnt
to do 30 in extraordinary instances Ex parte Law
renee, Bin. 304.)
We come therefore, to the of deainer. Is
II sega process order warrant, for offence which
nv law ID not baable?" Mr.. Justice Blackstone in Brass
Cosbys case Wilson, 1885, declared that call courts are
uncontrolled matters of contempt The sole adjudication
Of contempa the punishment thereof in manner be-
longs clusrey ,citho inteing to each respective
cot Infinite confusion and disorder would follow IL courts
ooud by hobeas corpus examine and determine the
contempts This power commit results from the
first principles Justice for, they have the power to dc.
eide they ought have the power to punish 1T would
occasion the confusion if every court OF this State
should have power examine the commitments of the other
courts Of the for contempts that the Judgment and
commitment of each respective court cone@te, must
Be- aat and ,sitou CONTROL 6 Wilson, 2ot) This doctrine
vas fully recognised by the court OF common pleas in Eng
land in the case referred 1t has since been approved Of
in numerous other in that country and in this.
In e parfs Rearney Wheaton, 49, it was affirmed by the
supreme Court United States in accordance with the
decision in Brass Crosbys case, Wilson 1ss, that when
court commits party for contempt their adjudication
conviction and their commitment IN consequence Is execu
zion n wheaton, 3s, Cond Rep. 227.) In the last
a Il was also expressly decided that " writ of habeo
eous was not deemed proper remedy where party was
committed for contempt by court OF competent Jurisdc
ton and that If granted the court could not INQUIRE INTO
tbe uIiejency Of of commitment q wheaton,
No Many authorities to effect cited by Chic
Justice Cranch in Nugents q American Law journal
1U.)
But il is alleged that the district court had no jurisdiction
n 5oea not appear that jurisdiction questioned on the
borin befre IT, The of Congress OF Gath September
17so gives Il mower to issue wr of habeas which
NAV be necessary for ursdction and agreenby TO the
prnopes and usages of law and the same act expressly
authorizes the udge Of that grant writs Of habea
corpus for the purpose Of inquiry into the cause OF com
ient proyided that writs Of habeos shall in nc
e extend to persons jail unless where they are in Gus
~ uuder the authority Of the United States or committed
Cor tot before some of the necessary to
h, brnugbt into court testify Other acts of Congress give
The limited states Judges jurisdiction in wrts of habeos
IN sas therein specified 1t docs not appear that the writ
issued for persons in Jail is in disregard of State process
or State authority II may be that in AN action at law
whore the Judgment Of United States court is relied
on as notification the Jurisdiction should be ahrmaavely
shown But in writ of Aabeos corpus issued by Judge
having no appellate power the tribunal whose Judgment
shown as the OF detaner, where the jurisdiction OF
the latter depends upon the existence OF certain ac ana no
cons 10 lis authority made the hearing, the W
risdcton ought to be presumed against the party VINO
might have raised question at the proper time but ed
TO do So IL is true that jurisdiction be not alleged IN
be proeeedngs the judgments and DEGREES OF the United
States courts and upon writ OF error or
appeal be reversed for Bpt they are not abso