The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-09-20

This prisoner, as already said, is confined on
| a sentence of the District Court of the United
States, for a contempt. A habeaS corpus is
not writ of error. 1t cannot bring a case be-
fore us in such manner that we can exercise
any kind of appellate Jurisdiction in it.
I On a habeas corpus, the Judgment even of a
subordinate State Court cannot be disregard
ed, reversed, set aside, however clearly we
may perceive 1t to be erroneous, and however
plain it may be that we ought to reverse it if it
were before US appeal or writ of error. We
can only look at the record, to see whether a
judgment exists, and have no power to say
whether it is right or wrong. 1t is conclusively
presumed to be right until it is regularly brought
up for revision.
We decided this three years ago, at Sunbury,
in case which we all thought one of much
| hardship. But the rule is so familiar so uni
| versally acknowledged, and so reasonable in it.
self, that it requires only to be stated. 1t ap-
plies with still greater force, or at least for
much stronger reasons, to the decisions of the
Federal Courts.
Over them we have no control at all, under
any circumstances, or by any process that
could be devised. These tribunals belong to
different judicial system from ours They adj
minister a different code Of laws, and are re-
sponsbe to a different sovereignty
The District Court of the United States is as
Independent of us as We are of it-as independ
ent as the Supreme Court of the United States
is of either. What the law and the Constitu-
ton have forbidden us to do directly on writ of
error, We, of course, cannot do indirectly by
Ha6edS corpus.
But the petitioners counsel have put his case
on the ground that the whole proceeding against
him in the District Court was coram non .judice,
null and void
1t is certainly true that void Judgment may
be regarded as no judgment at all and every
judgment is void which clearly appears on its
own face to have been pronounced by a Court
having no jurisdiction or authority in the sub
ject matter
For instance, if Federal Court should con-
Wet and sentence a citizen for libel; or if a
State Court, having no jurisdiction except in
civil pleas, should try indictment for a crime,
f and convict the party-in these cases the judy
ment would be wholly void.
| If the petitioner can bring himself within
this principle, then there is no judgment against
him he is wrongfully imprisoned, and we must
order him to be brought out and discharged.
What is he detained for? The answer is
easy and simple. The commitment shows that
he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced for
! contempt Of Court, and nothing else He is
now confined IN erecution Of that sentence, and
for no other cause. This was a distinct and sub
stantive offence against the authority and Gov
eminent of the United States. Does anybody
: doubt the jurisdiction of the District Court to
punish contempt? Certainly not. All Courts
have this power and must necessarily have it ;
, otherwise, they could not protect themselves
from insult, or force obedience to their process.
Without it, they would be utterly powerless.
The authority to deal with an offender of this
, class belongs exclusively to the Court in which
, the offence is committed +; and no other Court,
! not even the highest, can interfere with its ex-
ercise, either by writ OF error, mandamus, or
ho6eas corpus. If the power be abused, there
is no remedy but impeachment. The law was
so held by this Court in McLaughlin's case, Is
w. 4 S., 275,) and by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Kearney's case, e Wharton
! 49, 1t was solemnly settled, as part of the
common law, in Brass Crosley's case, e. Will
son, 1887 by Court in which sat two of the
foremost iurists that England ever produced.
We have not the smallest doubt that it is the
law and we must administer it as we find it..
! The only attempt ever made to disregard it was
by New York Judge, q Johns. R., 345,) who
was not supported by his brethren. This at
tempt was followed by all the evil and confusion
which Blackstone and Kent and Story declared
to be its necessary consequences. Whoever
will trace that singular controversy to its term-
nation, will see that the Chancellor and the ma
jorty of the Supreme Court, though once out
voted in the Senate, were never answered.
The Senate itself yielded to the force Of the
truths which the Supreme Court had laid down
so clearly, and the judgment of the Court of Err
rors in Totes's case, &c Johns, $685. was over
: ruled by the same Court the year afterwards, in
. Yates vs.. lansing, 60 Johns. r., 423,) which
, grew out OF the very same transaction, and de-
: pended upon the same principles. Still further
reflection at later period induced the Senate
2 to join the popular branch of the Legislature
E in passing a statute which effectually prevents
: one Judge from interfering by hdbeds corpus
with the judgment Of another, on a question of
! contempt
These principles being settled, it follows ire
sistibly that the District Court of the United
, States had power and jurisdiction to decide
: what acts constitute a contempt against it to
determine whether the petitioner had been gull
ty Of contempt; and to inhct upon him the
punishment which, in its opinion, he ought to
suffer. If we fully believed the petitioner to
! be innocent-if we were sure that the Court
which convicted him misunderstood the facts,
; or misapped the law-still we could not re-
examine the evidence, or rejudge the justice of
the case, without grossly disregarding what we
know to be the law of the land. The Judge
of the District Court decided the question on
his own constitutional responsibility. Even if
, he could be shown to have acted tyrannically
or corrupty, he could be called to answer for
it only in the Senate of the United States.
But the counsel of the petitioner go behind
the proceeding in which he was convicted,
and argue that the sentence for contempt is
: void, because the Court had no jurisdiction of
a certain other matter which it was nvestga-
ting, or attempting to investigate when the con-
! tempt was committed We find a Judgment
against him in one case; and he complains
about another, in which there is no Judgment.
. He is suffering for offence against the Uni
: ted States; and he says he is innocent of any
wrong to particular individual. He is con-
, clusively adjudged guilty of contempt, and he
, tells us that the Court had no jurisdiction to re-
store Mr.. Wheeler's slaves.
1t must be remembered that contempt of
Court is specific criminal offence 1t is pun
!. ished, sometimes by Indictment and sometimes
' in summary proceeding, as it was in this
case. In either mode of trial, the adjudication
, against the offender is conviction, and the
: commitment in consequence is execution. q
e Wheat, 49, This is well settled and believe
s has never been doubted. Certainly the learned
/ counsel for the petitioner have not denied it.
The contempt may be connected with some par
e tlcnlar cause, or it may consist in misbehaviour,
4 which has a tendency to obstruct the admins
D tration of justice generally. When it is com
r mitted in a pending cause, the proceeding 20
punish is a proceeding by itself. 1t is not en-
{ titled in the cause pending, but on the crimi-
e nal side. wall, l34.)
q The record Of a conviction for contempt is
> as distinct from the matter under investigation
q when 1t was committed, as an indictment for
J. perjury is from the cause in which the false
. oatn was taken. Can person, convicted of
s perjury ask us to deliver him from the peni-
n Tertiary, on showing that tho oath on which