The Daily Nashville true Whig. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1851-1855, 1855-08-03

Il
to ask where they propose concentrating the
wrong.
Il is clear then, as it seems to u.s. that in legal
accepta nee the parties whom this writ called on
Mr.. Williamson to produce; were at one time with
in bis power and CONTROL and his answer, so far as
il relates TO his power over them, makes no distnc-
ton between that time and the present / cannot
give different Interpretation to his language from
that which he has practically given himself, aud
cannot regard him as DENYING bis power over
the prisoner now when he does Dot aver that he
has lost the power which he Formerly bad.
He thus refused, or lerst he has failed, to an
swer to the commands Of the law. BE has chosen
10 decide for himself upon the lawfulness as well as
the moral propriety OF Insect, and TO withhold the
ascerainment and vindicaton OF the rights OF 9TH
ers from that same forum of arbitrament on which
all bis own rights repose. In word, he has put
himself in contempt of the process Of this Court
and challenges its action.
That action can have no alternative form. 1t is
one too clearly defined by ancient and honorable
precedent, too indispensable to the administration
of social Justice and the protection Of human right
and too potentially invoked by the special exigency
of the case now before the Court 10 excuse even
doubt of my duty or an apology for its immediate
performance.
The cause was submitted to me by the learned
counsel for the respondent, without argument, and
have therefore found myself at some loss to un-
derstand the grounds on which, if there be any
SUCH they would claim the discharge OF their client
Only one has occurred to me as perhaps within his
view: and on this think it right to express my
opinion. I will frankly reconsider it however, if
any future aspect Of the case shall invite the re-
view.
1t is this: that the persons named in this writ as
detained by the respondent were not legally slaves
nasmuch as they within the territory OF Penn
sylvania when they were abducted.
Waving the inquiry, whether for the purpose
of this question they within the territorial Ju-
risdiction of Pennsylvania while passing from one
State to another upon the navigabe waters OF the
United States-a point on which my first impress
sions are adverse to the argument-I have to say !:
l. know OF no statute, either of the United
States or of Pennsylvania, or of New Jersey, the
only other State that has qualified jurisdiction
this part of the Delaware that authorizes the forc
BILE abduction of any person or thing whatsoever,
without claim of property unless in aid of legal
process.
2. That know of no statute of Pennsylvania,
which affect to dvest the rights of property of a
citizen of North Carolina, acquired and asserted
under the laws of that State, because he has found
it needful convenient to pass Through the terri
tory of Pennsylvania.
3. That am not aware that any such statute,
if such one were shown, could be recognized as
valid in Court of the United States.
whether they were slaves or not. 1t would be the
mOckery of philanthrophy to assert, that, because
men had become free, they might therefor be forci-
bly, abducted.
have said nothing of the motives by which the
respondent has been governed. / have nothing to
do with them; they may give him support and
comfort before an infinitely high tribunal; do not
impugn them here.
Nor do aude on the other hand to those spe.
cia o1a has ifahi yVhI
the diplomatic character of Mr.. Wheeler might
seem to assert for him. I am doubtful whether
the Acts of Congress give to him and his retnue
and his property that protection representative
Of the sovereignty of the United States which they
concede to all sovereignties besides. Whether,
under the general law of nations, he could not ask
a broader privilege than some judicial presidents
might seem to admit is not necessarily involved IN
the cause before me.
1t is enough that find, as the case stands now,
the plain and simple grounds Of adjudication, that
Mr. williamson has not returned ruthtuly and fully
to the writ of hGbeaS corpus. He must, therefore,
stand committed for contempt of theiegal process
of the Court.
As to the second motion of the District Attorney,
that which looks to a commtta for perjury, with
hold expression of opinion in regard to it, 1t is
unnecessary, because Mr.. Williamson being under
arrest he may be charged at any time by the Grand
Jury; and apprehend that there may be doubts
whether the affidavit should not be regarded as ex-
ira judicial aud voluntary.
Let Mr.. Williamson, the respondent, be commit
ted to the custody of the Marshal without bail or
main prize, for a contempt of the Court in refus
ing to answer to the writ of hdbeas corpus here
tofore awarded against him at the relation of Mr..
Wheeler.
United States District Attorney, Vandyke, for
Mr.. Wheeler, and E. Hopper and 9. Gpin for de-
PENDANT.
District Attorney asked for warrant Of commit
ment under the seal of Court. Granted.
Mr.. Gilpn, for the defendant, asked leave to
amend the return so as to CONFORM to the views OF
this Court.
Judge Kane said he would give the defendant
full hearing upon any molten his counsel should
choose TO present.
The Court then took a recess.
Alter the decision by the Court, United States
Marshal Wynkoop took the prisoner into custody,
and conveyed him TO the Moyamensing Prison, in
carriage, and handed him over to the keepers.
number of Williamson's friends requested the Mar
shall TO put the prisoner into the custody OF one OF
his deputies, and thus avoid sending him TO prison,
but the Marshal declined by replying that he
would comply strictly with the mandate of the
Court
There was no demonstration Of any sort, although
the Court room and avenues leading thereto, were
crowded, nine tenths of the persons present ap-
proving of the action of the Judge.