Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-07-31
From The Pennsylvania.
Opinion OF Judge Kane in the Wheeler
Slave Case.

UNITED STATES DIsTRicT CouRT. - Judge
kane-The two questions of contempt OF court
and perjury in Passmore Williamson, IA mol
obeying the commands OF the writ Of habeas cor
pus, and in making an alleged false return there
to, was up for decision yesterday morning.
Judge Kane delivered very learned and exceed
ingly able opinion in relation to the subject.
The u. g. "A. er-rei Wheeler ps. Passmore
WiiiiamSon--Strr Habeas Corpus, q July, 1855.
Colonel John I'll. Wheeler, of North Carolina,
the United States Minister TO Nicaragua, was on
board steamboat, at one of the Delaware
wharves, on his way from w Washington, TO en-
bark ut New York for his post of duty. Three
slaves, belonging to him, were sitting at his 81 ie
on the upper deck
Just as the last signal bell was ringing, Pass
more Williamson came up To the party-declared
to the slaves that they were free-and forcibly
pressing Mr.. Wheeler aside, urged them to 60
ashore He was followed by some dozen or
twenty negroes, who by muscular strength car
ried the slaves to the adjoining pier; two Of the
slaves at least, if not all three, struggling to re-
lease themselves, and protesting their wish to re-
main with their master; two of the negro mob in
the meantime grasping Colonel Wheeler by the
collar, and threatening to cut his throat if he
made any resistance.
The slaves were borne along to a hackney
coach tA4t was in waiting, and were conveyed to
some place Of concealment; Mr.. Williamson fol-
lowing and urging forward the mob, and giving
the declaration that he held himself responsible
towards him for whatever might be his legal
rights; but taking personally active part in
the abduction after he had left the dock.
l allowed writ of Habeas Corpus at the in
stance Of Colonel Wheeler and subsequently an
alias; and to this last, Mr.. Williamson made re-
turn, that tho persons named in the writ, ''nor
either Of them, are not now, nor was at the time
of issuing of the writ or the original writ, or at
any other time, in the custody, power, posses
sion Of the respondent, nor by him confined or
restrained: Wherefore he cannot have the
bodies" etc.
At the hearing allowed the relator to traverse
asked by him, testified to the facts as have re-
cited them. The District Attorney, upon this
state of facts, moved for Williamson commit
ment: /. for contempt in making false return;
2. to take his trial for perjury.
Mr.. Williamson then took the stand to purge
himself of contempt He admitted the facts sub
stantially in prof before made it plain that he
had been adviser Of the project, and had given
it his confederate sanction throughout. He re-
newed his denial that he had control at any time
over the movements of the slaves, or knew their
present whereabouts. Such is the case, as it was
beforeane on the hearing.
cannot look upon this return otherwise than as
ilusory--in legal phrase, evasive, if not false.
1t sets out that the alleged prisoners not now,
and have not been since the issue OF the habeas
corpus, in the custody, power or possession of the
respondent; and in SO far, it uses legally appro-
pirate language for such return. But it goes
further, and by added words, gives an interpreta-
ton to that language essentially variant from its
legal import
1t denies that the prisoners were within his pow
er, custody or possession at any time tohaterer
Now, the evidence of respectable, uncontrolled
witnesses, and the admission of the respondent
himself establish the fact beyond controversy that
and control. He was the person by whose counsel
the so-called rescue was devised. He gave the di-
rections and fastened to the pier to stimulate and
supervise their execution. He was the spokesman
and first actor after arriving there. Ofall the par
ties TO the act of violence, he was the only white
man, the only citizen, the only individual having
recognized political right, the only person whose
social training could certainly interpret either her
own duties or the rights of others under the Con-
stitution of the land.
II would be futile, and worse, to argue, that he
who has organized and guided, and headed mob,
to effect the abduction and imprisonment Of others
he in whose presence and bv whose active infu-
ence the abduction and imprisonment have been
brought about-might excuse himself from respon-
sbty by the assertion that it was not his hand
that made the unlawful assault, or that he never
acted as the goaler. He who unites with others to
commit crime shares with them all the legal liza
bilites that attend on its commission. He chooses
This is the retributIve law of all concerted
crimes; and its argument applies with peculiar
force to those cases in which redress and preven-
ton of wrong are sought through the writ of ma
behs corpus. This, the great remedial process by
which liberty is indicated and restored, toerates
no language in the response which il calls for that
can mask sabtcrluge. The dearest interests of
life, personal safety, domestic peace, social re-
pose, all that man can value, or that is worth
living for, involved in this principle. The
institutions Of society would lose more than half
their valuey and courts Of justice become impo-
tent for protection, if the writ of habeas corpus
could not compel the truth, full direct, and une-
quvocal, in answer 10 it's mandate
II will not do TO say to the man, whose wife or
whose daughter has been abducted, 81 did not
abduct her; she is not in my possession, i do not
detain her. nasmuch as the assault was made by
the hand Of my subordinate, and have forborne
to ask where they propose concentrating the
wrong"
II is clear, then, it seems to us, that in legal
acceptance the parties whom this writ called on
Mr.. Williamson 10 produce, were at one time
within his power and control; and his answer,
so far as relates 10 his power over them, makes
no distinction between that time and the present.
cannot give different Interpretation to his Lam
gunge from that which he has practically given
himself, and cannot regard him as denying his
power over the prisoner now, when he does not
aver that he has lost the power which he for
merly had.
He has thus refused, or at least he has failed
TO answer TO the command Of the law. He has
chosen to decide for himself upon the lawfulness
MS well as the moral propriety Of his act, and to
withhold the ascertainment and vindication Of
the rights Of others from that forum of arbi-
trament on which all his own rights reposc In a
word, he has put himself in contempt of the pro-
cess Of this Court and challenges its action.
That action can have no Alternative form. II 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 now before the Court to eK-
cuse eveTa 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, IL there be any
such, they would claim the discharge Of their eli
emit. Only one has occurred 10 me as, perhaps
within his view; and on this think il right TO ex
press my opinion. ] will frankly reconsider Il
however, il any future aspect OF the case shall in
vte the review.
Ii Is this: that the persons named in this writ