New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-10
preue Court of Pennsylvania must be presumed,


English Jurt cannot svsl teem. It Is Their busi-
ress to know, and they must be Presumed to
know. what IL the extent Of tue authority Of
Judge Ks1e in this matter Of imprisonm slts for
Contempt
To this excuse Of ienora1ce as to what the
rights ii the House of Commons are, tie Ea.
oiish CbietJust,ce adds another. as follows:
Be.des az the Court cannot 20 out Of the return
al his vr7t how u caa inquire into tie truth OF
tse fact ~ 70 the nature Of the ,ortomp We have
10 means Of tping Whistler toe LORI Mayo I'D
hight or wrong; this Court canno' SUNNI - J1ry %
try he ma or; we cannot examine ITO toe 'ac mere
are 10 parties in cation before the Court We can
not II IN ANYBODY; Vt cannot i,sT any sulCss1s or
derOstOns Of witnossc. cannot issue any roc So
We even now hearing. cr Parte, and without any
counsel on the contrary tide.
An this is quito plausible in the mouth of
ChiefJustce De Grey, but will by no means
serve the turn Of Chlef-Justice L. sis. Il may
be very questionable whether, granting Judge
Kane's authority to issue she writ OF habeAs ;or-
pu., lie yet had any authority to go out of the
return to hunt up contempt, or for any other
purpose: but ths Habeas Corpus Act of Penn
sylvania expressly allows the making Of sugses-
tions against the return, "that thereby II ite-
rial facts may be s.cer,ained."
The only point indeed urged by the English
Court of Common Peas that can in the least
avail Juoee Lewis is the alleged practice, and
tie pretended rsasousbleness and necessity OF
ii At practice, that in cases of commttlls for
aue.ed contempts the courts of Westminster
Hall d } Lot interfere for the relief of Ri, par
tie. so committed but leave them entirely 10 the
Justice or injustice Of the court making the
committal This point was chiefly d1st upon
b, Mr.. Justice Blackstone, who also delivered
al cpin on 10 the case, ia which be expressed
himself in these words: "All courts, by which
Il mean to IL clude the two houses of Pafla-
"mept and the courts of Westminster Hall, can
baye no control (of Zach Others prOceelngs)
"in matters of contempt The sole aJudicd-
a." tion Of contempts and the punishment thereof
sin sny manner belong exclusively aud with
"out inter fering to each respective court. To-
finite confusion and disorder would follow If
courts could, by wri, of habess corpus, eX-
anime and determine the cOntempts of others
"Ttis power 20 c, mmit results from the FIRST
principles of justi.e, for if they have power
"to decide they ought to have power to
"punish. No other court shall scan the judg-
"ment of superior court or the principal
seat of ustice; as / said before, il would
"occasion the utmost confusion if every
"coutt Of this hall should have power to
examine the commitments of the other courts
of the Hall, fer contemplate thaE the judg
" ueuts and commitments of each respective
" court as TO contempts must be final and With
" out control. /, is confidence that may with
perfect safety and security be reposed 10 the
judges and Houses of Parliament" Such
is the argument or rather the statement Of
Blackstone, as to which we observe that there
seems TO be little Inconsistency in thus urging
the "confdence" that may With perfect
" safety aud security Be reP-sei in the courts
and at the same time arguing THAI if they we're
permitted to re examine each others committlls
fer contempts, "iLfiLite confusion and disorder
would i,llOw.' The moment it is proposed
20 ;sminister to doctors little of their o~n
,neai.,,a ,ss4v are seized with sudden qu4lms
sns reject il "a Il fcuk poison Ii the courts
cannot renose confidence 10 each other, with
what face can they recommend each other TO
the confidence Of the public So faf from this re-
examination OF commitSals fer contempfs oeiug
hbtly TO lead 70 Infinite cIniusion and dlsor'
" GER, il seems ~ Us TO be demsnded al.he oy
n C interests of the courts and Of tie public.
1t is not likely that parties cOml2'ttei
for con,cmpts would be released where there
was any plausible pretext for holding them.
Even apart from cur confidence in the justice of
the courts We may safely trust their esprit In
co rps for that, and a doubtful decision thus in-
dorsed by another court would obtain thereby
on additional claim 10 the respect of the public.
II IS feoIf.l thing to leave the liberty of man
to the sole judgment of single judge, and he,
too. acting in bis own case. OF all cases IN the
world we should say this vas the very one
which uOst needed reexaminaton and review.
Nor are We aware of any greater service which
courts Of justice could possibly render to each
other than to correct each Others errors Of this
sort. In fact, sc are bold TO say that at this
very moment Judge Kane would be infinitely
obliged 20 ChiefJustice Lewis, or to anybody
else VINO would step in 70 release Psssmore
Williamson from an Imprisonment which, every
day that it Tests, sccumulates against Judge
Kane a fresh weight Of fearful responsibility,
from which, however, he cannot withdraw with
out that gIeatest Of all humiiiations to man of
Judge X mes character and cll!ber-she public
confession CT Lis error.
.-----------as---~---@
..BRFAD WITH TIE GIN ~ IT."
81 .-,~+ To-,,,,or.ros r,o,,ar,anl