Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-11-17
"To the Honorable j. X. Kane, the Judge with,

"Passmore Williamson, the defendant in th
within writ mentioned, for return thereto respect
fully submits, that the within Named Jane, Dan
! lel, and lsainh or by whatsoever names they ma,
be called, nor either of them, are not now, no
, were at the time of issuing the said writ, or th
original writ, or ut duy other time, in the custody
power, or possession Of, confined, restrain
ed their liberty by him, the said Passmore William
son. Therefore he cannot have the bodies of the
said Jane Daniel and Isaiah, or either of them
before your Honor, as by the said writ is com
manded. (Signel) i. WILLIAMSON,
The above named Passmore Williamson, being
duly affirmed, says that The facts set forth in tho
above return are true p. WILLIAMSON.
Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 20tl
day Of July, A. D., 1855.
(Signed,) CnAs. F. ITEAztETT.
u. 5. Commissioner"
The return is in the ordinary form, with the ad
dition of the words in italics.
Mr.. Nandykc, the United States District Attor
ncy and counsel for Mr.. Wheeler objected to the
return as insufficient and untrue. Mr.. William
sons counsel contended that the return was com
plete, that it was not competent to 20 behind it
and that if the charge Of untruth were brought, il
should be made the subject of another hearing
and of a separate and substantial allegation
Judge Kane said that the testimony offered by Mr.
Nankyke should be admitted, and might be such
az 10 make out prima facie case of perjury, in
viii h event it might be his duty as committing
magistrate to bind Plssmore Williamson ovel for
perury. This revelation Of the feelings of the
Judge changed in n moment the whole aspect oil
the case. The Judge had become the prosecutor,
and before hearing evidence had allowed his feel.
ngs to betray him into violation of the decency
of the Bench, and an outrage upon the personal
character of one Of the most respectable Of our
citizens.
Mr.. VS. counsel asked Cor time to examine the
case and prepare proper defense, which was re-
fused by Judge Kane, unless the persons named
in the writ were broaght into Court Mr.. Van
dyke moved for an attachment against passmore
Williamson for contempt, and that he be held to
answer charge Of perjury Mr.. w, took the
stand. and under affirmation, made full and clear
statement of the whole transaction, SO far his
knowldge of it, and connection with it, extended.
His counsel at the opening, stated that they
ted their case upon the fact of entire negaton of
possession, and were ready to amend the return in
any manner directed by the Court, compatible
with that position. But at this stage OF the pro-
ceedings, they declined an argument, submitting
the case to the Judgment of the Court. Judge
Kane said that in view of the gravity of tho case,
he would take time to consider it, and in the mean
time, the respondent must enter bail, in the sum
OF 5000 for his appearance Friday morning,
the 9th of July to answer the charge of perjury;
that the motion in relation to contempt would 20
over till that day, when he would deliver his writ
ten opinion on the whole subject. lie added that
'he would also sry, at the risk of being consider
ed extra judicial, that if it is really in the power
of the defendant to produce the bodies of the three
persons, it would be better for him to do so" thus
leaving little room to doubt that his foregone dc
termination had been to obtain Jane and her chill
dren, 'cr the purpose Of their reinstatement or,
failing to do that to inilct vengeance on the man
who had enabled them to assert their legal rights
These proceedings occupied little time Moth
ing further done until the morning Of the 9th
when the Judge took his scat npon the Bench, and
tO tba nf ha al ohnnI aI no
charge of per jury, and committed the prisoner for
contempt. Probably, during the week in which
he considered the case, visions Of ury came be-
tween him and the man whom he would willing
ly condemn for perjury, and therefore he chose to
construct where this troublesome element
of American Jurisprudence would not interfere
with his plans. And thus was ar innocent citizen
sentenced to indefinite imprisonment, without Il
hearing, without trial, without the verdict of
jury of his peers, after having been brow-heaten
and charged with crime of deep dye by Judge
who should have presumed him innocent until he
was proved guilty.
The decision delivered by Judge Kane on this
occasion is perhaps the most remarkable legal doc
ument of our times. 1t will certainly be regarded
ms a barbarism OF the nineteenth century, should
it be preserved for the criticism of u wiser and
better generation. Among its monstrous features
it is difficult to decide whether it is most strongly
marked by its perversion of the facts; its clubbing
ingenuity the question of constructive custody,
Or the arrogance with which it nullies the statute
law of Pennsylvania. 1t is wholly based on !
double falsehood, riz that Jane johnson did not
desire her freedom and was torcibly abducted by !
Passmore Williamson. 1t asserts facts in contra |
liction to the plainest testimony of respectable
witnesses, and even contradicts the statement of
The Judges friend, Mr. Wheeler. 1t represents
Passmore Williamson as heading a riotous mob,
The object of which was $50 effect the abduction |
md Imprisonment" of unofending citizens. in
'ists that Jano johnson and her children were
within his custody and control because he told the !
woman that she was free by Pennsylvania law, |
md offered to lead her off the boat if she desired
70 go.
Not the least remarkable passage in this strange
document is the following:
"The cause was submitted to me by the learned
counsel for the respondent without argument, and
have therefore found myself Mt some loss to un-
lerstand the grounds on which, if there be any |
uch, they would claim the discharged of their
ent."
The reader who reccolects that Judge Kane
efuSed TO dLOo tie counsel time for preparation for
he argument, though he took week to prepare
lis decision, will not hesitate to characterize |
his statement as an insult to Mr. Williamson and |
o his counsel
Another striking point is the profession of ig-
orance, the part Of its author respecting Penn
ylvania law. He says that he knows 'of no stat /
lte Oh IennSylNanlh Wnlcn eHectS 10 ulVeSt the |
light Of property of citizen of North Carolina, |
cquired and asserted under the laws of that State
because he had found it needful or convenient to
ass through the territory of Pennsylvania" BY
his circumlocution he knows of no law in force in
which would deprive stakeholder
f his power to hold his slaves her SOIL after he
ad voluntarily brought them hither on his pass
&c to another place. If this is not his meaning,
is remark is irrelevant to his argument Such n
elence of his course is, certainly, made at an ex-
ense of his reputation for legal knowledge which
ne would scarcely have expected in lawyer and
be the rm her IoSs t he meal
G has some idea of the existence of such law, II
y expressing his doubt of its recognised validity
y United States Court. What is this but an |,
isult to Pennsylvania, intimation that, as a
overeign State, she has no right to determine
neither or not slavery shall be transplanted by {
outhern masters to her own soil, and the laws of
irginia be dominant here Again, this law-defy-
lg Judge says that he valves the inquiry wheth.
r. for the purposes Of this question thew iJane