The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-09-11

ssuuu~~up~uzs.nzA..ss4.a.s.z -
out hesitation That he did not Dc g tact eoneassey
esahshsd by the udie.uon which the court mace Upon
e IN. writ was legal because the act OF congress
Gives "a ali the courts Of the United states me pow" 70
issue wri,s Of Aatess corpus amen ~ ric;re
[ ~ their jurisdiction, and agreeable 70 Inc principles
"a sagrs III law Chief Justice Marshall decided 10
urrs trial that the principles sna usages referred 70 IN
ths act were those OF the common law part q lhe ~
.a;ct,on OF the district court consists IN restoring us
tive slaves and the ha5eds corpus may be used 10 ana
III Il when necessary il was awarded here upon tho
application OF person who complained thai ms slaves
we're detained from him. Lnless they were fusiuvt
saves they could not be slaves at all according 10 the
petitioners own doctrine; and II The judge TOOK thaf
view OF the subject he was bound TO award inc Writ
m the persons mentioned in il had turned out ON the
hearing 10 be nQtives from labor the duty OF the dis
tct Judge restore them his power 10 urng Them pe
fore him ha6eas copas, would have been disputed ny
one except the very few who think that The constitution
ma law on that subject ought 10 be obeyed The duty
of die court inquire into the facts on hieh IT'S ursdo-
ton depends plain IT'D duty not 10 exceed u when
/, 4 ascerained But Mr. Williamson stopped the insesti-
ou u pae and the consequence is that every thing ip
H. case remains unsettled. Whether the persons named
:; The writ were slaves freewheher Ms heller
lie owner of theul-w whether they uniawfuly taken
from hiwhether the court had jurisdiction to restore
,boau these points left open for want of proper
rn II i not our business 10 how they ought TO be
ias bu we do not doubt that the learned and upright
aois,rae who predes in the district court would have
decided them as rightly any judge in all the country
Mr. Williamson had right TO arrest the inquiry because
he supposed that error would he committed on the
Question Of inrisdcton any other question II the
asrtons which his counsel make the law and the
fcs be correct he prevented adjudication ia favor Of
lbs prodg6s and thus did them wrong which is proba-
hly greater offence in his eyes than any thing he
could DO against Mr. Whcelers rights There is
10 believe that any trouble whatever would have out
of the il be had made true full and special return
az I'LL te facts then the rights OF all partes black and
white could have been Settled the matter dismissed for
want Of jurisdiction, If the law required.
1t argued that the court had jurisdiction because
svcred that the slaves ugitives but
" that they owed service by The laws of Virginia Conce
ding for the arguments sake that this the only ground
on which the could have also
that it is not substantially alleged in the petition Of Mr.
Wheelerthe proceeding yS, nevertheless, not void for
that reason The federal tbnnns though courts of limit
ed jurisdiction, not interior courts Their Judgments,
until reversed by the proper appellate court valid and
conclusive upon the parties, though the jurisdiction be
not alleged in the peadings any part of the record
10 Wheaton, 1872 Even this not settled and clear
law, it would sill be certain that the fact ON which
Jurisdiction depends need not be stated IN the process The
Of such statement in The body Of the habeas corpus
or in the petition which it awarded, did not give
Mr. Williamson right 10 treat II with contempt. II II
did then the Of the United States the
ground of their jurisdiction in every subpoena for wit
aud defective ayerment viii authorize the
witness to be coniumacous he sees fit
But all thawa said in the argument about the petition
the writ and the facts which proved could be
proved refers to the Gpidac in which tho conviction took
place This mas passed IN rea 1adicMaa We cannot so
step behind the conviction itself We could not
authority in law to between the prisoner and
the court to free him from sentences like this than
would have to countermnnd order issued by the
mandcr-in-chef 10 the United States army We have no
authority jurisdiction decide anything here except
simple fact that tho district had power to punish
for contempt person who dsobcys its process that the
petitioner convicted Of such contempt and that the
yction conclusive upon The jurisdiction of the court
the which had been before it, and everything else
which precedcd the conviction out of reach they
examnable by u.s. and Of course, not intend
ed to be decided
There may be cases in which we ought to check usurpa-
o Of power by the federal courts If one of them would
presume upon any prctence whatever take of
hands prisoner convicted OF contempt in this court
would resist It by all proper and legal What
would not permit them TO do against us, win not do
against them We maintain the rights Of the State
and its courts for to them alone the people look for
competent administration of their domestic concerns; bat
will do nothing impair the constitutional vigor OF
the general government which the shcet-anchor Of our
peace VI houe aud our safety abroad.
Some complaint made ia the argument about the
sentence being for indefinite tame. If this
neous it would not avail here, since bnye little
power revise the Judgment for that for any
oer But il is not Illegal contrary the usual rule
in such CAGES commitment until the party sal
make proper submssion.--(3 Lord Raymond, 1903 4
Johns- r. 3T5o The law Will not bargain with any body
let is courts be deed for specified term Of mprison
ment There are many persons who would gladly pur
chase the honors Of niartyrdom in popular AL
most any given price, while Others deferred BY
show Of punishment Each is detained until be finds him
self willing to conform. This is nercitu to the submits
sve and not too upon The refractory The petitioner
therefore, carres the key Of his prison bis pocket
lie when he will by making terms with the
triumph-f nothing will content him hut clean VIC
tory clean defeat-hc caEnet expect 10 aid him.
Our duties Of widely different kind They consist in
dscourngnG much in lies all such contests with
the legal authorities Of the country IKE crR u iabsas
cppus Is refused.