The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1855-08-02
subordinate, and | have forborns 10 ask where

II is clear, then, as II seems to Us, that in
legal acceplancs the parties whom this wri
called on Mr.. Williamson 10 produce, were
at one time within bis power asd control
and his answer, so far as Il relates TO his
power over them, makes no distinction be-
Tween that time and the present. I cannot
give a different Interpretation 10 bis language
from that which he has practically given him.
sell, and cannot regard him as denying his
power over the prisofef now, when he doe.
mot aver that he has lost the power which be
| formerly had.
! He has thus refused, or a. least be has fail.
\ ed, TO answeft to the command of the law
He has Chosen 10 decide for himself upon the
la v fuIness as we'll as the moral propriety oil
his ac; and TO withhold the ascerainmenl
and vindication of The rights OF others from
ttat same forum ofarbitrament on which all
his own rights repose. IN word, ae has
put himself in contempt ofthe process OF this
| Court and challenges its action.
That action can have no alternative form
II is one too clearly defined by ancient aud
honorable precedent, Too Indispensable 10
the administration of social justice and the
protection of human right, and too potential
Is invoked by the special exigency Of the
case now before the Court to excuse even a
doubt of my duty OF an apology for ITS i'm
mediate performance. .ry
The cause was submitted 10 me by the
laox fori iha xpif ouf
argument, and have, therefore, found my
self at some loss 10 understand the grounds
on which, if there be any such, they would
claim the discharge Of their client. Only one
has occurred 10 me as, perhaps, within his
view and on this think it right 10 express
my opinion. will frankly reconsider it how.
ever, if any future aspect of the case shall
invite the review.
II is this: that the persons named in this
writ as detained by the respondent, were not
legally slaves, inasmuch as they were within
the territory oi Pennsylvania when they were
abducted
Waving the inquiry. whether for the pur-
poses Of this question they were within the
territorial jurisdiction of Pennsylvania while
passing from one State TO another upon the
navigable waters of the United States--a
point on which my first impressions are ad-
verse 10 the argument-I have 10 say
1. | know OF no statute, either Of the Uni
led States, or of Pennsylvania, or Of New
Jersey, the only other State that has quaif-
ed jurisdictionsover this part of the Delaware.
that authorizes tie forcible abduction of any
person or thing whatsoever, without claim of
property, unless in aid of legal process.
2.'Thai know OF no statute OF Penpsylva-
MIA, which affects 10 divest the rights of prop
er,y of citizen of North Carolina, acquired
and asserted under the laws OF that State, be-
cause he has found it needful or convenient
to pass through the territory of Pennsylvania.
8. That am not aware that any such stat
ute, if such an one were shown, could be
recognized as valid in Court of the United
States.
4. That it seems 10 me altogether unim-
portant whether they were slaves or not. 1t
would be the mocxery of philanthropby TO
assert, that, because men had become Tree,
they might therefore be iorcibly abducted.
have SAID nolhing of the motives by,
which the respondent has been governed.
lave nothing to do with them they may
give him support and comfort before an in
finitely high tribunal; do moi impugE them
here.
Nor do alluds on the other hand 10 those
special claims upon our hospitabe courtesy,
which the diplomatic character Of Mr.. Whee.
ler might seem 10 assert for him. an. dorb,-
full, whether the Acts OF Congress give to him
and his retinue and his property that prolec.
lion as representative of lhe sovereignty OF
the United States, which they concede 10 all
sovereignties besides. Whether, under the
general law of nations, he could not ask a
broader privilege than some judicial prece-
dents might seem TO admit, is moi necessarily
involved ia the cause before me.
II is enough that find, as the case stands
now, the plain and simple grounds of adjudi-
cation, that MIR. Williamson has not returned
truthfuly and fully TO the writ OF habeas cor
pus. He must, therefore, stand committed
for contempt of the legal process OF the
Court.
AS TO the second motion of the District At
torney, that which looks to commiital for
perjury, withhold an expression in regard
10 it. 1t is unnecessary, because Mr.. Will.
hanson being under arrest, he may be charg
ed a. any time by the Grand Jury and ap-
prehend that there may be doubts whether
the affidavit should not be regarded as exua
judicial and voluntary.
Let Mr.. williamson, the respondent, be
committed 10 the custody of the Marshal
without bail or man prize, as for acontempt
of the Court in refusing 10 answer 10 the writ
of habeas corpus, heretofore awarded against
him at the relation of MIR. Wheeler
u. s. District Attorney vandyke for Mr.
Wheeler, and 6. Hopper and c. Gilpin fol
defendant
District. Attorney asked for warrant Of
commitment under the seal. Of Court Grant
L ~