Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-10-20
WHOLE NO. 524.


beyond the reach Of our writ of habeas corpus?
Ii he would, our boasted security Of personal lib
ery is in truth idle boast and our constitutional
guarantees and writs Of right are as ropes Of
sand. But, in the name Of the law, aver that
no such power exists with any Court OF Judge
State or Federal; and if it is attempted to be ex-
ercised there modes Of relief full and ample
for the exigoncy of the occasion.
have not had either time or opportunity To-
examine all of the cases cited but as far as
have examined them they decide this aud moth
ing more-that where Court Of competent iuris-
diction convicts one Of contempt, another Court
without appellate power, will not re-cxamiue the
case to determine whether contempt was really
committed or not. The history Of punishments
for contempt5 Of Courts, and the legislative ac-
tion thereon, both in State and Union, innm
unmistakablo manner reaches, first the liability
of this power to he abused; and second the prompt
ness with which its unguarded use has been lol-
lowed by Legislative restrictions. 1t is no longer
on underlined unlimited power of star chamber
character, to DO used for the oppression Of tho
citizen ut the mere caprice of the Judge or Court
but it has its boundaries so distinctly defined
that there is installing the extent to which
our tribunals of law may go in punishment Tor
this offence.
In the words of the act Of Congress Of 2nd
March, 1881, "The power Of the several Courts OF
the United States to issue attachments, and iufct
summary punishmenis for contempts Of Court shall
not be construed to extend to any except the
misbehaviour of any person or persons in the
presence Of said Courts, or so near thereto as to
obstruct the administrations Of justice the misbe-
hayiour of any Of the officers VI the said Courts
in their official transactions, and the disobcdionce
or resistance by any officer Of the said Courts
party, jurors witness, or any other rerson or
persons, to any iac)m writ process order, rule,
decree, or command of said Courts"
Now, Passmorc williamson was convicted Of Z
contempt for disobeying wiit of habeas corpu5.
commanding him to produce before the District
Court certain persons claimed by Alr. Wheeler ~
slaves Was it Il lawful wit? Clearly not II the
Court had no jurisdiction to issue it ; and that 10
had not, think is very plain. If il was unllv
iul, the person to whom it was directed was not
bound to obey IT, and, in the very word of tie
statute, the power to punish fgr contempt shall
not be construed 10 extend ~ IT,"
But, says the opinion Of the majority, ba waB
convicted Of . c,ntenp, pf Count, And We viii not
look into the record y Gee how the contempt was
committed ! answer this by asserting that you
cannot see the conviction without seeing the eau:
l. Of the petition 2, the writ and the alias wri'
Of habeas corpus; 3, the return: and 4, the
judgement.
at is ordered and adudged by the Court that
the said PAssmore Williamson be committed to-
the custody of the Marshal without bail or main
prize as for q contempt in refusing to make return
to the writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued
against him ut the instance Of Mr. john H. Wheel
er." AS understand the opinion of a majority
of my brethren, as soon as we get to the word
tempt the book must be closed, and it becomes in
stantly sealed to the residue 'of the record TO
sustain this commitment we fnmt, it seems, first
presume, in the very teeth Of the admitted fact
that these were runaway slaves; and second, we
must be careful to read only portions of the record
lest we should find that the prisoner was commit
ted for refusing to obey an unlawful writ.
l cannot forbear the expression of the opinion
that the rule laid down in this case by the major-
II, III E.I..
ished rights of the citizens of the Stoe. While in
contests involving the right Of property merely,
presume we may still treat these judgments Of the
United States Courts in cases not within their ju
risdicon, as nullies yet, If n single Judge thinks
proper to determine that one Of our citizens has
been guilty of contempt, even if such detcrmina
tion had its foundation in Il ease upon which the
Judge had no power to pronounce judgment, and
was most manifesty in direct violation Of Il solemn
act of the very legislative authority that created
the Court over which the Judge presides, it seems
that such determination is to have oil tho force
and effect Of Judgment pronounced by Court
of competent jurisdiction, acting within the admit
ted sphere of its constitutional powers.
Nay, more. We confess ourselves rowerless to-
protect our citizens from the aggrcssions ofa Court
as foreign from our State government in matters
not committed to its jurisdiction the Court of
the Queens Bench, in England, and this upon the
authority of decisions pronounced in cases not ut
all analogous to the one now under considora
.ion | believe this to be the first recorded case,
where the Supreme Court Of State has refused
the prayer of a citizen Tor the writ Of habcos
corpus to inquire into the legality Of an impris-
onment by Judge of Federal Court for
tempt, in refusing obedience to writ void for
want Of jurisdiction.
| will conclude by rfcaptulating the grounds
upon which / think this writ should be award
ed:
!. At common law, and by our statute Of l1S5
the writ of habeas corpus al suliccndum is IL
writ of right, demandablG whenever petition III
due form asserts what if true, would entitled tbs
party to relief.
Q That an allegation in petition that the petition
or is restrained OF his liberty byan order of aJadsc
or Court without jurisdiction shows such proba-
bic cause as to leave it no longer discretionary
with the Court or Judge to whom application is
made whether the writ shall or hall not issue.
g. That where person is imprisoned bv an
order of n Judge of the District Court of tho
United States for refusing to answer writ of
habeas corpus, he is entitled TO be discharged
from such imnrisonment if the Judge Of the Ds-
triet Court had no authority to issue the writ.
t. That the power to issue writs Of habeas
corpus by the JUDGES OF the Federal Courts Is
n mere auxiliary power and that no such writ
San be issued hy such Judges where The eaaae
of complaint to be remedicd by il is Beyond ju-
risdiction.
5. That the Courts of the Federal GoyernmOns
are Courts Of limited jurisdiction derived frqi''
the Constitution Of the United States and tho
acts Of Cong.ess under the Constitution, and THAI
when the jurisdiction is not given by the Gun
stituton or by Congress in pursuance cf the
Constitution, it does not exst.
G. That when it does not appear by TIC rec
ord that the Court had jurisdiction ina proceed
inc under our habeas corpus act to relieve fYom
an Illegal Imprisonment, want OF jurisdiction
NAV he shown by proving the faets in the case,
= That where the inquiry as to the jurisdiction
of n Court arises upon rule for habeas cor
nus all the Facts set forth in the petition tending
to show want of jurisdiction are tUbe considered
as true, unless they contradict tue records.
g. That when the owner Of a slave voluntarily
brings his slave from slave to u free State. with
out any intention of remaining therein, the right
fof the slave to his freedom depends upon the
law of tire State into which he is Ihas brought
O. That il a slave 50 rosght into free State
escapes from the caStody Of his master while iIl
said state, the right Of the master TO reclaim