Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1855-08-01
from The Philadelphia Bullstin Of Frday.l
Tho wheeler Slave Case.


PAssuoRE WILLIAMSON coaAlTTED FOR CONTEMPT.
The United States District Court was densely
crowded this morning, by persons anxious to hear
the decision Of Judge Kaneon the motion 10 CONF
nit MI. PaSmore Williamson for contempt Of
Court and for perjury, in making an alleged false
return to the writ of habeas corpus requiring him
to produce the bodies of the slaves of Colonel
Wheeler.
JudgeK Kane read the following decision:
DECISION OF JUDGE KANE.
The y. S. d. ez rel. WheeIer us. PGssmore
Hilli0ms0n-!Sur. Hd6eds Corpus, % july, 1855.
Colonel John h. Wheeler, Of North CaIolIuaI the
Unitel States Minister to Nicaragua, was on board
a steamboat, at one of the Delaware WhaEveS, on
his way from Washington, TO embark at N. York
for his post Of duty. Three slaves, belonging to
him, were sitting at his side on the upper deck.
Just as the last signal bell was ringing, Pass
| more Williamson came up to the party-declareG!
TO the slaves that they were free-and frocIbly
pressing Mr. Wheeler aside, urged them TO go g.
shore. He was followed by some dozen or TWEEN.
ty negroes, who by muscular strength carried the
slaves to the adjoining pier; two of the slaves at
least, il not all three, struggling to release them
selves, and protesting their wish to remain with
their master; two of the negro mob in the mean
tine grasping Col. Wheeler by the collar, and
threatening TO cut his thtoat il he made any reSls
lance.
Tie slaves were borne along to hackney
coach that was IN waiting, and were conveyed to
some place ofconceament; Mr. Williamson fol-
lowing and urging forward the mob; and giving
his name and address to Colonel Wheeler, with
the declaration that he held himself responsible
to him for whatever might be his legal nights but
taking no personally active part in the abduction
after he had left the deck.
laliowed writ of hdbeas corpus at the instance
of Colonel Wheeler, nd subsequently, an GiGs )
and to this last Ar. Williamson made return that
the persons named in the writ, 'nor either of them
are not now, nor was at the time of issuing the
writ, or the original writ, or OF any other time, in
the custody, power or possession of the TeSpon-
dent nor by him confined or reslIained: wherefore
he cannot have the hOdeSs'' etc.
AT the hearing allowed the relator to traverse
this return; aud several witnesses, who were ask
ed by him, testified TO the facts as have related
them. The District Attorney upon this slate of
facts, moved for WiIlamson'S commitment, IL
for contempt for making false rsturM; 2. TO take
his trial for perjury.
Mr.. Williamson then took the stand to purge
himself oil contempt. He admitted the facts sub
Stantially proof before; made it plain that he
had been an alvSer OF the project, and had given
it 10 his confederate sanction Throughout. He re-
newed his denial that he had control at any time
over the movements of tue slaves, or knew their
present whereabouts. Such is the case; as it was
before me on the hearing.
cannot look upon this return otherwise than
iluSOry-ln legal phrase, as eVaSlVe, If not false.
II sets out that the alleged prisoners are not now,
and have not been since the issue of the habeaS
corpus in the custody. power, possession Of the
respondent; and IN so far, it uses legally appTOpri
ate language for SuclI return. But it goes fur
ther, and by added words, gives an interpretation
TO that language essentially variant from It's legal
import.
1t denies that the prisoners were within his pow
or Rb,,fo1
Now, the evidence of respectable, uncontradicted
witnesses, and the admission of the respondent
himself, establish the fact beyond controversy,
that the prisoners were at Que time within his pow
er and control. He was the person by whose
counsel the so-called rescue devised. He
gave the directions, and FASTENED to the pier to
stimulate and supervise their execution. tie was
the spokesman and first ACTOR after arriving there
OF all the parties to the act OF violence, he was
the only White man, the only CITIZEN, the only
Individual having recognized political rights, the
only person whose social training could certainly
interpret either his own duties OF the rights Of 9TH
ers under the Constitution Of the land.
1t would be futile, and worse, to argue that he
who has organized and guided, and headed mob,
to effect the abduction aud imprisonment of Others
he IN whose presence and by whose active inhu-
ence the abduction and Imprisonment have been
brought about-mght excuse himself from reSpon-
sibility by the assertion that it was not his hand
LudL ulduS tue uHldWIul uSSduIly He never
acted as the goaler. He who unites with others
to commit crime shores with them all the legal
liabilities that attend OH It's commission. He chOOs-
es his company. and adopts their acts.
TkiS is the retrbutve law of all concerted crimes;
and its argument applies with peculiar force 10
those cases i'll which redress and prevention of
wrong sought through the writ of hG6eGs cOTps.
This, the great remedial process by which liberty is
indicated and restored, t6lerateS no language in
the response which 1t calls for that can mask a
subterGuge. The peace, social repoSe, all that
man can value, or that is worth living for, are IN
volVed III this principle. The Institutions of So
ciety Ould lose more than half their value, and
courts Justice become mpotent tor protection ii
the writ Of hG6eGS corpus could not compel the
truth, full, direct, and uneQuivoca, in answer to
its mandate.
1t will not do to say TO the man, whose wife I
whose daughter has been abducted, "l did not alb.
duct her, she is not in my possession, l do not de-
tain her, inaS-much as the assault was made by the
hand Of my subordinates, and have tOreborne To
ask where they propose concentrating the wrong"
1t is clear, then, as it seems to me, that in legal
acceptance the parties whom this writ called on
Mr.. Williamson to produce, we've at one time with
in his power and control; and his answer, lar as
it relates to his power over them, makes no diStnc
ton between that time and the present. cannot
give different Interpretation 10 his language from
that which he has practically gwen himself, and
cannot regard him as denying his power over the
prisoners now when he does not aver that he has
lost the power which he formerly had.
He has thus refused, or at least he has failed, 10
answer to command of the law. He has chosen 10
dicde for himself upon the lawfulneSs as well as
the moral propriety OF his act, and to withhold the
entertainment and vndcation of the rights OF
Others from that same forum of aTbiIrament on
which all his own rights repose. In a word, he
has put hnSelfin contempt of the process of this
Court, and challenges its action.
That action can have no alternative form. II is
one too clearly defined by ancient and honored
precedent, too Indispensable to the administration
of social justice aud the protection of human
right, and too potentially invoked by the special
exgency of the case before the Court to excuse
even doubt of my duty or an apology for its i'm
mediate performance.
The cause was submitted 10 me by the learned
counsel for the respondent, without argument. and
have therefore found myself at some loss 10 I'M
derstana the grounds on which, if there be any
such, they would claim the discharge of Their
client. One only has occurred to me as, perhaps,
within his view; and on this thiuk it right to ex-
press my opinion. | will frankly reconsider it
however, if any future aspect of the shall in-
Tite the review.
1t is this: that the persons named in this writ as