The daily union., 1855-10-17

u
Unless these views incorrect throughout the district
had jurisdiction Of the which before il at
the instance Of Mr. Wheeler. He represented by his petit
ton under oath, that three human beings had been orc
bly, taken possession of by Passmore williamson without
authority of law within the district of Pennsyva
and he prayed that by force of the writ OF the haea
corpus Mr. Williamson might be required TO produce their
bodies before the court and 10 declare what was the right
or preex of right under which he claimed 10 dealn
them.
Whether Mr. Wheeler was in fact entitled to demand
this writ whether upon fun discussion Of the law the
court might have felt justified in refusing it TO him,
question Of little moment Every day and in every court
wrts issue al the instance Of parties asserting grievance
and very often when in truth grievance has been sus-
tanned The party assaed comes before the court in obe
denee to its process He perhaps questions the ursdc-
ton of the Perhaps he denies the fact charged.
Perhaps he explains that the fact charged was By
of circumstances lawful The judge not pre-
umed know beforehand all the merits of the thousand
and that before him. He decides when
he has heard But the first duty OF defendant in all
is obedience the writ which calls him into court
Till he has rendered this the judge cannot hear the
still less pass upon It's merits
Mr.. Williamson before the court but he did not
bring forth the bodies of his alleged prisoners the writ
had commanded him. lie did question the jurisde
ton of the court he did not assert that the were
free and that the writ had been applied for without their
authority consent but he simply denied that they had
been in his custody power, possession, as Mr.
Wheeler had asserted Witnesses heard, and with
consent they supported the allegations of Mr. Wheeler
and contradcted the denial of Mr.. Williamson.
Mr. Williamsons counsel then asked time 10 enable them
to produce witnesses who material his behalf
marking that their client might desire bring the negroes
into prove that they had been abducted The
Judge informed them, in reply, that upon Mr. Williamsons
making the customary adequate affidavit that there
material witnesses whom he wished to adduce the cause
would be continued as OF course, till future day Mr..
Williamson declined making the affidavit
He however asked leave to declare for himself what he
had done, and why. He heard, and speaking under
solemn airmaon he not only verified all the important
facts that had been to by Mr. Wheeler and the wit
nesses, but added that Immediately before coming into
with his return, he had called upon negro who had
whether the negroes sae and had been informed by
him that they were all "sgfs."
Two motions then made by Mr.. Wheclers counsel
the first, that Mr. Williamson should be committed for
contempt of process in that he had made false to
the writ the second that he should be held 10 to
charge OF perjury After he had summed up the evil
dence and referred to authorities in support of these
ons the counsel for Mr. Williamson asked leave to consult
together as TO their appropriate of acton and this
being assented TO by the court they retired with their
client for the purpose from the court room. Returning
after time they informed the that they declined
making any argument upon the questions which be
fore it.
4 The case which was in this manner thrown upon the
court for its unaded adjudication had assumed aspect
of grave responsibility the part of Mr. Williamson.
was clearly in proof that the negroes had been removed
by persons acting under his counsel in his presence and
with his co-operaon his to the writ denied that
they had ever been within his possession custody
troll. Under ordinary circumstances this denial would
have been conclusive but being by the facts
in evidence ii lost that character The court said Judge
Story in sngnlary analogous in its circumstances
(U. s. Green, Mas, 463) "w discharge the de-
endan simply because he declares that the infant is not
in his power possesson CONTROL custody if the
science of the court is not satisfied that all the material
facts fully disclosed That would be to listen to
mere FORMS against the claims of substantial justice and
the rights of personal liberty in the citizen In ordinary
cases. indeed such declaration satisfactory ought
be decisive because there nothing before the
upon which it can ground doubt of its entire verify,
and that in real and legal the import of the
words rossesson power, or custody is fully under
stood and by the party. The of the King rs.
Vinton, {5 T. r., so) and of Stacey, 30 Johns, $685.
show with what jealousy courts regard returns of this
nature In those there enough the face of the
returns TO excite suspicious that behind and that
the party really within the constructive control Of the
defendant. Upon examining the circumstances Of this
case am not satisfied that the return contains all those
facts within the knowledge Of the defendant which
cessay TO be brought before the court enable il de-
eide whether he is entitled to discharge or in other
words whether he has not the power produce the
infant and control those in whose custody she M There
is no doubt he adds shat attachment is the proper
process to bring the defendant into court.'
Anxious that this to the inherent and indspensa-
BILE powers of the court might be avoided the judge in
adjourning the for advisemept until the following
week. urged upon Mr. Williamson and his associates that
if practicable the negroes should in the time be
brought before the court.
But the negroes not produced. They forward
afterwards, of them, it is said, before justice in
New York. and by process of Pennsylvania State
they of them, brought forward again in this
city to testify for Mr.. Williamson of his confed-
crates But before the court Of the United States sitting
within the same curage at the distance of perhaps hum
dred yards was not thought necessary expeden
practcabe TO produce them. Their evidence whatever
might have been its import value never before
the court and could have bearing upon its action
The decision announced at the end of the week 1t
was, that Mr. Wliamsons answer was evasive and un-
rue that he therefore, had obeyed the writ Of haJeas
corpus and must consequently stand committed for
contempt of it. The order to that effect having been
made, discussion between the counsel the
propriey of certain notions which, side and the
other, they invited the court to consider.
1t apparent that the learned gentleman who this
time addressed the behalf of Mr. Williamson M
specific action either for the bench for his client His
remarks cursive; and when invited to reduce his
motion to writing according to the rules of practice he
found difficulty in defining its terms. This led to init
nation the part Of the judge that nasmuch the opin
ion in writing and would be printed in the newspa
pers Of the afternoon it might be best for the
examine its positions before submitting their motion The
idea was received coureousy The question asked
whether the court would be in session another
of days tina, named and the reply was given that
upon note being left at the clerks office any time, the
judge would be in attendance hear and consider what
motions the counsel might proper to lay before
him.
This was the last of the case No motion was made no
further inmaon given, the part of Mr. Williamson or
his counsel, of wish to make one.
Commitments for contempt, like the contempts them
selves may be properly distributed in classes Either
they the punishment for of misconduct or il is
their object to enforce the performance of duty Tho
confinement in the is for fixed time supposed to
be commensurate with the offending in the other il
without prescribed limitation, and is determined by the
willingness Of the party to submit himself TO the law In
the Of Mr. Williamson the commitment is for refusal
to answerhat is to say to make full and lawful an
to the writ OF hateas setting forth
all the facts within his knowledge which are necessary to
I 1--.a Al LIT 4