New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-07
IMPRISONMENT OF P4SSMORE VII
HANSON
LEGAL VIEWS OF THE QUESTION.
Fr0n Tzt Piti.saTgh Ga:eife.

thought
ions Of one or two of those who ara supposed 20 be
authority respecting its intent al d object;
The obe q WI. hrns he boy OF tie person
who been restrained Of liberty mo Court who shall deter
nike the Of h commitment b. inst and there
upon 90 justice sbA sPperaia'l6 CAzSIes l. {. TO-
1t disee.sd 10 The persor aeArlns another aud command
1E him . prod.ee he e9dy he Pons, win ne a9i and
AZ additional security OF the person iup.
he BSbels Cops Icf These two statutes l Of sh and
sb.as Cous With gard property and persons form
second N0gaa CAayfa bsn.fca tina; Of Runnymede-
N.ns Charts OILY genera terms declared that man '.
the ea.otual well to release himself though com
ued by the King in Council punish a, thos- who
hA thus unc0nstitutionaly misuse him. BiIsae b. ,.
When one considers the object Of the writ as above
Defined and the words OF he Act OF Congress OF March
2, 1888, to wit:
u may Be s.eess hal refuse 70 Soey ne sane ., saA neg
- In addiction 10 he edie hsre;of-r ven b. law he shA
be deemed and issen 20 be guilty Of nisdemealorr
And the words OF the Act OF Congress OF March },
1881:
That the power Of tie Courts Of the United States
attachments and iuac summary punshmen iorcon enpt
Court hs not continued 20 extend 70 suy ess except the
nbehLyor Of person persons Of The Cour
We say when one considers all these in addition to
the fact 20 be considered in this Connection that the
Act Of Of this State In express terms declares that
10 man shall hold slave the territory of this Com
nOnwealth fer any time rhatsoecT, 1t is with aston
shmeni we read Of the late proceedings in Philade
phia Williamson j. committed Tor contempt Of Court
"lGved in presence OF the Court" Ii Is answered
tia; the contempt consisted in making such return
be did 70 tie whit Granting for e momeot that any
ore had G right on this sol to command another to
bring the Norih Carolina Virginia. chattels of Mr.
Wheeler into Court If under oath he made false return
why i he not proceeded against for perjury His re-
lot, except under the Ter necessitatts, mis-
behavior but for the emergency Il distorted into
coIt.mpt for by that means the Judge gOi into his
own hands the whole matter, whereas if perjury had
been the charge jury would have nterieIed, and in
all such cases juTie- dan gerous.
Frou. The PlRa. North 1meyioqA.
FavOrably inclined have been personally toward
NJ Kane from earlier association, could not help
feeling enezement aid indeed some ndi- nation at the
course pursued by him in the of Passmore Will
Hanson. know nothing OF Mr. Williamson or Col.
Wheeler, aud care nothing about the freedom or re-
tention in slavery OF the negroes abducted May be
they wo ID be well OF probably better off in the
service OF their master and may be they would no
that Is not the matter in hand The great question IS,
has the Court acted IN this imprisonment of Mr. VIII
hanson in an unlawful and tyrannical manner; has
the Judge mmured free citize. in prison without the
form and authority OF law We are all deeply inter-
esied when the liberty of the citizen is unla wfuy
assaied and is the duly of Us all ope ally and fearless
" TO vindcaie it. The question in this aspect Is not
whether Mr. Williamson acted rockessy or fOol-hy,
not whether he stated in his return to the habcas
pus what was evasiye, ilusory false but whether
the Court the ground assumed by itsefhad lawful
right TO commit Mr. Williamson for contempt OF
Court and commit him 10 prison without bail or main
prize. Ny opinion is, that the Court committed
gross vi ylation of law and ask the privilege of your
columns TO state the reasons for this conclusion.
Admit for arguments sake, that Mr. Williamson
acted unlswfully in planning the abduction OF the
negroes, and committed an unjustitable assault and
battery upon Colonel Wheeler, and that in his oral
explanation aftorwarl, before the Court, he
sve ard ilusory, ard that he therein con;Tadicted
what he had stated in HE return and that his return
20 the habeGs corpus false still the question recurs,
admitting that he had been guilty Of all the legal and
moral oblquities with which the Court had charged
10 f.ra
Mr.. williamson, understand, is respectable citizen,
and may not be obnoxious 10 all the the Court
has poured upon him. These things as said do not
affect the questions.
Tie power and conduct of the Court are TO be Judged
of by the law and if Mr. Williamson was the meanest
man in creation, and the Judge the wisest and most
learned OF lawyers still the real question is what the
power Of the Courts in cases of contempt, and tho
case before the Court which ought to have subjected
Mr.. Williamson to conviction and imprisonment for
cOAftmDt!
Once the power of the Courts to punish for con-
tempt almost limtable as may be seen by the
gTeG; speech OF Mr. Lewis of the Pennsy vania Bar to
the Senate Of Penney lvania, TO be found in the first
volume of Daass Reports, p. 329 note, aud | admit
that this power inherent one, Independent of stat
utes, said in Cranch 32-34 United States vs.
Hudson x Goodwin.
But when Congress, following the lead of Pennsyl-
vania, has expressly and clearly limited this
pro6ieious power one would suppose that Judge,
under the solemn sanction Of his high position and his
judicial oath, would have sedulousy consulted the
statutes restricting his power and would have paused
before exercising it in solemn and portentous.
Now let us what Congress has said on this subject
of cOntempts OF Courts. The act of the 2d March,
ls3l II quote from Judge Sharswoods edition of Sto-
rvs Laws, vol 4, ?. 2 $780, declares:
That the power of the Of the Unte State.
10 issue attachments end Ifct summary pun shments for
tmps Of Courts shall be construed extend any
the mbasioT Of person OF persons IN tha e'eae
Justice the mbehayor Of Of the officers Of said Counts
in their official transactions and the dooedaee or resistance Of
cree or command Of aid Court"
Now, how ia it possible for any human reason TO
bring Mr. Wilhamson's case within this slluary linz
itsiion He did not misbehave in presence of the
Court; he did not nsbehave an officer of the Court
in their official transactions; be did not disobey
resist any officers of the Court or dsobey or resist
any lawful writ process, order etc. of said Court.
How could the Court then punish him for contempt
Is IL not palpable 70 any understanding OF ordinary
shreW dness that Mr.. Williamson did not violate any
provision Ofihis statute There was no dlsobedence
by Mr.. Williamson OF the Habeas Corpus; he ap-
reared TO IT, and made return to it that the persons
manned in the writ or either of them, not Low,
"nOr were at the time of issuing the writ, or al any
other time, his custody, power possession nor
by him confined or restrained" Ii this the ds0be
dence which the act OF Congress c)ntempates TO the
process of the Court If witness refuses 10 obey
subpoena, the Court may compel his attendance by at
techment. II a sheriff refuses 10 make return TO
writ, the Court compel him 10 make a return but
when he has made return, however false il may be-
he has Obeyed the writ in the eye of the law and the
parry injured Is left TO his remedy by action against
the sheriff. The writ OF habeas corpus required Mr..
Williamson 10 produce the three persons named in il in
Court and make return OF the of their detention
and be appears and makes return that they not and
not at any time restrained OF their liberty by him,
and not and not in bis possession at any time.
The writ requires the production of the persons who
are restrained of their liberty and the answer is that
the defendant has not did restrain them of
their liberty. The Judge decides that this plain, un-