Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1855-09-19
The Wheeler Slave Case.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE. ets
writ Of Habeas Corpus Refused
JUDGE BLACK,s OPINION.

JUDGE BLACKS OPINION.
The Supreme Court met in Philadelphia. at
noon, on Saturday, for the purpose of render
ing the decision of the Court on the apphca-
ton of Passmore Williamson for writ of
habeas corpus. The Eve Judges We're upon
the bench, and the District Court room, in
which the Court sat, was crowded with atten-
tive listeners. Inside the bar were seated a
number of the leading legal gentlemen of the
city. Judge Black read the decision Of the
Court It is as follows:
Decision.
: Elk PARTx. WILLIAMsos--Opia ty jus
tice Black.-This is au application by Pass
more Williamson for hdbeas corpus. He COM
p.ains that ne is held in custody under a
Commitment of the District Court of the Uni
ted States for a contempt of that Court, in
refusing to obey its process. The process for
which he is confined for disobeying was ba-
beus corpus commanding him to produce the
bodies of certain colored persons clainel as
slaves under the law of Virginia.
Is he entitled to the writ he has asked for !?
In considering what answer we shall give TO
this question, we are. of course, expected to
: be influenced, as in other cases, by the law
and the Constitution alone. The gentlemen
who appeared as counsel for the petitioner,
and who argued the motion in a manner which
did them great honor. pressed upon us no con-
siderations. except those which were founded
upon their legal views of the subject. sBs
~ 1t is argued with much earnestness. and no
doubt with perfect sincerity, that We are bound
to allow the writ, without stopping to consider
whether the petitioner has or has not laid be-
fore us any probable cause for supposing that
he is illegally detained-that every man con-
fined in prison, except for treason or felony, is
entitled to it, er debito iustitio-and that we
c<nnot refuse it without a frightful violation
of the petitioners rights, no mater how
plainly it may appear on his own showing that
he is held IN custody for a just cause. If this
be trne, the case of &c porte Ldlorence g
Bimn, 304 y is not law. There the writ was
ircfused. because the applicant had been pre-
Yiously heard before another court. But if
every man who applies for habeas corpus
must haveit, as matter of right, and without
regard to anything but the mere fact that he
demands it, then court or judge has no
more power to refuse second than a first
application.
= 1t is really true that the special application
Corpus, and the examination of the commit
incnt, which we are bound to make before it
can issue, are mere hollow and unsubstantial
forms Can it be possible that the law and
the Courts are SO completely, under the con-
troll of their natural enemies, that every class
of offenders against the Union or the State,
except traitors and felons, may be brought
before us as often as they please, though we
know beforehand. by their own admissions,
that we cannot help but remand them im,ne-
diately. IL these questions must be answered
in the Affirmative, then we are compelled
against our will and contrary to our convic-
tons OF duty to wage constant warfare
against the federal tribunals by firing off writs
OF habeas corpus upon them all the time.
The punitive justice of the State would suffer
still more seriously. The half of the Western
Penitentiary would be before us at Philadel-
phia, and q similar. proportion from Cherry
Hill and Moyamensing would attend our Sit
ting at Pittsburg. To remand them would
do very little good; for new set of writs
would bring them back again. A sentence 70
solitary confinement would be sentence, that
the convict should travel for limited term
up and down the State, in company with the
ctheers who might have him in charge. BY
fse same means the inmates of the lunatit
asyums might be temporarily enlarged, much
20 their own detriment; and every soldier o,
seaman IN the service of the country could
eompel their commanders to bring them be.
fore tne Court six times week. p
Du, 'ne naoeas corpus act has never re-
celssn suc1 q construction. It is writ oi
ngns. and may not bo refused to one. who
SHOWS PTtnsa fucse case entitling him to he
lssuslgea OF nmied But he has no righ,