New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-02
THE WHEELER SLAVE CASE.


Ellis Lewis Chief Justice, for writ of habeas corpus
TO bring up the body of Passmore williamson, now IN
custody Of the Marshal of the United States IN Moy
smensing Prison, under commitment by the District
Court OF the United States for contempt of Court IN
making an alleged false aud evasiye return TO the
writ issued in the Wheeler Slave Case.
The following is an abstract OF the opinion OF Judge
Lewis given this morning IN reply TO the NOTION Inc
Supreme Court was at Chambers at the time:
The Com nonwealth REL Passmore williamson vs. = NJ
Wynkoop, United State. Marshal and Charles Hortz,
This is an application for Habeas Corpus. Annexed
to the petition and forming part OF 1t ia commitment
by the United States District Court for contempt OF
that Court in refusing to answer Il writ OF Habeas
Corpus directed 10 the said Passmore Williamson at
the relation Of John H. Wheeler.
The counsel for the prisoner frankly stated that they
did not desire the Formally OF writ OF Haoeas Cor
pus, if upon view of the cause ofdetalner should be
Of opinion that the adjudication OF the District Court
was conclusive. The Habeas Corpus act does not re-
quiIe at the writ should issue in all cases whatever
While the prisoneris detained by legal process,
warrant or ORDER for ofense not bailabe, the case
is excepted out of the act (See Act OF 18th Feb,
1885 See. H. SO where the has already been de-
cded upon the evidence by another Judge there
is obligation 10 issue new wit Tor rehearlng.
Bin. 304.
We therefore come at once TO the cause OF detander
Every Court OF competent jurisdiction 10 an exclusive
Judge of conemps against itself. IL would lead to end
l. IS confusion if Court to reconsider contempts
adiudicated by another This doctrine was est tb-
lished in the Lord Mayor of Londons case wills.
Lee The same doctrine was affirmed by the Supreme
Court of the United States in kearney's case
Nhea. 80.
Many other cases 10 the came effect are cited by
Chief Justice Cranch, in Nugents case, American
Law Journal l07. But il is alleged that the District
Court has 10 jurisdiction. No objection of tins char
aoter a. made at the hearing before that Court The
Act Of Congress of 1879 gives power to issue wrts
of habeas corpus when necessary for the purposes OF
liz jurisdiction and according TO the usage OF law
that act also authorizes the Judge of that Court to
issue writ for the purpose of inqurng into the cause
of commitment, provided it shall not extend TO per
sons IL Jail unless committed under the authority OF
the United States or for trial before some Court OF the
Uued States, or where the prisoner is required to
live testimony. Other Acts OF Congress authorize
the District Judge to issue writs OF habeas corpus III
other specified caees.
II is not pretended that il Issued in this for per-
cons in jail nor does it appear 10 have been awarded
in violation of State process or State authority IL
nav be bat in action of law where the judgment of
the United States Court Is relied on as defense the
jurisdiction must be shown, but in the writ OF Habee5
Corpus before a Judge who has appellate urisiic-
ton wherever the jurisdiction OF the United States
Courts depends upon the existence OF certain facts and
no question of jurisdiction has been raised on the hear
ing before il, every fact necessary to give jurisdiction
I ought to be preserved.
Ills tue that the judgments Of the United States
Court are erroneous where they do not aege Jursdic
tons and may b reversed on appeal or witt oil error
for this cause but they are not 70 De treated a. ABB
solue utilities by the parties who might have re-
/ y,rseG them Oh error. Mccormick vs. Sullivan, 10
Nhea 1872.
| II third persons WHO had such opportunity may
90 regard them, it does not follow that the persons
themselves may regard them as utilities IN collateral
/ proce edings.
Ii il alleged that the writ Of habeas &C pus cannot
be used FOR the purpose OF deciding oie night 81 prop
ertv II il true that the habeas corpus act does not
authorize the ssung Of wrlt for that purpose but
wit Of hoteas corpus al common law may be used 10
deliver oh infant to the parents or an apprentice to
master.
| Commonwealth va. Robinson, I. & r., $50.
see no reason why the writ at common law may not
be used for the purpose of delivering slave IRON lie
gal resiroirt and returning him to his master
Coneedng then, for te purpose OF argument
which we by 10 intimate to be true IN point OF
fsct-that the District Court committed an error IN
deciding that TIE prisoner refused 10 answer the wrt
and IN giving construction 10 the answer actually
givan-that il served in making a. improper use Of tie
wit and that II violated the right Of the prisoner in
various other pOinis-s il IL not in my power to re-
verse ts decision on any Of these grounds
/ II The STATE Court had issued a wit Of habeas
corpus directed the United States Marshal and had
aduIieated that he guilty Of 1 contempt in re-
f-iag 10 answer and committed hna 20 prison. the
/ u stIict Court of the United States would have no
! power 10 release hun.
such TN interference with the judgment of the State
| Courts would rot be tolerated.
The respect we claim for our own jurisdiction we
cheerfuy coucede 10 the decisions Of other Courts Oh
| competent jurisdiction.
For these reasons the writ of habees corpus 4 re-
fused.