Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1855-09-19
The RAFT sMAn's JOURNAL,

I PAssMoRE WILLIAMSON CAsE.-Four out OF
five of the Justices of the Supreme Court OF
Pennsylvania have decided TO refuse the writ
of Habeqs Corpus prayed for in this case. Our
readers will remember that Mr.. Williamson is
now lying in Moyamensing Prison, restrained
! of his liberty by virtue OF commitment for
an alledged contempt of Court, directed by
JOHN h. KANE, the U. S. District Judge, for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The prisoner presented his petition to the
Supreme Court, asking that a Habess Corpus
lie awarded. The Court, in an opinion read by
Black, j., refused the prayer of the petitioner.
We Shall say nothing, save that ii travels out
of the record, to insult and wound, in the most
wanton manner, the feelings and motives Of
man who only sought TO exercise what We have
until now deemed one of the most sacred
RIGHTS of every freeman of Pennsylvania.
Fortunately tor the cause of freedom, there
was read, a: the same time, an opinion of au-
| other Judge. To our readers, the name of
! Judge KNOX is familiar, for it is remembered.
and honored in the remembrance, as that of
one Of the ablest iurists that ever sat upon the
| Bench OF this judicial district. Judge KNOX
dissented from the judgment of the majority
! of the Court, and stated his reasons for his
! dissent, in an opinion, lucid, mastery, and in
! our humble view, conclusive of the law. This
! document, besides, breathes noble spirit of
! humanity, and manifests patriotic devotion
! to the Constitutions. both OF his native State,
/ and of the Federal Union.
We regret exceedingly that the want of
space forbds our publication of this most able
| opinion, the more, that its transparent reason
/ ing, and irrefragable conclusions not
numbered with the special pleadngs, nor mar
! red by the professional mannerism too much
affected by lawyers and judges of the present
day. We have not been able TO refrain, how
! ever, from laying before our readers, some cx-
| tracts, which will serve 10 show the positions
| taken by Judge KNOX, and the mode IN which
! he sustainS them:
have not had either time or opportunity to
examine all OF the cases cited, but, as far
/ have examined them, they decide this and
| nothing more-that where Court Of COM
petcut Jurisdiction convicts one of con
| tempt, another Court, without appellate power,
will not rc-exlmine the case to determine
! whether contempt was really committed
not. The history of punishments for con-
temptS of Court, and the Legislative action
! thereon both in our State and Union, in an un-
miStak bic manner teaches, first, the liabiii-
! t. of this power to he abused and second, the
! promptneSs with which its uuguarded use has
! been followed by legislative restrictions. 1t is
/ no longer an underlined, unlimited power OF i
star chamber character, TO be used for the op-
/ preston OF the citizen ~ the mere caprice OF
the Judge. or Court, but il has its boundaries
! so distinctly defined that there is mistaking
! the extent to which our tribunals Of law may
! go in furnishing for this offence.
In the words of the act of Congress or 3D.
March, 1881, ssThc power of the several Courts
/ of the United States to issue attachments and
! infiict summary punishment for contempts of
] Court. shall not By constructed 10 extend to
any cases except the misbehaYior of any per
/ son or persons in the presence Of said Courts,
/ or SO near thereto As to o6struct the admins
trItiOn OF Justice, the miShehavior of any of the
officers of the said Courts in their official trans
| actions and the disobed;ence or resistance by
! any officer of the said Courts, party. jurcr, wit
! ness, or any other person or persons, TO any
/ !lpfai writ, process, order, rule decree,
! comma and OF said Courts
Now. PassmoGe Williamson was convicted
/ OF I contempt for dsobcying writ of hdbeSs
corpus commanding him to procure before the
/ District Court certain persons claimed hy Mr..
Wheeler A. slaves. Was it a lawful writ =
/ Clearly Ut, II the Court had no jurisdiction
70 issue it and that it had not l think is
/ very plain. If it WAS unlawful, the person to
/
il; and, in the very words of the statute, the
i power to punish for contempt ''shall not be
! construed 20 extend to it,
( But, siyS the opinion Of the majority, he was
convicted OF a contempt of Court, and we will
not look into the record TO how the CON
! tempt was committed. 1 answer this by as
sorting that you cannot see the conviction
without seeing the cause. for it Is a part Of
the same record which consists lSt, of the pc
ttiOn; ID the writ and alias writ of habeas
/ corpus Sd. the return, ard fth. the judgement
sit is ordered and adiu'lged by the Court that
the said Passmorc Williamson be committed
I to the custody of the Marshal without bail or
mainpriZe, as for contempt in refusing to
make return TO the writ of habeas corpus here
toforc issued against him at the Instance of
Mr.. John IL. VI Nhreler.' As | understand the
opinion OF majority of my brethren as soon
get to the word contempt the book must
be closed. and il becomes Instantly sealed as
to the residue OF the record. To sustain this
/ commitment must, il seems, first presume
in the very tech of the admitted fact that these
We're runaway slaves; and second, we must
be careful to read only portions "f the record
lest We should find that the prisoner WAS COM
mitted for refusing TO o"ey an unlawful writ.
/ cannot forbear the expression of the Opin-
! ion that the rule laid down in this case, by the
majority, is fraught with great danger to the
most cherished rights Of the citizens of the
State. Whilst in contests involving the right
OF property merely, presume we may still
treat the judgements of the United States
! Courts. in cases not within their jurisdiction
as utilities, yet, if-a single Judge thinks prop.
er to determine that one of our citizens has
! been guilty of contempt, even if such determi-
nati'.n had its foundation in case upon which
the Judge had no power to pronounce Judge
msnt, and was most manifestlv in direct vio-
ldtion of 4 solemn act of the very Legislative
authority that created the Court which