The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-09-20
THE WHEELER SLAVE CASE.
Lgo,Ham Decision Of the Pennsylvania s.
preme Court.
Writ of Habeas Corpus to Passmore Williamson
Refused.

.ps decision of the Court on the application of
p,ssr,ore Williamson for the writ of hdbeGs cor
'.,g The five Judges were upon the Bench,
I'll the District Court Room, in which the Court
-, was crowded with attentive listeners. In
IN. the bar we noticed number of the leading
l..,al Gentlemen of the city. Judge Black read
~. decision of the Court. 1t is as follows:
DECISION
rv.parte Williamson Opinion by Justice Black.
This is an application by Passmore William
son for AaLeas corpus He complains that he
! held in custody. under a commitment of the
District Court of the United States, for con-
,ampt of that Court, in refusing to obey its pro-
.ass The process for which he is confined for
Esobeying was a hdbeas corpus, commanding
hin, to produce the bodies of certain colored
,,arsous claimed as slaves undeeahe law of Vir-
ginia
Is he entitled to the writ he has asked for :?
n 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 APP
reared as counsel for the petitioner, and who
arruel the motion in a manner which did them
Great honor, pressed upon us 10 considerations
except those which were founded upon their te
olI views of the subject.
II is arrued 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 before
~ any probable cause for supposing that he is
ILLEGALLY de;ained-that every man confined in
pri,ei except for treason or felony, is entitled
10 il. ., }ebta jHstti0-and that we cannot re
G,s. il without a frightful violation of the petit
toners rights, no matter how plainly it may
appear. on his own showing, that he is held in
custody for 3 just cause. If this be true, the
case 81 ec-paytc Laurence - Binn, 304( is not
law. There the writ was refused because the
applicant had been previously heard before an
other court. But if every man who applies for
q kqjcaS cOypHs must have it, as a matter of
rght. and without regard to anything but the
incre fact that he demands it, then Court Or a
Judge his 40 more power to refuse second
lh.n "a first application.
Is !, really true that the special application
Which must be made for writ OF habeds cor
pms. and the examination of the commitment
which we are bound to make before it can issue,
IN. mere hollow and unsubstantial forms Can
bc possible that the tar and the Courts are so
,oByietely aRder tie control o f their natural en-
eaiss, that every class of offenders against the
Mon or the State, except traitors and felons,
l4tase. though we know beforehand, by their own
omissions, that we cannot help but remand
them Immediately? If these questions must be
answered in the affirmative, then we are com
feled against our will and contrary to our con-
yict;0ns Of duty, to wage a constant warfare
asains; the Federal tribunals, by firing off writs
Of Lqjeqs corpus upon them all the time. The
punitive Justice of the State would suffer still
more seriously. The half of the Western Pen
teuliary would be before us at Philadelphia,
and a similar proportion from Cherryhill and
M0yamenSing would attend our sittings at Pitts
burgh.
To remand them would do very little good
for a new set Of writs would bring them all
back again. A new sentence of solitary con-
nemeut would be a sentence that the convict
should travel for limited term up and down
the State, in company with the officers who
might have him in charge. BY the same means,
the inmates of the iunatic asylums might be
temporarily enlarged, much to their own detri-
ment; and every soldier or seaman in the SER
vice ofthe country could compel their command
crs to bring them before the Court six times a
week
But the hGbeGs corpus has never received
such a construction. 1t is writ of right, and
may not be refused to one who shows prima
.facie emitting him to be discharged or bail
ed Bat he has no right to demand it who ad-
nits that he is in legal custody for an offence
not baiable he does make what is equivalent
to such an admission when his own application.
and the commitment referred to in it, show that
he is lawfully detained. a complaint must be
made, and the cause of detaner submitted to a
Judge, before the writ can go. The very object
and purpose Of this is to prevent it from being
irlied with by those who have manifestly nc
right to be set at liberty. 1T is like a writ OF
error in a criminal case, which the Court OF
Judge is bound to allow, if there be reason to
suppose that an error has been committed, and
equally bound to refuse it, if it be clear that the
Judgment must he affirmed.
We are not aware that any application to
this Court for a writ of ha6eas corpus has ever
been successful, where the Judges, at the time
OF the allowance, were satisfied that the prison
er must be remanded. The petitioners coun-
sci say there is but one reported case in which
was refused, q Binn., 304 y and this is urged
m the argument, as reason for supposing
ihat IN all other cases the writ was issued with
oat examination. But no such inference can
'alrly be drawn from the scarcity of judicial de-
clSIons on y point like this. We do not expect
10 find in reports so recent as ours those long
Established rules of law. which the student
'-,Tns from his elementary books, and which
are constantly acted upon without being dis
fufcl.
The hGbe0s corpus is a common-law writ and
has been used in England from time immemo.
rill. just as it is now. The statute of 81 Car
II, G. ,. made no alteration in the practice OF
lie Courts in granting these writs. Is Barn. &
AID. 20; Chitty's Reps, 207.) 1t merely
provided that the Judges in vacation should
have the power which the Courts had previous
y exercised in term time, Il Chitty's Gen
frar 5-G,l and inflicted penalties upon those
VINO Shoaid defeat its operation. The common
"a" upon tnis subject was brought to this coun
ny ny the coionists; and most, if not all of the
9G'leS have since enacted laws resembling the
r.nsSh statute of Charles ii in every principal
feature The Constitution of the United States
declares that the privilege of a writ of habeas
'"'P"S shall not be suspended, unless when, in
cases OF rebellion or invasion, the public safety
may require it." Congress has conferred upon
'le Federal Judges the power to issue such
~rns, according to the principles and rules reg.
"idllng It IN other Courts. Seeing that the
'AIne general principles of common law on this
subject prevail in England and America, and
Sre'ng also the similarity of their statutory reg.
S."uons IN both countries, the decisions of the
"S"'h Judges, as well as OF the American
''nrtS, both State and Federal, are entitled to
cur fullest respect, as settling and defining our
powers and duties.
blackstone Is Com, 1922 says the writ Of
.'a'eas corpus should be allowed only when the
court or Judge is satisfied that the party hath
probable cause to be delivered. He gives co
gent reasons why it should not be allowed il
any other case, and cites with unqualified ap
hon h. -,
o9he and Chief Justice Vaughan, in cases
where they had refused it. Gritty lays down
the rule, ii CIR. Law, lOl; | Gen. Prac., 6s6-'7.
II seems to have been acted upon by al the
Jndges. The writ was refused in Rer vs.
SSer1eiaer, Il Burr, 1857 and in the case of the
1"'ee Spanish Sailors, q Blacks r., l324.)
n