New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-08

ut,nct. ~ meaning the society of which Mr.. VIII
hanson is ecretary. But the ground thus broken,
.Jpdge Kane-the same man for whose judicial
or rather madcsp procedures Mr.. ChiefJustice
/ Lewis exhibits such tender cOnsideratlon-was
not slow in applying the same doctrine 70 the
\ supreme Court itself. The assaulted negro
having brought his civil action for damages
| seairst the Mar halls in the Supreme Court
Of Pepnsylvania, one of the Judges Of that court
for sught we know ChiefJustice Lewis him.
self-sl.owed a capiss against them with BAL
fixed at 1000. under which they were arrested
! ard committed TO prison. Being brought before
| Judge Ksne (then holding the Circuit Court in
/ Judge Griers absence), he prefaced his judg
nent dischsrging the Marshals from imprison-
ment TEX parte Jenkings IS. Wallace, p. 535l
with the following reflections aud questions
which we respectfully recommend to Chief
Justice Lewiss consideration as being not less
pertinent to the case Of Passmore Williamson
/ than they were TO that Of the imprisoned Mar
thals.
! "To say that We may issue hnbeas corpus to res
enc an officer from imprisor ment for doing his duty,
ard vet that We shall shut eyes TO the proofs that
he aid ito affirm that court called on to inquire
wi ether an imprso ment is tor uous must listen 70 no
evidence but ihHt Of the tort teGsor himself and hs
accompices-io protest that wrong Is 10 be done by
truth pertinent 10 the ssue-s 20 nyert the rst prn-
cules Of common sense as well as justice.
t'What il that issue l. il whether the learned Judge
| Of the Supreme Court Of Penns lyana hai a9thony
TO issue tits writ or whether this wit itself IS formal
No one hes contested either Of these positions. Is II
| whether he has exercised his functions properly IL
is no part of ms functions 70 revise his adudcatloas
he Las Lis own sphere ard do not share s responsl-
IIa sanction
trespGsscs Afidavits which he regarded as sufficient
were laid before him. and he granted the arrest AN
called uuon 10 relieve officer OF the United states
| from false and t0rtuous Imprisonment. lie had TO
decide ! suppose, whether the parry who complained
before him hid right 10 the process he sought nc
he's decided that question. have to inquire whether
und.r CIV supposed error Of that process the Laws OF
the United States have been viola'ed in tie imprson-
mont OF their officers, and this question am gong 20
decide.
for nv decision Because the Judge of State court
in proceeding necessarily parte may have been
imposed by msstgtemcnts or suppressions OF tact
am therefore constrained in another cause, under
another law, within different constitutional llflsdic
ton 10 make my bearing ex parie also; 10 hcqrkc1
OnlV 70 HIM rkO has abused q - SQid ne p0HeTs o.
me lar b. falsei0od fraud and 10 refuse my ear 10
him i7h0m the lac specially eiy0tas ire 10 feeve ne
has been UrOHged p
We find nothing here of the doctrine on which
Chief Justice Lewiss refusal TO interfere is founded
the doctrine of presuming everything in favor Of
the action of the court What contrast between
the warm sympathy of Judge Kane for his officers
imprisoned on what he regarded az groundless
complaint and the placid Or rather stupid indiHer-
ence with which Chief Justice Lewis regards the
case Of citizen of Philadelphia held in like lie
| cal imprisonment! And yet the Supreme Court
| Of Pennsylvania owes quite as much care to pro-
g. 81 az lao mn
orment as Judge Kane does to protect the officers
Of his court, and Passmore Williamson, Secretary
| though be be Of the Abolition Society, is just as
much entitled to the exercise Of his rights in that
capacity as any slavecatching Marshal of them all.
How different also the action of the two courts /!
Judge Kane, satisfied as he says from the
afidayits on which the capias had been issued, that
there was no case against the Marshals for undue
violence in serving the process, sets the capas Of
the Supreme Court aside and discharges them
from Imprisonment. Chief Justice Lewis declines
10 look into the matter at all on the ground that
however wrongful and unlawful Mr.. Williamson S
imprisor mcnt may be- he can't help it, because it
is 10 be presumed that Judge Kane is right Nor
did This o rence of Judge Kane for the protection
OF the Marshals of the United 1'SteS enc mere An
Indictment having been found against tnela BY tut
criminal court OF LuzeTne County for riot, assault
and battery and assault with intent to kill, upon
which they were third time arrested, they were
a third time discharged by Judge Kane on the
same grounds as before, namely: that he would
not suffer Lis officers to be imprisoned on what he
regarded as a groundless change.
IL may be said that these cases differ from
that Of Mr.. Williamson since he stands COM
mitted for an alleged contempt, and that a spe-
cial delicacy exists about one courts interfering
with the action Of another in cases Of that sort.
But in the very case of q Marshal of the United
States committed By State court for contempt
which came before Mr.. Justice Mclean of the
! Supreme Court of the United states, no longer
longer ago than last April, be did not exhibit
any such squeamshness. Tba cOmmittal gre v
out of the cese Of the cOlored girl whom the
! Rev. Mr.. Denison, son-in-liw, it was said, of
| Ex-President Tyler, undertook TO transport,
! claiming her as q slave from Virginia, overland,
| through Ohio TO Kentucky While at Columbus,
on the way, she was brought before a county
/ Judge on habeas corpus, and was set at liber-
! ty. Dennison subsequently obtained from
Cincinnati slayecatcker warrant against her
as fugitive from labor, upon which she was
seized by the United States Marshal, but being
brought before Judge of the Supreme Court Of
Ono on second habeas corpus, she was again
discharged. Notwithstanding this discharge the
| Marshal again seized her, whereupOn the Judge
ofthe Supreme Court Of Ohio issued new habeas
] MI r.. .b,1r III, -