The true Democrat., 1855-09-04
NO. IT,.


 der the constitution of the land
 It would be futile and worse, to argue that ne who has organized aud guided, and headed a moh to effect the abduction and imprisof- neht oi others-he in whose presence and by whose active influence the abduction and i'm !prisonment have been brought about-might excuse himself from responsibility by the as- sertlon that 1t was not lis hand that made the unlawful assault, or that hc never acted as the Ijaldr. He who unites with others to commit a crime shares with them all the legal liabilities that attend on its commission He chooses h.s company, and adopts their acts
 This is the retributive law of all concerted crimes; and its argument applies with peculiar force to those cases in which redress and pre- Vention of wrong are sought through the writ ot ha6eos corpus. This, the great remedial pro. cess by which liberty is vindicated and restored tolerates no language in the response which IL calls for that can mask q srbterfuge. The dearest interests of life,--personal safety, do- mestc peace, social reposc all that men can value, or that is worth living for, are involved in this principle The institutions of society would lose more than half their value, and courts ofjustice become mpotent for protection, if the writ of habeas corpus could not compel the truth, full, direct, and unequivocal, in an- swer to its mandate
 IL VIII HOC uO Io say lO llG man whose Vile or whose daughter has been abducted-"I did not abduct her; she is not in my possession: 1 do not detain her. inasmuch as the assault was made by the hand of my subordnates, and I have forbone to ask where they propose consum- ing the wrong"
 It IS clear, then, as 1t seems to me- that in le- gal acceptance the parties whom the writ called on Mir. Williamson to produce were at one time within his power of control; and his answer, so far as 1t relates to his power over them, makes no distinction between that time and the present. 1 cannot give a different interpretation to his language from that which he has practically given himself, and cannot regard him as deny ing his power over the prisoners now, when he does not aver that he has lost the power which he formerly had.
 He has thus refused, or at least he has failed to answer to the command of the law He has chosen to decide for himself upon the lawful ness as we'll as the moral propriety of his act and to withhold the entertainment and vnd- cation of the rights of others from the same for. um of arbitrament on which all his own rights repose. In word he has put himself in con tempt of the process of this court and challenges its action
 That action can have no alternative form It is one too clearly defined by ancient and hon. ored precedent, too indispensable to the admin straton Of social justice and the protection of human rights and too potentially invoked by the special eXigency of the case now before the court to excuse even a doubt of my duty or an apology for its immediate performance
 The cause was submitted to me by the learned counsel for the respondent, without argument, and have therefore found myself at some loss to understand the grounds on which, if there be any such, they would claim the discharge of l their rlipDt OulU bos ApcurraO f., perhaps, within his view; and on this think it right to express my opinion. will frankly reconsider it however, if any future aspect of the case shall invite the review
 is this: that the persons named in this wnl as detained by the respondent, are not legally slaves inasmuch as they were within the ter ritory of Pennsylvania when they were ab- ducted
 Waving the inquiry, whether ior the purpose of this question they were within the territorial jurisdiction of Peunsy syyania while passing from one State to another upon the navigabe water ot the United States,-a point on which m first impressions are adverse t. the argument l have to say
 | That 1 know If no statute, eitl CT of the United States, or of Pennsyly ania, C. of New Jersey, the only other State that has qualified jurisdiction over this part of the Delaware, that authorizes the torcible abduction of any person or any thing whatsoever, without claim of pru. perty, unless in aid of legal process
 Z. That 1 know of no statute of Pennsylva- nia, which affects to divest the rights of proper ty of citizen of North Carolina, acquired and asserted under the laws of that State, because lie had found it needlnl or conveuent to pass through the territory of Pennsl lyau!a.
 3 That l am not aware that any such sta ute, if such a one were shown could be rc- co8nized as valid in q court of the United States.
 1. That 1t seems to me altogether unimport- ant whether they were slaves or not. IL would be the mockery of philanthropy to assert, that because men had become free, they might there fore be forcibly abducted.
 have said nothing of tue motives by which the respondent has been governed have noth- ing to do with them; they may give him sup port and comfort before an infinitely higher tribunal; do not impugn them here.
 Nor do 1 allude, on the other hand, to those special claims upon our hospital courtesy. which the diplomatic character of Mr. Wheeler might seem to assert for him. am doubtful whether the acts of Congress s we to him and his retinue and his property that protection as a representa- tive of the sovereignty of the United States. which they concede to all sovereigntes besides. Whether under the general law of nations, he
 
 judicial precedents might seem to admit, is not necessarily involved in the case before me
 It is enough that find, as the case stands now, the plain and simple grounds of adjudica2 ton, that Mir. Williamson has not returned truthfuly and fully to the writ of ha5eas corpus. He must, therefore, stand committed for a con- tempt of the legal process of the court.
 As to the second motion of the district attor- ney, that which looked to a commttal for per jury, I withhold an expression of poinion in regard to 1t. It is unnecessary, because Mr. Williamson being under arrest, he may be charg- ed at any time by the grand jury; and 1 appre- bend that there may be doubts whether the affidavit should not be regarded as extraudicial and voluntary
 Let Mir. Williamson, the respondent, be com mitted to the custody of the Marshal without bail or main-prize, as for contempt of the court in refusing to answer to the writ of habeas corpus, heretofore awarded against him at the relation of Mir. Wheeler.
 After Judge Kane had concluded district at torney Vandyke moved that a commitment under the seal of the court be issued, and that the defendant, Passmore Williamson be placed in the custody of the marshal
 MT Gipin said he dersired to make motion that the defendant be granted permission to amend his return 10 the writ habeas of corpus
 Mr. Vandyke objected
 Judge Kane said that MT Gilpiu was too late with his motion. Mir Vandyke's motion had already been granted, and the prisoner was in the custody of the marshall
 MT. Gilpin then commenced an argument on the truthfulness of the original return.
 Judge Kane said that his decision would be on file, and he also understood that it would be reported in full in tue newspapers of this afternoon. He thought it would be better for the counsel for the prisoner to examine the de cision at their leisure, and then prepair any mo ton they might think proper to make.
 Mir. Gilpin acquiesced and the court adjourn led