New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-10-15

pufes sb,u. properly; sDd that the loer;y OF
.ter beyord ne sac of his doici vac not deenel
ror.hy OF equal protection. From an ebsurdiiy 60
gross a. this relieve myself by repeaIas t1e S0IGS
or CbieEJus,ice MArshal IN e1 Psr:e e:flas hs2.
col: INC lsv OF the United States presclo.' ne e@se
in which this great writ shall be issued, nor ne
roweI Of the court over the party brougn. 10 ON
Whether, then look 10 the Constitution enc -
history OK 10 the words or the policy OF ne &C OF
Congress believe that II was meant % retaiS o sae
cours of tie United Ststes tbs; they should dispense
the privileges of the writ OF habeas corpus 20 al par
ties lsvfnlIy asserting tne as other courts Oh slua
functions al d dignity had innenontly d1sSscsei
,hem AZ he common law. The Congress OF l1-' maie
no definition OF the writ of ts conditions or euecS
Tbey l-ft Il IS the Constitution efs IT, and as II re-
quired them 70 leave the birhnght OF every U N
within the boz ders Of the States IKE he syh' 10 n.y.
and water, and motion, and tiought-flgns Ihpre-
scrptible and above all legislation or capTce
And 90 X ouah: 10 be. There is 10 WIT 90 npor-
TAFT for good and little liable TO be 90 sed AZ me
worst, in tie hands of corTup' or lsnorant lIysv -
may reIease from restraint who should lasuy
have remsined bound. But depnves no one OF Zee
dom ano oivests 10 right. IL could no: give 20 Mr'
Wheeler he possession of he slaves, but u msat r.
lease tn m from thc custody OF wrong dosr Free
men or bondmen they had rights AID the l3renos' OF
these was toe right TO have their ether iSots judi
Gated openly and by the lnbun1ls OF the and. Atd
this rie bt at least Mr. Wheeler shared VIII llei nc
, ALSO coul! claim hearing
Iul.ss these views incorrect Throughout, the
district cout had jurisdiction Of the case which came
before it at tie instance of Ir. Wheeler lie refSe-
BIZ lis De lilC unCer Ol-n w
ncs hal betn orciby taken possession OF by Pas'-
more Williamson wi ho1t authority OF law within the
eastern district OF Pennsylvania and he prayed t1at
By force Of the writ Of hdbeis cora NJ wllan.9l
ggh be 92Gle ne What Sss The right or pet1 of
ri,h, uncer which he csia ed to detaio them.
Whittier Ir. Wheele was IN tact enl:ied % zen iAd
this witt or Wheeler upon fll discussion o. the law
court u lat have Eel justified in refusing I TO n ~
is QUESTION Of little moment. Every day and In
every wrts issue al the ns,a ce o. parties 49,
| otf.x-a
grievance las b eu sustained.
The party sss1ikd ONES before the court il oIedI-
cree 20 is process He perhaps questions the jutls.
dietion O The cont. Perhaps he denies g fact
charged. Pc hsps be exp'A that TIE fac. ,lrgld
was " reason Of cirCumstances g la stdl oD9. Inc
Judge IL resurSeG 20 know beforehand al tie me'-
its of The ito8slnd and one causes that come before
him He dee III when be - heard. But The int
du,y OF n defendant in a CAGES is obedience 10 the
wit which ca Il hin into count Ii | be has renteel
This tie ju(gc canno hear the cause, sill lees pas upon
/ moits
Mr.. WILKINSON came before the court SUI he did
lot bin, forth toe boiss of lis al eye prisoners, rs
the writ had COMMANDED him. He did n)t ques ION
tie iurisC iCion OF tho court; he dd no a'ser tna'
the IeeIO,s were free al tbSt the wit had osen aP
pied 70 wh out their authority or CONSENT, ou. ne
sim ,y denied that they hal evec been in his 'usto1y
| power or possession, as Mr.. Wheeler hs1 asserted.
Witrosfss bea d and vito oae coasent they sup,
roIted slegat 81. W neeer cd contcu-c-ot
| the denial OF Mr.. Williamson
Mr.. WilliaDsons council ten asked time = enable
| them 10 D. oduce witnesses who NCIe material GA MS
behalf: remarkipg that th1ir client might desire to
hing IL meg roeF into court pro nat they had
| not been abo uet.d. Tie Judge Informed them, IN
reply that upon Mr.. williamson making &c customary
adequate oflidavit, there were material VIZ les.-s
whom he wished to adcuce tie cause would be con-
H. ned as o. cJuyse, i'll future day. Mr. NIl4m
| declins making the affidavit. -
| Ne however asked leave TO declare for hi ns IT
| what be had done and ~hy. he was heard, and.
sreakiDe under solemn affirmation, he not only yerid I'd
all the imp otaht facts that had been sworn ID ny Mt'
! Wheeler ard the witnesses, but added thi' lmnsdi
a.ey before coming into court with his return ne ha
ca I'D upon a negro who had been his principal ass)c
ATE in the TRANSACTION TO esceran whether The
were cafe, aud had been Informed by him that they
| were all " safe.' . ,,,
counsel: the first that Mr. Williamson should be co n
mitted for a contempt of process, m that he had maze
ia sc return 10 the writ; toe second tina. ne should
| BE- held TO answer TO charge OF PERJURY. at1er De
had sunni ed up the evidence and referred 20 autn0r
| ties in supper of these motions, the counsel OF Mr.
Williamson asked leave 10 consult together as TO their
apnropriate course OF action and this being assented
TO by the court they reiret with TIER client for the
| purpOse from the court room. Returning ater some
| tine, tley informed tue court that they declined
making any argument upon the questions whi n were
The case which wss in this manner thrown noon
tie court fer its unailed adjudication had assumed an
asEect of grave responsibility on the part OF Mr WI.
amsor. /, clearly in Irooi that the negroes h ~
been removed by persons acting under his counsel, IN
his presence, with his cooperation His return TO
tie wit denied that they had ever BEEN within his
pcsse s.ion custody or control. Under ordinary cir
cums.anees this denial would hsve been colclusive
but being conirovcrted by the facts Ia evidence IT
lost that character. 4" The court said judge Story,
in case siDgulary analogous in its circumstances,
United States w. Green, Mas. 49, "will not dis
''charge the defendant simply because he declares
ihat The infant il no, in his power possession con-
"no, or custody if the conscience OF the court is not
"ralsfed that all the material facts are fully dis
"clOed. That would be TO listen 10 mere forms
against the claims Of substantial justice and the
| "rghts Of personal liberty in the city, In ordinary
casts INDEED such declaration is satisfactory and
Ought TO he decisive because there nothing before
"the court upon which IT can ground doubt OF It's
"eLiie verify and that in real and legal sense the
"mr ort Of The words possession, power, or custody,
sis fully understood and met by the party. Toe case
"of the King Ninton, IS L. r. g, and OF Stacey,
$40 Johns $685. show with what jealousy courts re-
"gard returns of this nature. In these cases there
was enough the face Of the returns TO excite s1s-
"pciors that behind, AID that the party was
'reay within The constructive control of the defend-
"snt. Upon examining the circumstances OF this
cease, am not satisfied that the return contains all
those facts within the knowledge OF the defendant
(Which are necessary TO be brought before the court
ito ensbe il 10 decide whether he is entitled to dis
| "charge or in other words whether he has not now
"he power to produce the infant ard control those in
"whose custody che is.' There 10 no doubt" he
ADDS, THAT attachment Is the proper process TO
| "bIing the defendant into court
Anxious that this resort to the Inherent and inds
penssble powers Of the court mish be avoided the
iu6ge in adiounng the case for advisement until the
| following week, urged upon Mr.. Williamson and his
associates that if practicable the negroes shou d. in
the mean time, be brought before the court.
But the Degroes were not produced. They csme
forward afterv ard. of them as 1t s sad, before
ajusiice in Nes-iork and oy process OF Pennsyl-
yana State court they or some OF them were brought
forward again in this city, TO testify for Mr.. William
son or some of his coIiederates. But before the
ecurt CT the United States sitting within the same