New-York daily tribune., 1855-08-20

Under tbese circunsances before the said testimony
wes gone into, and aferward The counsel OF your p-
troDer asked for time until tie ne1f morning for oon-
sul.ation and preparation for the argument OF the
question which might arise IN the case, which sppica-
tors were refused by the Court and the hearing went
on, snd cosed on the same morning between IL aud
clock.
On Tuesday the 3Ist OF July, ls55, your petitioner
presented TO TIE Hon Chief Justice Of this Court
petition for a hAheas corpus which wac refused.
Irasmuch Gs your petitioner is thus deprived OF hs
liberty for indefinite time, aud possibly for his hfe-
a. be believes Illegally; lnasmuch a. he L a native
citizen Of Pennsy vania aid claims that he hos right
TO tie protection OF the Commonwealth and 10 have
recourse to her courts for enlargement and redress
be bces leave respectfully TO state some OF tue grounds
which be conceiyes be entitled 10 the reliei which
be now prByJ.
Whatever may be the view Of the Court ss 10 the
probability OF this discharge on hesnng, your peii-
toner respectfully represents tst be l. clearly eltued
10 have wit Of habeas corpus granted, aud 10 be
theTeupon brought before ihe Court Upoo this sub
ec' the Pennsylvania Hahess Corpus Act "a impera-
tive. Iuceed the question OF The suiEcency OF the
Of his detention directly concerns hs personal
hb,ity any law which should TAI 70 secure 70 him
the night Of being personally peeen at lie argument
and decisions would he fnght'uliy Inconsistent with
the principles Of the Common Law the provisions Of
cur Bill OF Rights, snd the very basis OF oar Cow
eminent.
II il believed that 10 case prior 10 that of your pa
iitoner Is reported in Pennsylvania, of refusal of teis
writ 10 periy restrained OF bis liberty, except IN tue
case of IT porte Laurence, Binn, 30f. IN which II
decided that II not obligatory on the Court TO
issue second wit OF habeas corpus where the case
had been heard already on the same evidence upon
FIRST writ Of habeas corpus granted by another Court
Of the prisoners selection; IN other words, thst
ID. statutory rieh TO the wit was exhausted by the
inn efretion and hearing of the frst writ and that
the granting Of secon0 writ at the discretion OF
the Court Ibis Gaze, therefore, appears 70 confirm
strongly the position OF your fettioner that he s ab
soluiey entitled ai law to the writ for which he now
]
On the hearing there will be endeavored to be estab
shed on behalf of your petitioner abundant ground
OF reason aud authority the following propositions
! That II i the right and duty Of the Courts, and
! esrecally Of tie Supreme Court Of this Common
wealth 10 relieve any citizen of the same from iles
! imprisonment.
Jndge OF having urrdctlOn the subject matter,
and whose order Is therefore VOID Is an Illegal mprs-
oImeDt
! 2. That the party subjected 10 such imprisonment
has right TO be relieved from il Oh habeas corpus,
whether he old or did not make the objection of the
want Of Jurisdiction before the Court Judge nhict
/ ing such imprisonment; aud that If he did not make
such objection, II Is nmateral whether he were pre-
vented rom making it by ignorance of the law or by
the want Of extraordinary presence Of mind, or by
whatever Other cause.
1 4 Tha. the Courts and Judges of the Uoi'ed states
are Courts and Judges Of limited urisc ictou created
by a government of enumerated powers, aud ia pro-
cfedings before them the record must show tue 10
be- within their jurisdction otherwise they can have
none.
s. That If the record Of any proceeding before them
/ sfOg sfrnatiyey that the was clearly without
their jurisdiction there can presumption Of fact be
raise gaDsi such record for the purpose OF validating
/ their jurisdiction.
/ G. That no wit of habeas corpus be Issued to
produce the body of person not II custody under
legal process unless 1t be issued Ia behalf ani with
the consent OF said person.
T. That at comrnOn law the return 10 n wit of pabeas
corpus if it be uBevasiye full and complete Il con-
/ clusve Gud cannot be trsversed.
{. That person held as slave under the law OF
one State and voluntarily carried by his ogner for
sny purpose into aDOiber State IL not fugitive from
labor or service within the true intent aud meaning OF
the Constitution of the United States but Is 1lect TO
ihe laws of the state into which he has been thus
carried and that by the law of PcDnsy ylvania slave
so brought into this State whether for the purpose OF
passing through the same otherwise, Is free.
Q That tie District Court of the Uuited States has
no iursdction whatever over the question Of tle
freedom or slavery of such person, or of an aegel
gbCucIOn of him, nor any lurisdicusn 10 award a
, wit If habeas corpus commanding an alleged ab-
ductor or any citizen by whom he may be assumed TO
| be detained TO produce BUN
10. That in case Of fugitive from service or labor
from another State, the District Court of the United
/ States has jurisdiction to is-ue warrant for tue ap-
rrehension OF such fugitive and in be be rescued
ard abducted from his claimant, to proceed by ndict-
meht and trial by Jury against such abduc'Or aud on
conviction TO puDish him by limited hne aud imprlson-
Z
| Court nor the Judge thereof has no jurisdiction 10
issue q writ OF bsbcas corpus commando The alleged
abouclor TO produce such fugitive, or 10 en.orce q
return of ruch writ, allow traverse OF the return
thereof if made, upon such traverse IN effect con-
Wet the TerlOideut without lndic cment or trit by
Jury Of such abduction, aud thereupOn puaish hun
therefor by unlimited imprisonment IN the ma ne of
commitment ss for a contempt IN refusing TO return
! such Vrit of haheas corpus.
IL TIA. generally il is true that one Court will not
/ 90 lehnd q commitment by another Court for con-
/ tempt but that is ouly where the committing court
has urss ciiOB of the subject matter and y0ur pet-
toner submits that when the circumstances OF the sup
posed contempt set forth upon the record OF com
miiment ana il further appears thefeupon tnat the
whole proceedings draM non Judc, and that Tor
that and other The commitment was arbitrary,
Illegal and vod-ii IS the right and duty OF Court Of
con oten jurisdiction by wit Of habeas corpus TO ne
/ ieye a cnzen from imprisonment under such VOID
-. That neither the District Court OF the United
Sfat nor the Judge thereof had any shallow coiOf
of jurisdiction award the wit OF he0eas corpus d.
recied TO your petitioner, commanding hun Ia produce
the hodi,s o Jane, De- il and l-ai A. and that sucn
/ writ was VOID; tlat your petitioner wa IN no wise
bourd 10 make return theIeio thai TIE return which
lie dio make leIeo was uaeyaslYc full aud compiee e,
and was conclusive and not traveraDc that the COM
mituent Of petitioner for contempt N reas-
inc 10 return said writ is arbitrary, illegal and Ut
tIlv null ard void that the whole prOcce dngs incud-
| ing tie commitment for contempt were absolutely
! coTGa non JEdice.
l3. That il such oppression Of ore Of her citizens
subordinate Judge OF the United States has usurped
upon the an horny violated the peace and derogatet
| fom tie sovereign dignity Of tie Commonwealth OF
Pennsy lvenia Eat ali hurt in The person OF your
refOner and that he il justified in boxing with cOuh-
deuoe 10 III aubor OF bis State yindicae
her rights by restoring lis liberty.
To be relieved therefore from the imprisonment
aforesaid YOUR petitioner now applies, praying that a
writ of habea corpus nay be Issued according 10 be
act Of Assembly IL such case made and prOyied, d.
reced 10 Charles Horz the sac keeper Of sad prison
,o,, rrensiuo, him Ia brinr before Your HOuonbls