The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-09-11
CASE OF PAssMoRE WILLIAMSON

The supreme OF Pennsylvania met on the 9Th inst
noon for purpose giving the decision the court
the application for writ OF hateas corpus in the of
Passmore Williamson The FIVE judges were all upon the
bench The courtroom densey crowded and the
ious faces Of those who listened the decision the court
as read by Judge Black and the dissenting opinion Of
Judge Knox evneed the deep interest that has been excl
ted by this extraordinary Many the leading
of the bar present The decision Of the court
read BY Judge Black, AS follows
/ DECISION.
ES rARrE WILLIAMSON Opinion By Justice Biaek-Ths
Is an application by Passmore Williamson for habeas
phs tie complains that he is held IN custody under a
commitment OF the district court Of the United States for
contempt OF that court in refusing obey its process The
process which lac is confined for dsobeyng habeas
corpus commanding him to produce the bodies OF certain
colored persons claimed slaves under the law of V
| GINA
Is he entitled to the writ he has asked for In consid-
ering what answer we shall give TO this question, are
OF course, expected TO be influenced 10 other cases by
the law and the constitution alone The gentlemen who
appeared counsel for the petitioner and who argued the
motion in way which did them great honor pressed upon
us considerations except those which were founded
upon their legal views of the subject
1t is argued with much earnesness aud no doubt with
perfect sincerity that bound TO allow the writ
without stopping to consider whether The petitioner has
has not laid before any probable for supposng his
deainer ilegabat every confined in prison. except
for treason felony, is entitled TO il dsbo ustand
that we cannot refuse itwhcu trighul violation OF the
petitioners rights matter how plainly it may appear
his showing that he is held ia custody for just
II this be true the of III pdre laurence 6 nn 3o
is not law There the writ refused because the app
can't had been previously heard before another But
if every who applies for habea corpus must have
matter of right and without regard nything but
the fact that he demands IT, then Judge has
power to refuse second than first application
Is it really true that the special application which
be made for every writ of habeas corpus and the oxa
nation Of the commitment which we bound 10 make
before it can ssue, are hollow and unsubsiantia
forms Can it be possible that the law and the
completely under the control of their natural enemies
State except traitors and eons may be brought before
rs often they please, though know beforehand by
their own admissions that cannot help but remand
them immediately? If these questions must he answered
in the affirmative then compelled, against will
and contrary to our convictions of duty to wage con-
slant warfare against the federal tribunals BIZ firing off
writs Of habeas corpus upon them oil the time The punt
tive justice of the State would suffer still seriously
The half of the Western pencnary would be before
at Philadelphia and similar proportion from Cherry Hill
and Moyamensing would attend sttngs Pittsburg
To remand them would do very little good for set
of writs would bring them all back again
solitary confinement would be 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 the inmates OF the lunatic nsygins
might be temporarily enlarged much their detri-
ment and every soldier in the service of the
country could compel their commanders bring them be-
fore the court six times week
But the habeas corpus has never received such con-
structon tisa writ Of right and not be refused to
who shows Ptaa acie case emitting him to be discharged
or bacd But be has no right TO demand it who admits
that he is in legal custody for offence baiabe and
he does make what is equivalent to such an admission
when his application and the commitment referred 10
in H. show that he is lawfully detained A complaint
be made and the of detainer submitted TO
judge heorc the writ can 60 The object and pur
pose VI ibis is TO prevent it from being tred with by those
who have manifesy right be set at liberty. 1t is
lie writ OF in criminal case which the or
bound 10 allow if there be to suppose that
has been committed and equally bound to refuse
| iii be clear that the Judgment must be affirmed.
Wa not aware that any application TO this court for
writ OF hateo has ever been successful where the
prisoner must be renanded The petitioners counsel
that there IL but rcpor ted in which ii refused
(5 Bnn ao4D and this is urged in the argument as
for supposng that in oil other cases the writ
issued without examination. But no such Inference can
be irly drawn from the scarcity Of judicial decisions on
point like THE VIZ do expect find in reports SO
those lonpesabshed rules Of law which the
student learns from his elementary books and which
constantly acted upon without being disputed.
The ho6eas corpus is a common-aw writ, and has been
used in England from time immemorial just it is now.
The statute Of 81 Car Ill, 2 made alteration in the
practice Of the courts in granting the wrs 60 Barn and
AID 420-2; Chiuy's Reps 2o7 II merely provided that
had previously exercised in term time, Chitty
Gen Prec, esq., and inflicted penalties upon those who
should defeat its operation The common law upon this
subject brought to America by the coonists and
most il not all Of the States have since enacted laws
semhng the English statute Of Charles II in every prnc
pal feature The constitution of the United States declares
that he privilege of writ Of habeos corpus shall not be
suspended unless whcn in cases of rebellion or INVASION
the public safety may require it, Congress has conferred
corng the principles and rules regulating them in other
courts. Seeing that the general principles of
mon law this subject prevailed in England and Amer
lea and seeing also the similarity Of the statutory regua
ons in both countries the decisions OF the English Judges
we'll Of The American courts both State and federal
entitled to fullest respect settling and defining
our powers and duties.
Blackstone Com, 1927 says the writ Of hobeas corpus
should be allowed only when the court Judge is salts
fled that the party hath probable cause to be delivered lie
gives cogent why 1t should not be allowed in any
other case and cites with unqualified appreciation the
precedents set by Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice
Vaughan in they had refused it, Gritty lays
down the rule. Il Or Law, lol; Gen. Prac,
C86-'1) 1t to have been acted upon by all the
judges. The writ refused in Rex Scheiver Barr
1857 and in the of the three Spanish Sailors e.
Blacks r. 1324) in Hobhouscs case @ Barn and AID.
f20) it was fully settled by unanimous court as tho
construction Of the statute that the writ is to
be allowed if upon view Of the commitment it be mani
fest that the prisoner must be renanded 10 New York
when the in force there precisely like ours ESQ
far mean this question ia concerned) it decided
by The supreme court Is Johns 1922 that the allowance
of the writ matter within the discretion of the
depending the grounds laid in the application II was
refused in users case "a Johns O. 1885, aud in IL porte
Ferguson 60 Johns r., 1907 In addition this have
the opinion Of Chief Justice Marshall in Whatkas case
g Peters 202 that the writ ought not to he awarded IL
the satisfied that the prisoner must he remanded
It accordingly refused by the Supreme Court of the
United States in that case il had been before in Rear
ney's case.
On the whole thoroughly satisfied that duty
requires TO view and examine the Of deainer
and make end of the business once if il appear
that have power to discharge him the return OF
the writ
This prisoner already said, is confined sentence