Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-09-29

aged about Twelve years, and Isaiah agCt
about seven years persons OF color and tina
they were detained from his possession by Pass
more Williamson, but not for any criminal O
supposed criminal matter.
In accordance with the prayer of the pct
ton, a writ of hdJcaS corpus was awarded. com
manding PaSslnore Williamson to bring tn
bodies OF the said Jane, Daniel and Isaiah, be
fore the Judges Of the District Court forthwith
To this writ PasSmorc Williamson made a re
turn, verified 10y his affirmation, that the salt
Jane, Daniel and Isaiah, nor either of them
were at the time of the issuing of the writ, no
at the time Of the return, nor at any other tim
in the custody, power or possession of, nor con
fined nor restrained their liberty by him ant
that, therefore, he could not produce the bodie
rs he was commanded
This return was made on the goth dav O
July, \. ID. 1855. "Whereupon, afterwards
to wit on the 9th day OF July, A. d. 1855
<says the record, the counsel for the severa
parties having been heard, and the said return
having been duly considered, it is ordered ant
adjudged by the court, that the said PassmorC
williamson be committed to the custody O
the marshal without bail or mainprize, as fol
contempt in refusing to make return to the
writ Of haJeaS corpHS, heretofore issued agains
him, at the instance of Mr.. John Ii. Wheel
err
Such is the record Now, whilst am will
ing to admit that the want of jurisdiction
should be made clear, deny that in Il case un
der our habcis corpus act the party averrine
want OF jurisdiction cannot 90 behind the re
cord to establish its nOn-eXiStence. Jurisdic
ton, or the absence thereof, is d mixed cues
ton OF law and fact. Ii is the province of fac
to ascertain what the case is and of law to de
terminc whether the Jurisdiction attaches tC
the case 50 ascertained. And says the Cd see
ton OF our act OF 'S5, and that the said Judge
or justice may, according to the intent anL
meaning OF this act, be enabled, by inyestga
ting the circumstances OF the case, to deter
mine whether, according to law, the said pris
oner ought to be bailed, remanded or discharg
cd, the return may, before or after it is filed
by leave Of the said judge or justice, be amend
ed, and also suggestions made against it, SO
that thereby material facts may be asccr
tanned"
This provision applies to cases of commit
ment or detaincr for any criminal or, supposed
criminal matter, but the 14th section, which
applies to cases of restraint of liberty under
any color or prctence whatsoever" provides
that =" the court, judge or justice before whom
the party so confined or restrained shall be
brought, shall, after the return made, proceed
i'll the same manner as is hcreinbefore prescrib-
ed, to examine into the facts relating to the
case, and into the cause of such confinement OF
restraint, and therclpon either ball. remand OF
discharge the party SO brought, as to justice
shall appcrtain.'
The right and duty of the Supreme Court o.
a state to protect citizen thereof from i'm
prisonment by a Judge of United States Court
having no jurisdiction over the cause of com
plaint is so manifest, and SO essentially ncces
Sary, under our dual system of government
that | cannot believe that this right will ever
be abandoned or the duty avoided but if We
concedc what appears to be the law of the lat
ter cases in the federal courts, that the iuris
diction need not appear allirmatively, and add
to it that the want Of jurisdiction shall not bt
proved by evidence outside of the record, W.
do virtually deny to the people of the state
the right to question the validity Of an order
by a federal judge consigning them to the
walls of prison without bail or main
prize"
What mockCry to say to one restrained Of
his liberty, q True, if the Judge or Court I'M
der whose order you are in prison. acted with
out jurisdiction you are entitled to be diScharg
ed, but the burthcn is upon you to show that
there was no jurisdiction, and in showing thi,
we will not permit you to go beyond the recort
made up by the party against whom you com
plain"
As the petitioner would be legally entitled
upon the return of the writ, to establish the
truth Of the facts set forth in lis petition, sc
far as they bear upon the question of jurisdic
ton, we are bound, before the return, to asSum,
that the facts are true as stated, and taking
them, the case is this:
Johu H. Wheeler voluntarily brought into
the state Of Pennsylvania three persons OF col
or, held by him, in the state of Virginia, as
slaves, with the intention of passing through
this state. Whilst OH board of steamboat
near Walnut street wharf, i'll the city of Phila
delphia, the petitioner, Passmorc Williamson
informed the mother that she was free by the
laws OF Pennsylvania, who, in the language OF
the petition, " expressed her desire to have her
freedom, and finally with her children, left the
boat of her own free will and accord, and with
ont coercion or cOmpulSlon Of any kind, and
having seen her in possession of her liberty
with her children, your petitioner (SayS the pc
tition) returned to his place of business, and
has never since seen the said Jane, Daniel and
Isaiah, Or either of them, nor does he know
where they are, nor has he had any connection
Of any kind with the subject"
One owning slaves in a slave state yolunta-
rily brings them into free state with the in
tenton of passing through the free state
4 1 Al. Al.
free, the slaves leave their master. Can aJudge
of the District Court OF the United States com
pei their restoration through the medium of a
writ Of habees ccrpns directed to the person by
whom they were informed of their freedom ?
Or, in other words, is it case arising under
TIE constitution and laws of the United
States
What article or section Of the Constitution
IL, L e