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

Notwithstanding the numerous cases that
are cited to sustain this position, it appears to
me To he as move! as it is dangerous. Every
court OF justice i'll this country has, in some
| de9fcc, The power to commit for contempt
Can 1t be possible that citizen once commit
ed for contempt is beyond the hope of relief,
even although the record shows that the alIer-
Ell contempt was not within the power of the
| court 70 punish summarily? Suppose that the
| Judge OF the District Court should send to
prison an editor of newspaper for contempt
| OF his court III commenting upon his decision
IN this very case would the prisoner be be-
| yond the reach OF our writ of haGeaS corpus !?
| II he would our boaSted security Of personal
liberty is i'll truth an idle boast and our con-
stitutional guarantees and writs of right are as
OF ropes OF sand. But in the name Of the
law, aver that no such power exists with
any court Or Judges, state Or federal, and if it
Is attempted to be exercised, there are modes
OF relief, full and ample, for the eXigency Of
the occasion. ... .....--....e.s
have not had either time or or opportunity
to examine all of'the cases cited, but, as far as
have examined them, they decide this and
nothing more-that where II court of compet-
| ent jurisdiction cOnvcts one of contempt,
another court, without appellate power, will
not rc-eNainnc the case to determine whether
contempt was really committed or not The
history OF punishmentS for contempt of court
and the legislative action thereon, both in our
state and Union, i'll an unnIiStakeabe manner
teaches, first, the liability of this power to
be abused, and second, the promptness with
which IFS unguarded Use has been followed by
legislative restrictions. 1t is no longer an un-
limited power of Il star chamber character, TO
be used for the oppression of the citizen at the
mere caprice Of the judge or court, but it has
its boundaries so distinctly defined that there
is no mistakng the extent to which our tri-
bunalS OF law may 60 in Furnishing for this
offence . .. -. ..-..r ..-.
In the words Of the act of Congress of ID
March, 1881. The power of the seyaral
courts OF the United States to issue attach
mentS and inllict summary punishments for con-
tempts of court, shall not be construed to eX-
tend to any cases except the msbehavior of
any person or persons i'll the presence of said
courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the
administration of justice, the misbehaYior of
any of the officers of the said courts in their
official transactions, and the disobedience or
resistance by any officer OF the said courts,
party Juror, witness, or any other person or
persons, to any ltwfM writ, process, order, rule,
decree, or command of said courts"
Now PaasmOre Williamson was convicted of
contempt for disoLeying Il writ of haJeas
corpus commanding him to produce before the
District Court certain persons claimed 10y Mr..
Wheeler as slaves. Was it lawful writ
Clearly not, if the court had no jurisdiction to
issue it ; and that it had not | think is very
plain. If it was unlawful, the person to whom
it was directed was not bound to obey it !; and,
i'll the very words Of the statute, the power to
punish for contempt as shall not be construed
to extend to it,"
But says the opinion of the majority, he
was convicted OF contempt OF court, and we
will not look into the record to see how tho
contempt was committed. | answer this by
asserting that You cannot see the conviction
without seeing the cause for it is part of the
same record which consists, lst, of the petition
ID, the writ and alias writ of habeas corpus
Sd, the return and 4th, the Judgment. at is
ordered and adudged by the court that the
said PaSsmore Williamson be committed to the
custody of the Marshal without bail or main
prize, rs for contempt in refusing to make re-
turn to writ Of hdbeGs corpus heretofore issued
against him at the instance of Mr.. John II.
Wheeler"
As understand the opinion of majority
OF my brcthcrn, as soon as we get to the word
contempt the book must be closed and it be-
comes instantly sealed as TO the residue of the
record. To sustain this commitment we must,
it seems, first presume, in the very teeth Of the
admitted fact, that these were runaway slaves
and second, we must be careful to read only
portions of the record lest we should find that
the prisoner was committed for refusing to obey
an unlawful writ
| cannot forbcar the expression of the opin
ion that the rule laid down i'll this case, by the
majority is fraught with great danger to the
most cherished rights of the citizens of the
state. Whilst in contests involving the right
OF property merely, | presume we may still
treat the Judgments of the United States
Courts in cases Of jurisdiction as nullitiGs, yet
if single Judge thinks proper to determine
that one of our citizens has been guilty of
contempt even if such determination had its
foundation i'll case upon which the Judge had
no power to promote Judgment, and was most
manifcstly in direct violation of solemn act
of the very legislative authority that created
the court over which the judge presidcs, it
seems that such determination is to have all
the force and effect Of II Judgment pronounced
by a court OF competent jurisdiction, acting
within the admitted sphere of its constitutional
power. @
Nay more. We confess ourselves powerless
to protect our citizens from the aggression of
Court as foreign from our State government in
matters not committed to its Jurisdiction as the
Court Of Queens Bench in England, aud this
upon the authority of decisions pronounced in
cases not at all analogous to the oncnow under
consideration. | believe this to be the first re-
cord case where the Supreme Court of a State
has refused the prayer of citizen forthe writ
of haJcjS rorPUs, to inquire into the legality OF
an imprisonment by Judge OF a Federal
Colrt for contempt, in refusing obedienccto n
writ void for want of jurisdiction ..
L..r Il iL1r ilo