The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-09-27

persons being respectively named Jane aged
about thirty-fve years; Daniel, aged about
twelve years; and Isaiah, aged about seven
years-persons of color; and that they were de-
tanned from his possession by Passmore Will
hanson, but not for any criminal or supposed
criminal matter. In accordance with the pray
err of the petition, writ of ha6eas corpus was
awarded, commanding Passmore Williamson
to bring the bodies of the said Jane Daniel,
and Isaiah, before the Judge of the District
Court forthwith. To this writ, Passmore VIII
hanson made return, verified by his afirma-
ton, that the said Jane, Daniel, and Isaiah, nor
either of them, were at the time of the issuing
of the writ, nor at the time of the return, nor
at any other time, In the custody, power, or
possession of, nor confined, nor restrained, their
liberty by him; and that, therefore, he could
not produce the bodies, as he was commanded.
This return was made on the Goth day of
July, A. D. 1855. "Whereupon, afterwards, to
wit, on the 9th day of July, A. D. 1855, (says
the record, the counsel for the several parties
having been heard, and the said return hav-
ing been duly considered, it is ordered and
adjudged by the Court that the said Passmore
| Williamson be committed to the custody of the
Marshal, without bail or mainprize, as for a
contempt in refusing to make return to the writ
of habeas corpus heretofore issued against him,
at the instance of Mr.. John ii. Wheeler"
Such is the record. Now, while / am willing
to admit that the want of jurisdiction should be
made clear, l deny that, in a case under our
ha6eaS corpus act, the party averring want Of
Jurisdiction cannot 60 behind the record to es
tablish its non-existence. Jurisdiction, or the
absence thereof, is a mixed question of law and
, fact 1t is the province of fact to ascertain
! what the case is and of law to determine wheth-
er the Jurisdiction attaches to the case so ascer
tanned And SAYS the I'd section of our act Of
1885, "and that the said Judge or Justice may,
according to the intent and meaning of this act,
be enabled, by investigating the truth of the
circumstances of the case, to determine wheth-
er, according to law, the said prisoner ought to
be bailed, remanded, or discharged, the return
may, before or after it is filed, by leave of the
said Judge or Justice, be amended, and also
suggestions made against it, so that thereby
material facts may be ascertained."
This provision applies to cases of commit
ment, or detainer for any criminal or supposed
criminal matter; but the l4th section, which
applies to cases of restraint of liberty &" under
any color or pretence whatever" provided that
" the Court Judge, or Justice, before whom the
party so confined or restrained shall be brought,
shall, after the return made, proceed in the
same manner as is hereinbefore prescribed, to
examine into the facts relative to the case, and
into the cause of such confinement or restraint,
/
the party so brought, as to justice shall apper-
tain"
The right and duty of the Supreme Court of
a State to protect citizen thereof from i'm
prisonment by a Judge of a United States Court
having no Jurisdiction over the cause OF COM
plant, is so manifest and so essentially neces-
sary under our dual system of government, that
/ cannot believe that this right will ever be
abandoned or the duty avoided; but if we con-
cede, what appears to be the law of the later
cases in the Federal Courts, that the jurisdic
ton need not appear aifirmatively, and add to
it that the want Of jurisdiction shall not be
proved by evidence outside of the record, we
do virtually deny to the people of the State the
right to question the validity of an order by
Federal Judge consigning them to the walls of
a prison without bail or mainprize."
What a mockery to say to one restrained Of
his liberty, "True, if the Judge or Court under
whose order you are in prison acted without
Jurisdiction, You are entitled to be discharged
but the burden is upon you to show that there
was no Jurisdiction, and in showing this we will
not permit you to go beyond the record made
up by the party against whom you complain"
AS the petitioner would be legally entitled,
upon the return of the writ, to establish the
truth of the facts set forth in his petition, so
far as they bear upon the question Of jurisdic-
ton, we are bound before the return to assume
that the facts are true as stated and, so taking
them, the case is this
John II. Wheeler voluntarily brought into
the State of Pennsylvania three persons of
color, held by him in the State Of Virginia as
slaves with the intention of passing through
this State. While on board of a steamboat near
Walnut street wharf, in the city of Philadelphia,
the petitioner, Passmore Williamson, informed
the mother that she was free by the laws of
N Al Al A.:
ton, expressed her desire to have her free
dom and finally, with her children, left the
boat of her own free will and accord and with
out coercion or compulsion 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 slave State voluntari-
ly brings them into free State with the in
tention of passing through the free State.
While there, upon being told that they are free,
the slaves leave their master. Can a Judge of
the District Court of the United States compel
their restoration, through the medium of a writ
of habeas corpus directed to the person by
whom they were informed of their freedom !?
Or, in other words, is it case arising under
the Constitution and laws of the United States ?
What article or section of the Constitution
has any bearing upon the right of master to
pass through a. free State with his slave or
slaves? Or, when has Congress ever attempted
to legislate upon this question? ] most unhes-
itatingly aver that neither in the Constitution
of the United States nor in the acts Of Congress
can there be found sentence which has any
!. effect upon this question whatever. 1t is a
question to he decided by the law of the State
where the person is for the time being, and
that law must be determined by the Judges of
the State, who have sworn to support the Con-
stitution of the State as well as that of the
United States--an oath which is never taken
by Federal Judge.
Upon this question of Jurisdiction it is wholly
immaterial whether by the law of Pennsylvania
a stakeholder has or has not the right of pass
ing through our State with his slaves. If he
has the right it is not in virtue of the Constitu.
ton or laws of the United States, but by the
law of the State; and if no such right exists. il
is because the State law has forbidden it. or
has failed to recognize 1t. 1t is for the State
alone to legislate upon this subject, and there
is no power on earth to call her to an account
for her acts of omission and commission in this
behalf
!; If this case, by any reasonable construction,
J be brought within the terms of the third clause
of the second section of article four of the Con
stituton of the United States, jurisdiction might
be claimed for the Federal Courts, as then il
would be a case arising under the Constitution
of the United States, although l believe the
writ of habeas corpus is no part of the ma
chinery designed by Congress for the rendition
; of fugitives from labor.
"No person (says the clause above men
tiOned) held to service or labor in ono Stoto