Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-08-04
onln,on OF Ch,.f J,s,,o. Lewis.

"A Inc loiloWing IL the oplhlon Oh tHlei JUSTICE
Lewis in the Wheeler slave case, in answer to an
argument had before him on an application for
writ OF habeas corpus:
Commonwealth, ca rel. 7. Williamson, as. + Nj.
Wynkoop, United States Marshal, and Charles
Hertz, keeper Of the Philadelphia county
prison.
Lewis, G. This is an application for writ
of habeaS corpus. 1t appears by the copies OF the
warrants annexed to the petition, that the pris-
oner is confined for contempt of the district
court of the United States, Sin refusing to answer
a writ of habeas corpus awarded by that court
against him at the relation of John fl. Wheeler"
The counsel of Mr.. Williamson very frankly
stated, in answer to an nterrogatory on the sub
ect that they did not desire the useless formality
of issuing the writ of habeas corpus, if, on view Of
the course of dctainer exhibited, should be OF
opinion that the adjudication of the United States
district court was conclusive. The habeas corpus
act does not require the writ to be granted IN all
cases whatever. Whenever it appears upon the
face OF the petition, or, which is the same thing,
by the detainer annexed to il and forming part of
it, that the prisoner is detained upon legal pro-
cess, order, or warrant for such matter offences
for which by the law the said prisoner is not bail
able, the is excepted out of the act, see act
18th February, 1855, sec. ID In like manner,
where the case has been already heard upon the
same evidence by another court, the act ofassem-
bly, does not oblige the judges to grant habeas
corpus for the purpose of rehearing it, although,
perhaps, they may deem it expedent to do so in
some extraordinary instances. eek. parte Law
renee, Bin. 304.)
We come, therefore, at once to the cause Of
detainer is it "legal process, order, or war
rant, for an offence which by law is not bail
able'" Mr.. Justice Blackstone, in Brass Cros
by 5 case, Wilson, 1885, declared that call courts
are uncontrolled in matters of contempt. The
sole adjudication of contempts, and the punish
ment thereof in any manner, belongs rrclusirely,
and piiho,a interfering, to each respective court
Infinite confusion and disorder would follow if
courts could, by writs of habeas co,pus, examine
and determine the contempts of others. This
power to commit results from the first principles
ofjustce; for, if they have the power to decide,
they ought to have the power to punish. 'It
would occasion the utmost confusion if every
court Of this State should have the power to ex-
anime the commitments of the other courts Of the
State for contempts; so that the Judgment and
commitment Of each respective court, as to con-
tempts, must be final and irithout control" g
Wilson, 204.) This doctrine was fully recog-
Missed by the court of common pleas in England,
in the case referred to. II has since been APP
proved Of in numerous other cases in that coun-
try and in this.
In pnte Kearny, Wheaton, 3S, it was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United
States, in accordance with the decision in Brass
Crosby's case, 3 Wilson, 1888, that, {" when a
court commits party for contempt, their adju-
dication is conviction, and their commitment in
consequence is execution" q Wheaton, 3S,
Cond Rep. 227.) In the case last cited, it was
also expressly decided that ga writ Of habeas corpus
was not deemed proper remedy where party
was committed for contempt by court Of COM
petent urisdiction and that if granted, the court
could not inquire into the suffciency of the
of commitment. & Wheaton 49, Many au-
thorities to the same effect are cited by Chief
Justice Cranch in Nugent's case. q American
Law Journal, Ill.
But it is alleged that the district court had no i-
risdiction 1T does not appear that its jurisdiction
was questioned on the hearing before il. The act of
Congress of Oath September, 1889, gives il power
10 issue !" writs of habeas corpus which may be ne
cessary for its jurisdiction, and agreeably to the
principles and usages of law" and the same act
expressly authorizes the Judge of that court to
grant writs Of habeaS corpus for the purpose of
inquiry into the cause Of commitment; provided
that writs of habeas corpus shall in extend
to persons in JAIL unless VIII ere they are in Gus
tody under the authority of the United States or
committed for trial before some court Of the
same, or are necessary to be brought into court
| to testify. Other acts of Congress give the Uni
ted States Judges jurisdiction in writs of habeas
corpus in cases therein specified. 1t does not APP
pear that the writ issued for persons in jail is in
disregard of State process or State authority. Ii
may be that in an action at law where the judg-
ment of United States court is relied on as
Justification, the jurisdiction should be affrma-
lively shown. But in writ of habeas corpus,
issued by Judge having no appellate power over
the tribunal whose Judgment Is shown the
cause of detainer, where the jurisdiction of the
latter depends upon the existence of certain
facts, and no objections to its authority made
on the hearing, the Jurisdiction ought TO be pre-
su1ed as against the party who might have raised
the question at the proper time but failed to do
so. II is true that, if the jurisdiction be not
alleged In the proceedings, the judgments and
DEGREES of the United States courts erroneous,
and may, upon writ Of error or appeal, be re-
versed for that cause But they are not absolute
utilities. IL other parties who had no opportu-
nifty to object TO their proceeding, and who would
not have wnts of error, may disregard them as
utilities, il does not follow that the parties them
selves may so treat them. (Kempe's leesse rs.
Kennedy, Or, 1876; Skillern's Exc'r rs. May s
Exc'r, Cranch, 267; McCormic rs. Sullivan, 10
Wheat, 1927
II is alleged that the right Of property cannot
be determined on habeas corpus. Ii is true that
the habeas corpus act was not intended TO decide
rights Of property; but the writ al common ldio
may be issued to deliver an infant TO parent,
or apprentice TO a master (Com rs. Robin
son s. & r., IS b. On the same principle, ]
see no reason why The writ at scommon law may
not be used 10 deliver a slave from illegal re-
straint, and 10 restore him 10 the custody of his
master. But granting, for the purpose Of the
Sgument, (Which ! am far from intmatng }
that the district judge made an improper use Of
the wrtthat he erred in deciding that the priso-
ner refused to answer It--that he also erred in
the construction Of the answer which was given,
and that he otherwise violated the rights Of the
prisoner-it is certainly not in my power TO re-
verse his decision.
If a writ OF habeas corpus had issued from a
State court TO the United States marshal and
| that court had adjudicated that the marshal was
guilty Of a contempt in refusing TO answer II, and
had committed him TO prison, the district court
Of the United States would have no power TO re-
verse that decision, or to release the marshal
from Imprisonment. No court would tolerate
such an interference with its judgments. The
respect which we claim for our own adjudica-
tons cheerfuly extend to those Of other court.
within their respective jurisdictions.
For these reasons the writ OF habeas corpus is
refused. ELLIS LEWIS.
AueusT ], 1855.
An Error RoBBED OF gil ,000-Mr.S. ID.
Carpenter, editor Of the Wisconsin PARROT, was
robbed, last Tuesday night, on the cars, at some
point between Adrian and White Pigeon, Of near
al 600 mostly in Ohio and Indiana hills Mr.