The daily union., 1855-10-17


the same power and used in the manner IS by a
master his slave The right Ia such is from the
souTeethe law OF the land If the enforcement OF
the right exeles feeling in Than the other il
is not from the 10 which is done but the
Of the right which is enorcedproperty ia human being
for life II this Is unjust and oppressive the sin is the
makers Of laws which tolerate slavery visit il those
who have honestly acquired and lawfully hold property
under the guarantee and protection Of the laws Is the worst
of all oppression and the rankest injustice towards
6llow-men the indulgence Of spirit Of persecution
against neighbors for of,nc against society lis
laws but simply for the assertion Of their own in lawful
manner.
If this spirit pervades the country he goes say
ifpubc opinion is suffered to PROSTATE the laws which
protect species property those Who lead the
against slavery may distant day find d-
rected against their lands their stores and their debts II
master cannot retain the custody of his slave apprentice
or Fedemponer parent must give up the guardianship
OF his children, bail have hold upon their principal
the creditor arrest his debtor by lawful means and he
who keeps the rebfu Of lands out of possession
will be protected in his trespasses.
when the law he the test of right and
dy when individuals undertake be its administrators by
rules OF their adoption the bands Of society bro
ken ehectnaly by the of link from The
chain of justice which binds to the laws If the
whole dissolved The specous and seductive the
preexs are under which the law is violated, the greater
ought to be the vigilance OF courts and ures in their de-
lection. Public opinion is security against acts OF open
aud ayowed infngements of Acknowledged rights from
such combinations there is danger; they win fall BY
their own violence the Llast expends ITS force by s
own fury. The only permanent danger is in the n
dugeuee OF the humane and benevolent feelings of our
nature al what he of oppression towards
human beings endowed with the qualities and ar
butes as ourselves and brought being by the
power which created ALL without rejecting that in suf
erng these feelings Into against rights
cured by the laws forget the first duty of citizens of a
government Of aws--ohedence to its ordinances
There was other legnl proposition affirmed in that
opinion OF this court; but it cannot need argument 1t
was that the question: whether the negroes
not freed by their arrival in Pennsylvania irrelevant
to the issue inasmueh as whether they freed not
they were equally under the protection of the law and the
same obligation rested Mr. Williamson make
and full to the writ of habeas corpus Simple and
obvious as this proposition Is it all the judicial
ton IN the case The writ required him to produce the
groes that the court might pass upon his legal right
carry them off detain What questions mig ht arise ai
terwards, or how they might be determined, for
him to consider His duty then, now, was, and is, to
bring in the bodies or ii they passed beyond his CONTROL
10 declare under oath or affirmation, far he knew
what had become OF them. And from this duty, from
the restraint that seeks enforce it, there be escape
See the argument of Sergeant Glynn, and the remarks
OF Mr. Justice Gould in the of Mr.. Wilkes Wis.,
4 l54.l
The application Immediately before hardly calls for
these expanded remarks though rightly considered they
bear upon most OF the points that elaborated in the
argument upon the question of its reception liz purpors
TO be suggestion and petition from person in Mas
sachusets who informs the that of the
groes who escaped from Mr. Wheeler; that she did by
Mr.. Wiamsons counsel, and with the sanction Of his
presence and approval but that he detained her,
nor has any since and that she has authorized
application for the writ of hebas corpus her behalf
lhereupon she presents to certain reasons founded
she supposes in law, wherefore ought to quash the writ
heretofore issued at the relation of Mr.. Wheeler
When application made TO for leave to file this
paper invited the learned counsel to advise upon the
question whether could lawfully admit the Intervention
OF their client My thanks due to them for the ability
aud courteous bearing with which they have discussed it,
1 But remain unconyinced
The yer, Of the person who antheneates the pa
per IS stranger to any proceeding that or has been be-
tore me- She asks judicial action or herself and does
not profess to have right to solicit action in behalf of
another the contrary her counsel here
pressy that Mr. Williamson has not sanctioned her ap-
rlttn tnn a n xfpf hat in
court.
We're she here party abide its action she would
have right TO be heard according the of law
were she here witness called by party her identity
asceaInod she might be examined all facts supposed
TO be within her knowledge But records be
opened to every stranger who volunteers "A sugges
ton as to what may have been errors, and how we
may repair them
| know that the writ Of habeas corpus can only be in
voked BY the party who is restrained ofbety by
one in his behalf | know too that it has been the
pronch of English that they have 100 willingly
acted proof that the application authorized by the ag
erieyed before permitting the writ to issue But yet
the courts of the United States have think avoided this
The writ issues here whenever it is shown by af
davit that its benefit agency is needed 1t would lose
It's best efficiency if could issue without petition
from the party himself whom be had delegated
to represent him His very presence in to demand
the writ would n Sort negative the restraint which
his petition must nege In the most urgent those in
which delay would be disastrousorcble abduction
cret imprisonment and the kehe very grievance under
which he Is suffering preclude the possibility OF his APP
plying in person constituting representatives The
American books full of cases-they within the expe
rience of every practitioner the BARN which the writ
has issued at the instance of third persons who had
other interest right in the than what every man
comedies sympathy with the oppressed. only
refer TO the have quoted from in Mason and the
Of Stacy in 10 Johnson for illustrations of this pac
| tice
OF course if it appears the court at any time that the
writ asked for by intermeddlng stranger--one
who had authority to intervene and whose nterven-
ton is repudintedtbe writ will lie quashed. But il is for
the defendant TO whom the writ is addressed alege
want Of authority in the reator The motion quash
he the act Of volunteer; still less
by written suggestion from without jurisdiction in
the Of the party who is alleged tie under constraint
and whose denial that SHE may be only proof
that the constraint is eilectua
! | may add that | have examined all the authorities
which brought before by the learned COUNSEL with
most of them familiar before Bu there is not one
among them which, in my judgment, conflicts with the
views have expressed
The application TO enter this paper among the records of
the court must therefore be refused.
Upon the reading of the above opinion Mr. Cadwalader
member OF the bar OF the court counsel or ator-
ney in the original or subsequent proceedings asked leave
atcas crin suggest that in the opinion Of the cour
incident Of the original proceeding which has been pub
lcy unsupported has not been noticed IL has been publicly
reported that after the opinion of the court which resulted
IN Mr. Wiiamsons commitment had been read his counsel
applied to the court for leave to amend bis return which
leave refused. The present suggestion made under
the belief Of the member of the bar who makes that this
report and that what as
lows When the opinion in the original proceeding was
read, the counsel Of Mr. Williamson asked if motion TO
amend the return would be received aud the replied
that the motion be reduced to writing and that il
could not he received until the courts order should be ed