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

4
have provided for him."
In Jones us. Vanzandt, 9th Howard, %" Mr..
Justice Woodbury. uses language equal ex-
/ pressive: But the power of national aw,"
said that eminent jurist, to pursue and gain
most kinds of property in the limits of &c eign
| Government, is rather an act of comfy than
strict right and hence, as property in pc sons
might not thus be recognised in some Ct the
| States in the Union, and its reclamation ot be
allowed through either courtesy or right, this
clause was undoubtedly introduced int the
Constitution, as one of its compromises, fer the
safety of that portion of the Union which did
not permit such property, and which otherwise
might often be deprived of it entirely by Its
merely crossing the line of an adjoining State.
This was thought to be too harsh doctrine in
respect to any title to property of friendly
neighbor, not brought nor placed in another
State under State laws by the owner himself,
but escaping there against his consent, and
often forthwith pursued in order to BE re-
claimed"
Other authorities might be quoted e the
same effect, but it is unnecessary; for if-sit be
not clear that one voluntarily brought stAto
State is not a fugitive, no judicial Ian. uage
can ever make it so. Will we then, f the
sake of sustaining this jurisdiction, pr; sumo
that these slaves of Mr.. Wheeler escaped from
Virginia into Pennsylvania, when no sufh al
| legation was made In his petition, wheI it is
expressly stated in the petition of Mr.. William
son, verified by his affirmation, that the. were
brought here voluntarily by their maste>, and
when this fact is virtually conceded BY the
Judge of the District Court in his Op,aion?
Great as is my respect for the judicial at hori-
ties of the Federal Government, / cannot con-
sent to stultify myself in order to sustain their
! unauthorized judgments, and more particular
| l. H. Iafo - ka
at the expense of the liberty Of citizen q this
Commonwealth.
The only remaining ground upon whika this
| jurisdiction can be claimed is, that it ives in
controversy between citizens of different StatE !;
| and shall dismiss this branch of the casx sim
ply by Affirming, that the proceeding y hG-
beds corpus is in no legal sense contr' Sersy
between private parties and 2, if it We e, to
| the Circuit Court alone is given this juasdic
| ton. For the correctness of the first o,ition
l refer to opinion of Mr.. Justice Baldwin in
Holmes as. Jennifer, published in the APPENDIX
to Ia Peters, and to that of Judge Belts, IF the
Circuit Court of New York, in Berry as Mer
| cein Ell al, reported in Howard l03. AID for
the second to the llth section Of the Jud cIary
| Act, passed on the Oath of September, 1889.
| My view of this case had been committed to
writing before had seen or heard the Otinion
| of the majority of the Court. Having heard it
hastily read but once, | may mistake it pur
port but if do not, it places the refusal of the
habeas corpus mainly upon the ground that the
| conviction for contempt was a separate pro-
| ceeding; and that, as the District Court had
| jurisdiction to punish for contempts, we have
no power to review its decision. Or, as it ap-
pears from the record that the prisoner is in
| custody upon conviction for contempt, We are
powerless to grant him relief.
| Nofu orc lin no kat
cited to sustain this position, it appears % me
| to be as novel as it is dangerous. Everx court
of Justice in this country has, in some degree,
the power to commit for contempt. Gait be
| possible that citizen once committed f J con-
tempt is beyond the hope of relief, even all Tough
the record shows that the alleged contem It was
not within the power of the Court to 'unish
summarily? Suppose that the Judge # the
District Court should send to prison an editor
of newspaper for contempt of his CO lrt in
commenting upon his decision in this yer, case !;
would the prisoner be beyond the reach If our
writ of hdbeas corpus? If he would, our boast
ed security of personal liberty is in tr! tn an
| idle boast, and our constitutional qua antics
and writs of right are as ropes of sand. BX,
in the name of the law, | aver that n, such
power exists with any Court or Judge, s ate or
Federal; and if it is attempted to be e,Scsed,
there are modes of relief, full and am)le, for
the exigency of the occasion.
have not had either time or opportu lity to
examine all of the cases cited, but, as ir as /
have examined them, they decide th't, and
nothing more-that, where a Court of ompe-
tent jurisdiction convicts one of col, tempt,
another Court. without appellate powsr, viii
not reexamine the case to determine whether
a contempt was really committed or not The
history of punishments for contempts Of Courts,
and the legislative action thereon, both in our
State and Union in an unmistakable TANNER
reaches, FIRST the liability of this powe' to be
| abused and second, the prOmptness witt which
its unguarded use has been followed by .egisla-
tive restrictions. 1t is no longer Underlined,
unlimited power, of Star Chamber chssacter,
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 installing the extent to which our
tribunals of law may 60 in punishment Tor this
offence.
In the words of the act of Congress of I'd
March, 1881, The power of the several Courts
of the United States to issue attachments and
inhict summary puniahments for contenpts of
| Court, shall not be construed to extend TO any
| cases except the misbehaviour of any person or
persons in the presence of said Courts, or so
near thereto as to Obstruct the admini- ration
ofjustice, the msbehaviour of any of the. dficers
of the said Courts in their official trans etons,
and the dsobedience or resistance by a1y Off
Ger Of the said Courts, party jurors, wit ess, or
any other person or persons, to any ta'cfe II writ,
process, order, rule, decree, or comm nd, of
said Courts"
Eow, Passmore. Williamson was cow sted of
a contempt for disobeying writ of hdb as cor
pms, commanding him to produce bef re the
District Court certain persons claimed by Mr..
Wheeler as slaves. Was it a lawful. writ
Clearly not, if the Court had no jurisdit ton to
issue it; and that it had not, think Is very
plain. If it was unlawful, the person tc whom
It was directed was not bound to obey il, and,
in the very words of the statute, the p'awer to
punish for contempt "shall not be construed
to extend to it."
But, says the opinion of the majority, Vie was
convicted of a contempt of Court, and we will
not look into the record, to see how the cehtempt
was committed. / answer this by asserting
that you cannot see the conviction without see
ing the cause: l, of the petition; 2, tae writ
and the alias writ of hdbedS corpus; 3Irthe re-
turn and 4, the Judgment Z
at is ordered and adjudged by ths Court
that the said Passmore Williamson - com
mitted to the custody of the Marshal, Without
bail or mainprize, as for contempt in Sfasing
| to maize return to the writ of habeaf corpus
heretofore issued against him, at the ins tnce OF
Mr.. John 81. Wheeler" AS l underst nd the
opinion of a majority of my brethren, IS soon
as we get to the word contempt, the boz { must
be closed, and it becomes instantly seal as to
the residue of the record. To sustain Il COM
mitment we must, it seems, first pres,v me, in
the very teeth of the admitted fact, tn It these
were runaway slaves and second, we aust be
careful to read only portions of the reciFd lest
NO should find that the prisoner was COMMITTED