The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1855-08-10
Commonwealth, e. rel P. Williamson,
+. NJ. Wynkoop, L. 5. Marshal, and Charles Hertz,
keeper of the Philadelphia County Prison.

keeper of The Philadelphia County Prison.
LEWIS, c. J.-This is application for writ of
habeas cprpnS. Ii appears by the copies OF the
raats annexed to the petition, that the prisoner is
confined for contempt of The District Court OF the
United States, s.In refusing answer a writ Si
Isbeas corpus awarded by that Court against him
tse relation of John H.. Wheeler"
The council Of Mr.. Williamson very frankly stated,
in answer 10 interrosatory on the subject, thar
rhey did not desire the useeSs iormality of issuing
The writ OF habeas corpus, It, view OF the
detainer exhibited, shop9d be of opinion that the
adjudication of he Z. 5. District Court conclu-
sve. The ta5eps corpus act does not require the
writ to be granted in all cases whatever Whenever
it appears upon the face oil the petition or, which is
the thing, Ivy the detalneT annexed 10 II and
forming part of il, that the prisoner is sdetained up
on legal process order warrant for such matter or
offences Tor which By the lew the said prisoner
not ballabe, the case IS excepted out of the act
act Slh Feb, 1855, sec. l. In like manner,
where the has been already heard upon the same
| evidence by another Court, the Ac; of Assembly
does not obiise the Judges grant habeas corpus
gor the purpose OF re-hearng IT. although, perhaps,
they may deem it expedgen TO do so In extra
ordinary instances. EX. paTte LawTenee55 Bin.
30i.
We come, therefore, at once TO the canse Of de-
tainer. Is s4lesat process, order Warrant for
offence which by Law is not baiIabe 20 Mr.. jus
tiee Blackstone, lH Brass Crossby's case Wilson,
lSS, declared that ssall courts uncontrolled IN
matters of contempt. The sale adjudication of con-
temps, and the punishment thereof in any manner,
belongs erc"Sireiy ard qefdiO1 interfering, 10 zach
reSpfrTre r0urt. Infinite confusion and disorder
would follow if csnld by writ of haheas co,as
examine and determine the conempts of others
This power to commit results from the first priae-
pies of justice for if they have the power 10 decide
they onght 10 have the power TO punish" 1t would
occasion the confusion il every of this
State should have power 10 examine the commit
ments OF the other courts OF the State for contempts
hat 1u1c ms ofp
tive court coHteaRt aaaSt be fDat aud acitA0ne
| control" Wilson, 204. This doctrine was fully
recognized by the Court of Common Pleas in Eng
land, in the referred to- II has since been ap-
proved of III numerous other in that country
and in this.
In ex-parte Kearnpy, Wheaton, 3s, it was afirn,-
ed by the Supreme Court of the United States, IN
accordance with the decision in Brass Crosby's case,
/ Wilson, 1885, that, sswhen a Ceurt commits party
for contempt, their adjudication is conviction, and
their commitment in consequence is execution z
Wheaton, IS, ) Cond. Rep. 227. In the ease last
cited, it also expressly decided, that ga writ Of
hajeay corpus not deemed a proper remedy
where party was committed for contempt by a
cou7i of competent Jurisdiction; and that if granted
the Court could inquire into the suiceucy of the
cause of commitment Z Wheaton, IS. Many
authorities 10 the Same effect are cited by Chief
Justice Craneh in Nugeht's case, American Law
journal Il.
But it is alleged that the District Court had no
jnrisdiction. 1t does not appear that its urisdic
tieE was qnesiion on the hearing before it, The
Act Of Congress of 2lth September, 1899. gives IL
power TO issue ''writs ha5ess corpus which may be
necessary for its Jurisdictions and agreeably 10 the
principles and usages of law =; and the same act ex
pressy authorizes the Judge of that Court 10 grant
wrIts OF habeas corpus s'for the purpose of inquiry
to the cause of commitment provided, that writs of
habeas corpts shall in extend 10 persons in
goal, unless where they in custody under the au
thority of the United States committed for trial
before court of the same, or are necessary To-
be broegh into Court TO testify. Other acts of Con-
gress give the United States Judges jurisdiction in
writs of haJeas roygns hererein specified
1t does appear that the writ ssued for persons
goal, is in disregard of State process or State au-
ihorlty. II may be that in an action at law where
the Judgment OF United States Conrt is relied on
as Justification, The jurisdiction should be affifma