Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1855-11-16
WHO YIEI.nEn1

Every one who has followed the judicial
persecution by Judge Kane of Passmore VIII
hanson, has felt that a release of that abus-
cd man from his cell, must be brought about
in a retreat by the one party or the other.
from the positions assumed respectively by
them. Williamson at last has turned his
back upon his prison door, and the question
is, who yielded?
The case is a simple one, and the verdict
of all unbiased minds must be, that, feeling
the odium of an indignant public-which to
the credit of that public, was kept within
bounds by the respect for our courts and
their decisions it Is to be hoped, feel
ing the 'compunctious visitings' of conscience,
Judge Kane himself opened the way of es-
cape from his arbitrary and cruel order of
imprisonment.
The case is most succinctly stated in the
Pittsburgh Gazette, and we cannot present
the matter as plainly as IS done by that pa
per. The Gazette says:
"The order of Judge Kane, published by
us some days ago, which opened the way
partially for the Liberation Of Mr.. William
son, prescribed that when he should set forth
under his oath or solemn affirmation that he
'desires to purge himself of the contempt be-
cause of which he IS now attached, and to
that end is willing to make true answers to
such interrogatOries as may be addressed to
him, touching the matter heretofore legally
inquired of by the writ of habeas corpus, to
him directed, at the relation of J. H. Wheel
er," then Judge Kane would proceed to hear
what he had to say. The petition of Mr..
Williamson, presented last Friday, omitted
the word "legally," and stated simply that
he was ready to make true answers to such
interTogatories as might be addressed to him
by the Court, touching the matter hereto
fore inquired Of" &c, instead of 'touching
Nthe matter heretofore legally inquired Of"
The object of Judge Kane in putting in this
word illegally" was to extort from Mr.. Viii
hanson an acknowledgment that the Court
had jurisdiction in the matter, and that its
action was legal This Mr. w. refused to
do; and although the Judge, on Friday,
seemed disposed to insist on the retention of
that word, he yielded on Saturday, and the
word illegally" was struck out. So far, Mr.
Williamson was triumphant, and what fol-
lowed was equally triumph to him. In an
swer to the interrogatories of the Court, he
made substantially tie same responses as
aChen he UGs committed for contempt On
the strength of this answer he was dischar-
ged; and it thus happens that be was first
adjudged guilty of contempt, and afterwards
innocent of it, upon the self same answer
He was committed and discharged for pre-
cisely the same thing! 1t was the Judge
therefore who yielded, and yielded inglori-
ously."
The New York Tribune also sums up the
case in nut she'll 1t says:
'The case then stands thus: Mr.. William
son was adjudged guilty of contempt OF
Court, and was even declared by the Judge
to be guilty perjury, because he had made
oath that Jane johnson and her sons were
not in his custody, wherefore he could not
produce them.
After being held in prison for such con-
tempt, for the period of three months and
one week, he IS at last allowed to amend his
former answer by making oath simply that
he did not produce those persons, ''becausc
it was impossible to do So"
With regard to the essential identity be-
tween these two answers, comment IS need
less CIeUelaRd Herald