f 1 . ""J?'-' "'-felH - ;
-I
i
j. ...- .......
5f
!. '... ...fc. .
, .3.;
r.7
JTED ALIKE UP03 THE HI3II AND THS LOW, THE EICH AND THE POOR.
hnilnil ilnn fnnsiavvS,
i, , si-.
i - -
3. ,' ..
sbbW. series.
TBRM8:
TilE DEMOCRAT & SENTINEL, U publish
' ed every Wednesday morning, in Ebcusburg,
T Cambria Gv, Pa;, at $1 60 per Annum, t? PAtu
ty ABVASCS, if not $2 will be charged.
ADVERTISEMENTS , will be conspicuously in-
- serted at the following rates, viz:
ft-. 1 1 square S insertions, - -;
; .Kvery 8nbseiuent inset tion, '
i-i square 8 months,' - - ' :
i " '
., " ;,1 year, .. . ..
25 '
S 00:
V fl,00; i
12 oo ;
so oo :
15 W ,
' 5 00 M
col'
year,
i
Business Cards, , , J . . , ;
feTwelve lines constitute a square.
The TTheeler : Slave Case.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
: i OF THE STATE. " :
lTrlt of Habeas Corpus Refused.
JUDGE BLACK'S OPIAIO.V.
r The Supreme Court met in Philadelphia, at
.iioon, oa Saturday, for the purpose of render
ing the decision of the Court on the applica
tion1 of Pasamore Williamson for a writ of
'liabeas corpus. ' The five Judges were upon
the tbench, and the District Court room, , in
which the Cort sat, was crowded with atten
tive RstenersJ Inside the bar were -seated a
tnimber of the leading legal gentlemen of the
'rirv. Judire Black read the decision of , the
Coart. ' It W as follows; ;i ,; . . . .
..r..---.' Decbaon. r... r
a , Ex Parts XIJlMSQOl'
tice Black. This is au application by Pass
"tuore Williamson for haAetts corpus, lie com-
pfaivns tnat he is held ' in custody under a
- comaiituicut of the District Court of the Uni
ted States for a contempt of that Court, in
refusing to obey its process. The process for
which he is confined for disobeying was a ha-
K Leus corpus commanding him to produce the
. bodies of certain colored ; persons claimel as
lavcs under the law of Virginia. ":
Is ho entitled to the writ he has asked for ?
lu considering - what answer we shall give to
this question, we are, of course, expected to
' b influenced, as in other cases, by the law
aud the Constitution . alone. The gentlemen
. who appeared as- counsel for the, petitioner,
. and who argued the motion in a manner which
.did them great honor; pressed upon usnq con
sider ations,, except: those which were founded
vpon their Ugil views, of the subjeefcj .i
-, It is argued with much earnestness, and no
doubt with perfect sincerity, that we are bound,
! to allow .the writ," without stopping to consider
.whether the petitioner had or has not laid be-
- fore us any probable cause for supposing that
. t be is illegally detained that every man con-
4 fined in prison, except for treason or felony, is
entitled to it, ex ileblto Jugtllia;and that we
cmiiot. refuse it without a frightful violation
-of the petitioner's , rights, no matter , how
-plainly it may appear on his own showing that
be is held in custody for a just Cause. If this
-be 'true, the case of ex. parte Lawrence.- (5
,liiiiB,'304,) Uuot law. ; There the writ was
j refused, because the applicant had been pre
viously heard before another court. But if
every man who applies for a habeas corpus
- must have it.-as a niottw of right, and without
N regard to anything but the mere fact that he
'demands 'it, then a court or: a judge has no
more power to refuse s second than a first
application. ; - ;" -' T .' .
," V. .It is really true that the special application,
'which must be made for every writ of Ilabeus
Corpus, and the examination of the coniniit-
incut,-which, we are bound to make before it
can' issue, are mere hollow and unsubstantial
"forms 1 Can it be possible that the law and
-the Courts are so completely, under the con
trol of their natural enemies, that every class
of offenders against the Union or the State,
pxeept traitors and felons, may be brought
before us as often as they please, though we
fcnow beforehand, by their own admissions,
that We cannot help but remand them imme
diately: If these questions must be, answered
In the affirmative, then wo are 'compelled,
Against our will and contrary to our convic
'.Uons of duty to wage a constant warfare
-against the federal tribunal by firing off writs
-f habeas corpus upon them all the time.
The punitive justice of the State would suffer
rstill more seriously. The half of the Western
Penitentiary "would be"before us at Philadel-
hnt,' and a similar, proportion from Cherry
HiU and Moyamensing would attend our sit--ting
t Pittsburgh " To' remand them would
.do very little good; for a new set of writs
, wouia pringtnem pacK again. ; A sentence to
aoUtary confinement would be a sentence, that
Hhe convict should travel for a limited term
Sip and down the State, in company with the
rffieers wh might have him in charge. By
tfce&Bie means the' inmatei of ' the lunatic
jaylums might be temporarily enlarged, much
,"Q their own detriment;' a.nd every soldier or
. , seaman in the; 'service of the edua'try "could
.xeompel their conimanders to bring tiem bcJ
- f0Ti thiC?V, timea week. -P, : ; ' -
Urxt the habeas coipus act-hai never ; re
Tlf ?n? m-'-5?M5ion. It is a writ of
. ml .toone who
owaaacfeeMeentUimghimto be;
discharged or ;buled.. - But he rfa no right
o demand it who admits that he U in legal
r ;:ustod7 'or " ofieace Jaet bailable: k dies
.tiakd what is equivalent to such an admission
when hU owaf ajjplicawon; , and- the commits
.taeol refsrred to in It, show that he is lawful-!
9y detained. A complaint must be made, and
.he cause f detainer .anbmitted to a judge,
'before tie writ can go.' TWverjr object and
purpose this is to prevent it from being
tnfled witli by thoae who have 'manifestly no
,fiht tor be set At liberty. - It u like . a wrifc bt
' 1a case, which the Court ot
uVLU Und 10 aUow the be reason to
rpse that no error has' been committed;
? ' .'.'! J ,4 K V i V1 Sft Wrf 'rj? V'
and equally - bound to refuse it,- if 1 it be clear
that the judgment must be affirmed. : ZZKi
We are. not award , that any . application to
this Court r for writ of ! habeas corpus-has
everieen ucbessfult where: the - Judges, i at
the time of the' allowance; were satisfied that
the prisoner must be : remanded ; Thapeti-
tioner's counsel say there is but one reported
case. in which it was refused; fj Binns, S04)
and ' this urged in the argument, as a reason
for supposing, that in all other cases the rit
was issued without examination.- But no
such inference can fairly3 be drawn from the
scarcity of judicial decisions on a: point like:
this We do not expect to find in reports so
recent as ours those long established rules of
law, which the student learns from his elemen
tary ,book8, and which are ; constantly . acted
upon without being disputed p ,.-,
f The habeas corpus is.'a common law, writ,
and has been used in England from ; time im
memorial, just as it is now, The statute of
31 Car 11. c ; 2-'made no alteration in the
practice of the courts in granting these writs.
(3. Bam. and Aid. 420 2; Chitty'a Hep.,
207.) , It merely provided : that the Jadges
in vacation should have the' power which the
courts had previously exercised in term time.'
(1, Chitty's Gen. Prac. 568) and inflicted
penalties upon those who should defeat its
operation. , The common law upon this sub
ject was brought to America by the colonists ;
and most, if not aU. of tiie States, have since
enacted . laws resembling the English statute
of Charles II; 1 in every principal feature
The Constitution of the United States declares
that ' the privilege of a writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended unless when, In cases
of rebellion or invasion, the pubuc safety
may require it." .. Congress has conferred up
on the federal judges the power to issue such
writs according to the . principles and rules
regulating it in other courts. .Seeing that
the same general principles of. common law
on this subject prevail in Eugland and Amer
ica, and seeing also the similarity of their
statutory regulations in both countries, j'the.
decisions of the English jn'Jg as well -as of
the American courts, both btate and 1-ederal,
are entitled to our fullest respect as settling
and defining our powers and duties. ,: . . ;
Blackstone (3 Com,. 132) says the writ of
habeas corpus should be allowed only, when
the court or judge is satisfied that the party
hath probable cause to be delivered. , lie
gives cogent reasons why it should not be al
lowed in any other case, and cities with un
qualified approbation the precedent set"' by
Sir Edward Coke and Chief Jl Vaughan in
cases where they had refused it.'"' Chitty lays
down ; the rule. (1 Cr Law, 101 i 1-GenT
Prae.i 686-7.) It seems to have been acted
upon by all judges. , Tho writ was refused in
Jicx vt. Scheiner, (1; Burr. .765,) and in the
case of the TJtree iSpauuh &ailjr$ (2 Black's
11. 1,324.) : ;.,.'..-: .
JlJjltouse't Case, (3 Barr and Aid., 420.)
it was fully settled by an unanimous court, as
the true constmctiprj,,ijthe statute, that the
writ is never to be allowed, if; upon, view of
the committment, it be manifest that the pris
oner must be remanded. In New-York when
the statute in force there was precisely like
ours, (so far, I mean, as this question is con
cerned,) it was decided , by .the Supreme
Court, (5 Johns,' 282, that the allowance of
the writ was a matter within the discretion of
the court,;depending on the grounds laid in
the application.' It was refused in :'Haster?B
Case, (I, 2, Com. 136.) and inExparte Eet
guson, (9 Johns, R. 139.)' v V ' t"',J, '
- i! In addition to this we have the, opinion of
Chief Justise Marshall in 'W; ha'ikins case, "(3
Peters 202) that the writ ought hot be awar
ded if the Court is 'satisfied that the prisoner
must ' lie remanded. " It -Was ' accordingly re
fused by the Supreme Court or the United
States; in that case,1 as it had been in Kear
ney's casd. .'r-!'; .u'-.-r-;-;;
' On 'the 'whole,' we. arc thoroughly; satisfied
that oar duty requires us to view and ituine
the cause of detainer now and to rQg an' end
of, the business at once." if it appear that we
have no power td discharge him orilhe return
of the i writ, '"'-:, ' x ;
This prisoneras already said, is"' confined
on a sentence of the District Court of" the
United States,' for a' contempt. ""'."A-, habeas
corpus 'is iiot a" writ of error. It " cannot
bring a case before us in' such a' manner that
we
ive can exercise' any kind of appellate juris-:
lictionin it.; " ,f' l' '-'' 'v ' ' 1 ;" :
diction
On a habeas corpus' the judgment-.even of
a subordinate State Court, cannot 'bei 'disre
garded, reversed or set asipe however clearly
we may perceive, it to be errqneousand how
ever plain it may be that ' we ought to reverse
it if it were before ui on appeal or writ of er
ror. ' We can' only look at the record to, see
whether a' judgement' exists, and 4hayo" lo
power ;' to say whether! 'it ' is right or wrong.
It is conclusively presumed to be right until
it is regularly. brougEtrUp. foevision,
'We.deeided tbia4hreejyeairs ao at Sun
bury, in'a case which we. all thought one of
much hardship. . ' But the rule, is 30, familiar,
so universally ackupwledged, and so -reasonable,
in itself,, thal. it requires only ,tobe; stated.
It applies with ', still, greater sforce,, of afcleast
for1 mucb stronger reasons, , to the decisions of
the Federal courts.?. '.' T .T "
, "Over thejn we have' no contr at.ali, under
any. circumstancefl, er by, any . process v that
conld.be devised. . Thos9 tribunals belong to
i'derentjdlcTal srsteVfronvonrf .' 1 .They
:ainistera different 'ftoieif! jaws, and are
rearMinRlblft to a Aiffcrpnt. kntrora'umtTr v ' '
The district Court s the y.;JL" is as inde-
tM.vnsuK.vi... fui as we arei er .iKrras naepen
dentj as the .Supreme Court of" the '.United
States of .either, ;Whit the.' 4aw and .the
.Constitution have forbidden lo"do'directly:
on writ ,of error, we of;course)ueacnot diia-
i fhVetition;ww8eilia.ve put" ais
ease son the aground ;hat.the whoH"' proceed-
mg. ftgaiost him fa M (District Court'was
t?7. Wtjndice. Vull and Vwd
nil a'nfl VflS,T "
h irwiD,y wue thata void judgment
may be regarucd as no judgment at all; and
::EBENSBmrSiai?TIirJBpR 19,-1855. ,
every judgment is -void which clearly ap-
pears oh its own fane to have been pronounced
by a Court haying no jurisdwtioo or authority,
in the Bubject matter. ... '...-? ;
v.-ITor. instance, if a federal pourt should con-j j
vict aod sentence a. citizen for. libel ; or. if a
State' court,' having no jurisdiction except in j
civil pleas, should try . an indictment for a,
crime and convict the party in "these cases :
the judgment would be whoUy Void. ;;'til''u
If the pefitionet can bring himself within
this N principle. '.then-s there is no . " judgment
against him ; he is wrongfully ..imprisoned,?
and we must order him to be brought out and.
discharged. . " ; ' r ,", , . t i , ,
TThat is be detained, fcr V ,.The. answer is
easy and . simple. .The commitmen t . , shows
that ho wag tried, found guilty, and sentenced
or outes4-f Court, and nothingla.,IIft
is now confined t execution of thai sentence,'
and for- no other cause. This was a!distinct
and substantive offence against the authority
and government of the' United States, Does
any. body doubt the jurisdiction of the Dictrict
Court to punish " contempt ?., i Certainly not-i
All Courts have this power, and must ; neces
sarily have it otherwise they could not pro
tect themselves from insult, or enforce obedi
ence to their process. Without it, they would
be utterly powerless. - 'The authority to 'deal
with an offender of this class belongs exclu--sively
to the court in which the offenee 5 is
committed ; and no other court,' not even the
"highest, can interfere with its exercise, either
by writ of, error, mandamus, or habeas , cor
pus. If the power be . .bused, . there is no
remedy. but impeachment. The law ?was so
held by this court in McLaujlditCs Case, (5
W. & S 275.) and by the Supreme Court of
the United States va JLearney's Case, (7 Whar
ton, 38.) It was solemnly settled, as part of
the common law, -.in Brass Crosley's Caset (3
Wilsott, 183,) by a, court in which sat two of
the . foremost juriste that England ever pro
duced We have not the smallest doubt that
it is the law ; and we must administer it as
we find it. ' The only attempt ever' made to
disregard it was by a New York judge (4
Johns. R , 345,) who was not supported by
his bretherh. The attempt was followed by
all, the evil and confus'on which Blackstone
and Kent and Story declared to be its neces
sary consequences. Whoever will" trace that
singular controversy to its terminatian, will
see that the Chancellor and the . majority of
the Supreme Court, though once outvoted in
the Senate, were never answered. -r. T , ,.
The Senate itself yielded to the force of the
truths . which the Supreme Court had . laid
down ' so clearly,' and the judgment of the
-Court of Errors "in " Yates Case, (6 -Johns.
'503,) : was overruled by the same Court theij Ellis 558." These cases will peak for them
year afterwards, iu Yates ys. Lansing, (9 ;i selves, but I may; remark as . to the last one
Johns. R., 428.) which grew out of the very n
same transaction, . and depended on the same
principles; ,-; Still further reflection at a later
period induced the Senate to join the popular
branch of the Legislature in passing a statute
which effectually prevents one Judge from in
tctfering by habeas corpus with the judgment
ef another on a question of eontempt. . .j ."
- - These principles being settled.it follows ir
resistibly, that the District Court of , the Uni
ted States had power and jurisdiction to decide
what acts constitute a contempt against it j to
determine, whether the petitioner had been
guilty of contempt ; and to inflict upon him the
punishment which, in its opinion; be ought to
suffer. ' If we fully believed the ' petitioner to
be innocent if we were sure . that the court
which convicted him misunderstood the facts,
or misapplied the law---tiU Ve ' could not re
examine the evidence,' or re-judge the justice
of the case, without grossly disregarding what
we know to be the, law' of the land. The
Judge of die District Court decided the ques-'
tiou on his own' constitutional responsibility.
Evert if be could be shown to have acted ty
raiiiiically -or corruptly, he could be called to
answer for it only in the Senate of the United
States..'1 .-;-. . ' --e-.-T -n
f But the counsel of the petitioner go behind
the proceeding in, which he was convicted, and
argues, that the sentence for; contempt is void
because the court bad no jurisdiction of a cer
tain other matter, which it was investigating
or attempting to investigate, when ihe con
tempt was committed. We find & judgment
against, him in oud case; and he complains
about another, in which there is no judgment
He is suffering for an offence against the Uni
ted States .and he says he is innocent of any
wrong to a particular individual. . lie is'ixn
clusively adjudged guiky of contempt ; and he
tells us that the court had ho jurisdiction to
restore Mr.- Wheeler's slaves.
It' must be- remembered ' that'eontempt of
court is a specifiq criminal offence. It is pun
ished, sometimes by indiotment, and sometimes
in summary - proceeding, -as it was . in' this
case., Jln either mode of atrial the adjudica
tion against the ' .offender is, a conviction,', and
the commitment in consequence is execution.
'(rWheat.'8.')iTIii8'' is weU setaed,' and I
believe"' has nevHrJ'been! doubted.' ' Certainly
the learned counsel for the petitioner have not
denied it. !i The contempt may be connected
with setae particular cause," of it may consist
in misbehaviour which -has a tendency to ob--ttruct
the administration oi justice generally.
When; itisupmniitted in pending cause the
proceeding.to punish It is ,a proceeding by it
eelfv, It is. not entitled in, the cause pendinjg,
but on the criminal side; (Wall.' .TS4'. '
TheracorJ, of - a conviction for contempt is
as distinct " f rom tbe m atter , under investiga
tion when it was committed, as an indictment
for perjury is front the cause in which the false
oath was ' taken. Can a person ' convicted of
perjury; ask us to deliver him from the peni
tentiary;n "showing that the oath, on which
ihe perjary is assigned,: was : taken in a cause
of : which., the Court .had -no f jurisdiction ? r
Would any Jadginilta Commonwealth listen
tO. such a reason-for. treating the .sentence as
;void?4- instead -of swearjng didy,re re
fuses to. be sworn at; all, and be is convicted
not of periurv but of conteropt-, the same rule
apeliesv and with a force rrecisery equal " If
it be really true that no contempt can Lo c6m
eaittd- against' a Court "while it is enquiring
into, k matter beyond its jurisdiction , and if the
fact was so in this case then the petitioner bad
a good defence ; and ' be ought to have made
it -on bis trial To make it after conviction is
too late. , T? make it here is tp produce itbe4
fore the wrong tfibunal. , J. , . ",. . '
r Every judgment mut be conclusive until
rcversea, Rjicn is the character, nature ana
essence oi au juagemcnts. it it be not con
clusive it is not a judgment. ; A court must
either have power to -settle a giveriiquestion
.finally and forever, 'so as to preclude all fur-:
tber. inquiry upon it or clse .it has no power to
make any decision at all. To say that a court
may . determine a matter, ; . and that another
court may regard the same matter afterwards
a? open! and, undetermined, iian absurdity In
It is most especially necessary that convic
tions for contempt in our Court should be final w
conclusive 1 and free from re-examination by'
other Courts on- habeas corpus: ' If the law
were not so, our judicial system would break
to pieces in a month. Courts totally. uncon
nected with each -other would be coming in
constant collision .'.T.Thje inferior Courts would
revise all ; the. decisions of . the Judges placed
over and above them., A party unwilling to
be ried in this Court need only defy our au
thority,: and if wc commit: him, take . out his
habeas corpus, before an associate judge of his
own choosing, and if that judge is of opinion
that we ought not to try him, there is an end
of the case. , ' " ,'. ' '
"j '-This doctrine is so plainly against the rea
son of the thing that it would be wonderful
indeed if any authority for. it could bo found
in the books, except the overruled decisions
of Mr. Justice Spencer of New York, already
referred to, and some efforts of the same kind
to control the other Courts, made bv Sir Ed
ward Coke, in he .King's Bench, which are
now universally admitted to have been illegal,
as well as rude and 2 intemperate. On the
other hand we have all the English Judges,
and all our own, declaring their inability to
interfere with, or control, one another in this
way. I Vjll cogent Juyf hj simnlj f.
ring to some of the books in which it estab
lished that the conviction of contempt is a sep
arate proceeding, and is conclusive of every
fact which might have been urged on the trial
for contempt, and among others want of juris
diction to try the cause in which the contempt
was committed.' : 4 Johns. It. 325, ct sequ.
The opinion of Ch. J. Kent, on pages 370 to
375. 6 Johns. 503. - 9 Johns. 423i J. Hill
170. 5 Iredell 169. Ib. 153. 2 Sanof. 724.
1 Carter 170. I Blackf. 1607 15 Miss. 886.
2 Wheeler's Crim. Cases, p. 1. 14 Ad. and
the very same objection was made there as
here. The party ; was convicted of contempt
in not obeying a decree, lie claimed his dis
charge on habeas corpus because the Chancel
lor had no ; jurisdiction to make the decree,
being . interested f in the. cause himself. . But
the Court of Queen's Bench .. held that if that
"was a defence it should have ' been made on
the trial for contempt, and the conviction was
conclusive.' We cannot choose but bold the
same rule here.' Any other would be a vio
lation'of the law which is established and sus
tained by all authority and all reason. ; i
But certainly the want of jurisdiction alleg
ed in this tase, would not even have been a
defence pn the triaL. v. .The proposition, that a
Court is powerless to punish for; disorderly
conduct or disobedience of its process in a case,
which it Ought ultimately to dismiss for want
of jurisdiction is not only unsupported by, ju
dicial authority,1 but we think it is new even
as an argument at the bar.. "We ourselves
have beard many cases through and through
.before we became convinced that it was our
duty to remit the parties to.' another tribunal.
But we never thought that our process could
be' defiled in Buch-eases more than, in others.3
" There are.some-preceedin'is in which the
want of jurisdiction would be seen at the first
blush; but there are others in which tie court
must inquire into all the facts before it can pos
sibly know whether it has jurisdiction or not.
Any one. who obstructs or baffles a judicial in-
vestigation for that purpose ii unquestionably
guilty of a crime for wnich he may and ought
to be tried, convicted and punished.' Suppose
a local action to be brought in the wrong coun
ty ; this. Is a defence to the action, but a de
fence which must be made out like a ay other.
-Whue.itts pending., neither . party, nor an
officer, nor any other person,- can safely insult
the court or resist its order. 'The court may
not haye power; to decide upon tho merits of
the case,' . but it has Undoubted power to try
"whether the'-wj-ong was done within its-jurisdiction'
or not Suppose Mr. Williamson to
be called before the Circuit Court of the. Uni
ted States, as a witness, in,, a trial for murder,
alleged to be committed 00 the high sea.
Can he refuse to be sworn, and atbis trial for
contempt, justify himself on the ground that
the murder was in fact committed within tho
limits of a State, and therefore triable only in
a State court? If he can he can justify perjury-for
the same1 reason. But such a- defence
for either crime has never been beard of since
the beginning of , the world.,.- Much less can
.it be shown,! after eon victien as a ground for
declaring the .sentence. .vwiLf 1 1 , ,.::r -e :
K,:iThe wish which'the petitioner was convicted
of ; disobeying was legal , on its ; face., . It en
joined upon, him a simple duty, which he
ought to, have understood and perform d with
out hesitation". That he did but 'tjo so is a fact
conclusively- established ' by the , adjudication
Which ; the court niade 'upon it. I '6ay the
"wish was" !gal; because the 'act of Congress
gives toiall thecSurts of the United States the
power "to issue writs of habeas corpus when ne
cessary for the exercise of their jurisdictiou",
ind Agreeable to too, principle and usages of
law."ff Chief Justice Marshall decided in Bui r's
trial, thattbe principles and ; usages referred
to iu this act were those of the - common law,
'A. part" of the jurisdiction of the District Court
consists in restoring fugitive slaves ; and th j
habcari corpus may be vlucd in aid of it when
necessary. - It was awardedbere:up6n the ap- j
plication of a person who coaiplained that his
slaves were detained: from him. . Unless they
were fugitive slaves they could not be slaves
st all, according;, to the petitioner's own doc
trine, and if the Judge look that view of .Jlie
subject, he was bound to award the writ.. If
the persons mentioned on it had turned out, on
the bearing, " to be" fugitives from labor, the
duty of the District Judge to restore them, or
his power to bring them before him -on a hab
eas corpus, would have been disputed by Bone
except by the very few who think that the. con
stitution and law on that subject ought not to
be obeyed. ;The dutv of the court to inquire
into the facts on which its jurisdiction depends
is as plain as its duty not to exceed it when it
is ascertained. , lut Mr.. V uliamson stoppetf
the investigation ta limine;
and the conse-
auence is. that evervthinffin the case remains
unsettled, whether the persons named in the
writ were slaves or free. : '-- '' ' 1
-: Whether Mr. Wheeler ' was the owner of
them whether they were unlawfully taken
from him whether the Court had' jurisdiction
to restore them all these points are left open
for want of a proper return. It is not our bu
siness to say now thcjQUght to, be decided ;
but, we do not doubt, that the learned and up-
right magistrate, who presides iu the District
Court, would have decided them as rightly as.
any judge in all the "" country. 1 Mr. William
son had no right to arrest tho inquiry because
he supposed that an error would be committed
on the question of jurisdiction j : or any other
question. " If the assertions, which his coun
sel now make on the law and the facts, be cor
rect, be preventd an adjudication in favor of
his protegees, and' thus cud them a wrong,
which is probably a greater offence in his own
eyes than any thing he conld do against Mr.
Wheeler's rights. , There is no reason' to be
lieve that any trouble whatever would have
come out of the case if be had made a true.
full, and special retcrn of all the facts ; for
then lh Tights of all parties, black, and white,
could have been settled; or the matter dismiss
ed for want of jurisdiction if the: law so requi-r-l.
i - . - - ' :.. . . . :
It is argued that the Court had no jurisdic
tion, because it was not averred that the slaves
were fugitives, but merely that they owed ser
vice by the laws of Yirgiuia. Conceding, for
the anrument's sake that this was the only
irround on which the Court could have inter-
fercd conceding also that it is not substantial
ly allesed in the petition of Mr. Wheoler--
the proceeding was, nevertheless, not void for
that reason. : ' -' '
The federal tribunals, though Courts of lim
ited jurisdiction, : are not . inferior . Courts
Their judgements until reversed by the proper
aPDellate Court are valid and conclusive upon
the parties, though the jurisdiction be not al
leged in the pleadings nor on any paat of the
record. Y10 Wheaton 192.) Even if this
were not settled and clear law, it would still
be certain that the fact on which jurisdiction
depends, need -not be stated in the process
The want of such a statement in the body- of
the habeas corpus, or in the petition on which
it was awarded, did not give Mr. llliamson
a riirht .to treat it with eontempt. Lf . it did,
then tho Courts of the United States must get
out the ground of their jurisdiction in every
subpoena for a witness ; and a defective or un
true averment will authorise the witness to be
as contumacious as he sees fit
But all that was said iii Uiq argument about
tho -petition, the writ,and:-the facts which
were proved, or could be proved, refars to the
evidence in which the conviction took place.
This- has passed "in rem judicatam." We
cannot o one step - behind the conviction it
self. We could not reverse it if.- there had
been no evidence , at all, ; We have no more
authority in law to come between the prisoner
and the eour to free him from a sentence like
this, than we would Lave to countermand an
order issued by the' commander-in-chief to the
United States army
""We have no authority, jurisdiction or pow
er to decide anything here except the simple
fact that the District Court had power to pun
ish for contempt a person who disobeyed its
process that: the ' petitioner, is convicted of
such contempt and that the - conviction is
conclusive upon us.i' The jurisdiction of the
court on the case which has been before it.
and everything else which preceded tho con
viction are out of our reach, and they are not
examinable by us and of course not now in
tended to bo decided.
There may bo cases in which we ought to
check usurpation of power by the federal Courts.
If one of them would presume, upon any pre
tence whatever, to take lout of our hands a
prisoner convicted of contempt in this Court,
wo would resist it by all proper and legal
iBeansw-iWhat we would not permit them to
do against us we will not do against them,;
i; We must maintain the rights of ' the State
and its Courts, for to them alone can the pco-
nle look for a Competent administration of
their domestic concerns ; but we will do noth
ing to impair the constitutional vigor of the
general government which is " the sheet an
chor of our peace at homo; and our safety
' ' Some eomplaihrwas 'made in the argument
about the sontenoe being for au mueamte time.
If this were erroneous, it would not avail here',
since we i have ; as little power to revise tbc
judgment for that reason , as for any other.
Buf it is not illegal, nor contrary to the usual
rule in such cases. It means commitment uu-
til'tho party, shall make proper submission.
If3 Lord Raymond 1108. 4 Johnk.'H. 375:)
The law will not bargain with any body to
let its courts be defiled for a specified term of
imprisonment.4 There are many persons who
would gladly purchase the honors r iuartyp--dom
in . popular . cause at almost auy, .gives
price, while others are deterred. , by. :i mere
show of punishment. . Each is dctainei until
he finds himself willing 'to conform. r" 1
' This is merciful ' to the Submissive and hot
io4 severe upon the refractory .Tho petition
er therefore carries ' the key of his prison in
his own'jocket.4 ' He can come cut, when he
will, by making) JcrnK -tl'lae cOTirt tht sent
hjmihtre. But. iCbechoose to struggle, for
triumph if nothing" will content' hi m but a
clean victory or a clean defeat be cannot ex-
KPt-Utt.O.aiA bjin.,1. Our. duticsre v awide-
ging as muchT as in us lies .'all euch contests
ith tho legal authorities of the eouutry.
The wittT-op. habeas coafus is iucriskd.
Interesting from Russia. -
The New York Thnes publishes aouie high
ly interesting items from Uussia, as received
through private' sources. It ia-stated that
that Government tried to raise a loan in Ber
lin and failed, that she then' tried to raise a
loan from the Rothschilds, 'and the negotia
tion lingered "for two "mouths, but- eventually
failed. ..uiT !. -t
- These, ber only reaoufce ial:"Europe, hav
ing failed, it is stated that the Russian Cabi
net has it in contemplation to rqjte a loan in
the United States, where the sympathy of the
masses is relied upon to cause it to be readily
taken. It is rroVoscd o issue the ptock in
small amounts somewhat bit the plan of the
recent loans in Ynnt&r.u:i'-J?ZiL-T, T
Russian agent, it is said, arc. either in or
on their way to the United States, to inquire
into the feasibility of the plan proposed.- -
Whether this is actually so or not, it 1 is
considered certain by our correspondent that
the rumor has reached the LngksU aud I rencu
Governments, and, been a subject of consider
ation with them." ' ' '''
We have reports direct from'Rus6ia of an
other character. - ' - '-" ' ' - " - 1 i
Amoncr the passencrera bv the Atlantic was
an American' lady, direct from ' St. Peters-
burcr, where she is connected.wiLh the b'gbcst
official and social circles, and where vbe baa
been spending the past year, being, from
her alliances, as much at home there as in the
United States. We understand that her rep
resentations of the condition of affairs in Rus
sia, and especially in St. Petersburg, are di
rectly in conflict with the statements contained
in the English papers, which arrive by every
steameri ' " ' ' '"" - - ' ' l J
Instead of the financial and -commercial
distress of : which we have read to much ; as
consequent upon the war," ehe Eays that busi
ness - wears its usual aspect and is quite as
brisk as ever, that money .is abundant,,
that people contented and in cxcelleat spirit
about the war, and that no one living in the
capital would suspect, irom anything that met
his notice, tnat mere was anytning unusual
in the condition of the country. It is Dot be
lieved there that the Allies will succeed in
gaining possession of "Sevastopol; - The pro.
tracted and success! ui detenee mtuerto main
tained is regarded as establishing the- fact
that, to any force which the Allies can bring
against It, uio piace ia auauxuhcij uoprugur
blev A very large reserve force awaits orders
at St. Petersburg, and no difficulty is experi
enccd in obtaining recruits or supplies of pro
visions and money for the war. -
The same authority states that the reported
capture and destruction of Sweaborg is, so
enormously exaggerated in importance as to
pass for a hoax . No part of the fortifications
of the place have been destroyed or seriously
injured. r : ' ' :- - '"'' "; -J-..
The habitual exaggerations of the Engli&a
Press on this, as upon other incidents of the
war, excite some indignation and more aarase7
nient in intelligent Russian circles. -v.
, We learn that the American officers .sent
out by our Government, to take lessons iu
war at Sevastopol, were at the latest dates in
St, Petersburg. They had obtained.' the Enir
peror's permission to visit Cronstadt, and then
Sevastopol but the latter only on ; condition:
that they should not afterwards go within the
lines of the.AUied'fAce8v- ' - : : i t
V :
-
...,; :. A Remarkable Man.
A correspondent of . the Kentucky Stated
man, says the Wheeling Evening Argus, give
sl scetchJ pf an bid' citizen living, in P.i)h?ki
countyi named'EtnAif Denket, "'who'tS ptifi
haps, the oldest "man hi Kentucky ' He "will
be one hundred and eighteen years of age on
the 10th of September - next, And ja as.activ
as many men of forty lie works daily upon
a farm, and throughout the whole of ibis lifti
has been an early , riser. lie informed the
writer that he, bad .never drank but one cup
of ceffee in bis life,"and ,that. was'iu the year
184" , Ue served several years, iu the War
of "the Revolution and was wounded' at the
siege of Charleston ; was also at the sirge' of
Savannah, and in the battle of Ewtaw1 Springs'.
He was also present at the battles of Camden
King's Mountain, and Monk's Coroeri1 -11
scn'cd under ColonclsTfOfray and Tlarion, and
was an eye witness of the death and sufferings
of Colonel flayne, an early victim of the Rev
olution. ' lie has four sons and five dadhters',
all living the eldest is now in his 78th Tear!
and the youngest ou j 51. ; Sucb is a brief
sketch of this aged soldier and republican , who
is, perhaps the only surviving soldier pf ran?
cu Mariooi Suinptrr, ni Horray,, , :, -j,, u
Extract from'a SpkjsCu of GovBigli:r;
of Camfokxia Governor Bigler. the Dem
ocratic' candidate for the office of Governor of
California, made spoech at Brighton on the
13th of -Jolyt frohi which wo take the follow
iug brief extract.! . J '. .i --' -i . - v
Califoruia is lru.a to the Uniou true to the
Democracy- ink? to the Constitution and the
liberal institutions of our land- aid in Sep
tember nxt Will prove Ut the world that shei
tlo yodngest f .h confederacy, is not the
latest to, st ltd back to bcr aister Sutcs a good
rerKrt ftl an overwhelmiog nwjont j agnmsj
civil aud political procripuon or religious jn
Iclcranee. , The Democracy will do tUU
work, "but not alone, Thousauda of patriotic
and liberal' Whigs those who followed the
lead tot the ( lamented Clay andjlhe great Wtb
stcr Whigs whoiinctsrly clieri-shed the prii
ci pies" of their party as., expounded, by tJiVir
dictinguished leaders, but who have ho ryiu
patiy with secret couciyings, proscription.'
and intolerance", "will" co-operate" with, aud ef
ficiently aid ud inthc'grlat gtroggls. -J- -
K
'1 '
(
m '