OCR Text |
Show 1:20 .\PPEXDlX. which did not permit such property, and which otherwjse might often be deprived of it entirely by its merely crossing the line of an adjoining state; this was thought to be too harsh a doctrine in respect to any title to property of a friendly neighbor, not brought nor placed in another state umler state laws by the owner himself, but escaping there against his consent, and often forthwith pursued in order to be reclaimed." Other authorities might be quoted to the same effect, but it is unnecessary, for if it be not clear that one voluntarily brought into a state is not a fugitive, no judiciallang,tage can ever make him so. Will we then, for the sake of sustaining this jurisdiction, presume that these slaves of 1\Ir. Wheeler escaped from Virginia into Pennsylvania, when no such allegation was made in his petition, when it is expressly stated in the petition of Mr. "\Villiamson, verified by his affirmation, that they were brought here voluntarily by their rna ter, and when this fact is virtually conceded by the judge of the district court in his opinion? Great as is my respect for the judicial authorities of the federal government, 1 cannot consent to stultify myself in order to sustain their unauthorized jud()'mcnts, and more partie· ularly where, as in the case before us, it would be at the expense of tho liberty of a citizen of this common wealth. The only remaining ground upon which this jurisdiction can be claimed, is that it was in a controversy between citizens of different states, and I shall dismiss this branch of the case simply by affirming - 1, that the proceeding by habeas ao1pztS is in no legal sense a controversy between private parties; and 2, if it were, to the circuit court alone is given this jurisdiction. For the correctness of the first position, I refer to the opinion of 1\<Ir. Justice Baldwin in llolmes v. Jennifer, published in the appendix to 14 Peters, and to that of J uclge Betts, of the circuit court of New York, in Ben·y v. lllercein ct al. reported in 5 Howard, J 03. And for the second, to the 11th section of the judiciary act, passed on the 24th of September, 1789. 11y view of this case had been committed to writing before I had seen or heard the opinion of the majority of the court. Having heard it ha~tily read but once, I may mistake its purport, but if I do not, it places the refusal of the habeas corpus mainly upon the ground that the conviction for contempt was a separate proceeding, and that, as the district court had jurisdiction to punish for contempts, we have no power to review its decision. Or, as it appears from the record that the prisoner is in custody upon n con-viction for contempt, we arc powerless to grant him relief. Notwithstanding the numerous cases that arc rited to sustain this po ·i- AI'PEKDIX. 421 . . . t c to be as novel as it I.S <1. a ngcrous. Every court of tlon, 1t appems 0 m wcr to commit for con- 'ustice in this country has, in some degree, the po t . tJ 1 t Can I. t b e possl'b lc tll·<: tt a citizen once committed for con tem11p n· IJS. bem' ~ the hope of relief, even although the record show• that the a e;e' coeynotenm pt was not w.i th.m t l1 0 power of the court to puni h. summadn' tyo r. Suppose that the judge of the district court ~hould sendt.to pnps~: ~~ c d~cit f his court m commen mg u of a newspaper for a con temp o . l, b ond the reach of our writ . . . . would the pnsoncr ue ey ' Slon m tlns very case' d ··t of personal lib r ty i'! ~ If he would. our boaste secuu Y of habeas COJ]JUS · ' . • 1 antics and writs of right "dl b st and our constltutwna guar. ' in truth an 1 c oa ' f th 1 I aver thn.t no such f d But in the name o e aw, are as ropes o san · . f cl 1 and if it is attempted . . 1 tor JUdO'c state or e era , • power ex1sts w1t 1 any cour b ' . d am )}c for the exigency to b e exerc1.s cd, there are modes of rehef, full an I ' of the occasion. .t t examine all of the cases I have not had either time o.r. opporltmu ~h o ~c.cide this and. nothing . . far as I have cxammcd t lem, ey c1ted, but, as ' . .· l' ·f on convicts one of a cou- 1 rt of competent JUllSCliC 1 more- that w lere a cou ·u not reex·uninc the case t 'tho lt appellate power, Wl • ' tempt another cour ' Wl l ' . 1 . t The history ' t t w·ls really commtttec OI no . to determine whether a con emp ' d tl c lecTislativc action thereon, t t 0 f courts an 1 b ' of puni hments for con emp s. '. ' t k ble manner tcn.chcs, first, 1 h" S t d Union m an unmls a a • both in our ta e an ' d d the promptness with . . t be ·:~.bused . an secon ' liability of thlS power 0 • f l'l d 0 r leo·islativc restrictions. It . . ·d d se h·ls been o owe ) o wh1ch 1ts unguar c u ' . f st· 11 . chamber character, to fi d l" ItCd power 0 a . < is no longer an undo no ' un nn . . l . caprice of the judge . of the cthzen at t le meiC , be used for the oppressiOn . d' . ·tl defined that there is no . 1 't boundanes so Istmc y or court, but 1t 1as 1 s . 1 f 1 nay O'O in punishment mistaking the extent to which our tnbuna s o aw 1 b for this offence. 2 d 1\1 . h 1831 " The power of t f C JlO'ress of .l.' aiC ' ' In the word of the ac o ·O o . ttachmcnts and inflict f tl U nitcd States to Issue n. • the several courts o le ·t 1 all not be construed to . , f . con tempts of com ' s 1 . summary pumshments OI . h . . f ·my I">crson or per::;ons m , , t the m1sbe aVlOI 0 < • • extend to any cases cxcep to obstruct the admnns- . l t or so ncar thereto as the presence of smt cour s' f 1 lfi ccrs of the aid courts . . th . ·behavior of any o t lC o 1 tration of JUStice, 0 mu; . b d' co or resistance by any · ld the dlSO C lOll in their official transactions, ai . any other person or pcr- officer of the sa1" d cour t s, P arty ' J·urors, witnessd, or ' . or rommand of .. . 1 :::;.Ut sons, to any lau..iful wrjt, process, order' rule ' ecree courts." . of a contempt for disob~:>ying Now, Pnssmorc Williamson was convicted Bn |