| OCR Text |
Show 30G APPEXDIX. throughout. lie rencwecl his <lenial that he hncl control n.t any ti111e ov<·r the movements of the laYe.', or knew their l>rc:)cnt whE'rcnbont~. Such is the case, as it was before me on the heari11g. I canuot look upon this return otherwise than as illusory- in legal phrase -as evasive, if not fabc. It sets out that the allegccl prisoners arc 110t now, and have not been since the issue of the ltabeas cmpus, in the custodr, power or possession of the responclent; and in so far, it uses legally appropriate language for such a return. But it goes further, and by acldcd words, gives an interpretation to that language, essentially variant from its legal import. It denies that the prisoners were wi~hin hi power, custody or posscs~ion, at any time whatever. Now, the evidence of respectable, uncontradicted witnesses, and the admission of the respondent himself, establish the fact beyond controversy, that the prisoners were at one time within hiH power ancl control. He was the person by whose counsel the so called rescue was devised. He gave the directions, and hastened to the pier to stimulate and Rupcrvise their execution. He was the spokesman and first actor after arriYing there. Of all the parties to the acl of violence, he was the only white man, the only citizen, the only individual haYing recognized political rights, the only person whose social training could certainly interpret either his own duties or the rights of others, under the con, titution of the land. It would be futile, and wonc, to argue that he who has organized and guided, and headed a mob, to effect the abduction a1~d imprisonment of others- he in whose presence and bv whose active influence the abduction and imprisonment have been brought about- might excuse himself from responsibility by the assertion that it was not his hand that made the unlawful assault, or that he never acted as the jailer. He who unites with others to commit a crime, shares with them all the legal liabilities that attend on its commi sion. lie chooses his company and adopts their acts. This is the retributive law of all concerted crimes; and its argument applies with peculiar force to those ca cs, in which redress and prevention of wrong arc sought through the writ of habeas corpus. ThiH, the great remedial process by which liberty is vindicated ~md rc toretl, tolerates no language, in the response which it calls for, that can ma~k a subterfuge. The dearest interests of life, personal safety, dome ·tic peace, social repose, all that man can Yaluc, or that is worth living for, arc ill\'Olvcd in this principle. The institutions of society would lose more than half their value, and courts of ju ·ticc become impotent for protection, if the writ of habeas corpus could not rompcl the truth- full, direct, and unequivocal- in answer to its mandate. API'E.SDIX. 3D7 It will not do to say to the man, whose wife or ·whose cla.nghtcr has been abducted, "I did not audnct her; she is not in my possession; I do not detain her; inasmuch as the a sault was macle by the hand of my subordinates, and I have forborne to ask where they propose consummating the wrong." It is clear, then, as it seem:-; to me, that in legal acceptance the parties whom this writ called on Mr. \Villiamsou t o produce, were at one time within his power aud control; and his answer, so far as it relates to his power over them, makes no distinction between that time and the p resent. I cannot give a different interpretation to his language from that which he has practically given himself, and cannot regard him as denying hi powr r over the prisoners now, when he docs not aver that he has lost the power which he formerly had. He has thus refused, or a t least he has failed, to answer to the comman<l of the law. He has chosen to decide for himself upon the lawfulnc s a: well as the moral propriety of his act, and to withhold the ascrrtainmcnt and vindication of the rights of o thers from that same forum of arbitrament on which all his own rights rcposf'. In a word, he has put himself in contempt of the process of this court and challc11ge its ac tion. That action can ha.ve no alternative form . It is one too clearly defined by ancient and honored precedent, too indi:pcnsablc to the ad ministration of social justice and the protection of human right, and too potrntially invoked by the special exigency of the case now before the court, to excuse even a doubt of my duty or an apology for its immediate performance. The cause was submitted to me by the learned counsel for the rcspondrnt, without arcrument and I have therefore found myself a t some lo. to 0 , . understand the grounds on which, if there be any such, they would claim the discharge of their client. One ouly Iu1.s oc-curred to me as, perha1~s, within his view· and on thi~ I think it right to express my opinion. I wtll frankly rccons1· d' er 1· t, however, 1·f · any f u t urc aspe ct of the c~a se shall invite the review. It is this: that the persons named in this writ as detain eel by the respondent, were not legally ~laves, inasmuch as they were "Within the territory of Pennsylvania when they were abducted. \Vaiving the inquiry ~vhcther, for the purpose of this questi~n, t~lCY were W•l thl·U t 11 c tcrn· ton·a 1 J· Un· :c1 w· t.1 011 o f Pc 11 1 1 "s )·l,·"·'n i·.•,• '''hilc pas~mrtr> from o• ne state to another upon the navigable waters of the United tates- a pomt on which my first imprc ·sions arc adverse to the argument- I have to say: 1. That I know of no stntute, either of the United State·, or of Pcnnsyl- 04 |
