| OCR Text |
Show 408 APPE~DIX. It is aroued that the court h~d no jnrisdiction, because it was not axcrred that the sla"Vcs were fugitives, but merely that they owed service by the laws of Yirginia. Conceding, for the argument's sake, that this was the only ground on which the court could ha.-e interfered- conceding that it i. not sub~tantially alleged in the petition of :Mr. \Vheeler- the proceedings were, ne.-crtheless, not void for that reason. The federal tribunals, though courts of limited jurisdiction, are not i·J~le?·iot· courts. Their judg-ments, until reversed by the proper appellate court, are valid and conclusive upon the parties, though the jurisdiction Lo not alleged in the pleadings nor on any part of the record. (10 \Vhcaton, 192.) Evon if this were not settled and clear law, it would still be certain that the faet on which jurisdiction depends need not be stated in the p?·ocess. The want of such a statement in the body of the habeas corpus, or in the petition on which it was awarded, clid not give 1\Ir. \Villiamson a right to treat it with contempt. If it did, then the courts of the United States must get out the ground of their jurisdiction in every subpcena for a witness; and a defective or untrue averment will authorize the witness to be as contumacious as he sees fit. But all that was said in the argument about the petition, the writ, and the facts which were proved or could be proved, refers to the evidence in which the conviction took place. This has passed in 'rem Judicatam. "\V e cannot go one step behind the conviction itself. We could not reverse it if there had heen no evidence at all. 'Ve have no more authority in law to come between the prisoner and the court to free him from a sentence like thi ', than we would have to countermand an order issued by the commander- in-chief to the United States army. \\ .. e have no authority, jurisdiction, or power to decide any thing here except the simple fact that the district court had power to punish for contempt, a per on who disobeys its proccc;s - that the petitioner is convict cl of such contempt- and that the con\'iction is conclusive upon uR. The jurisdiction of the court on the case which had been before it and CYClT thing else which preceded the conviction, arc out of our reach', and the~ arc not examinable by us- and, of course, not now intended to be decided. There may be cases in which ''e ought to rhcck usurpation of power by the Federal courts. If one of them would pre. ume, upon any prot nee whate,cr, to take out of our hands a prisoner convicted of contempt in this court, we would resist it by all proper and legal means. \Vhat we woulcl not permit them to do against us we '\V~ll not do against them. We must maintain the rights of the State and its conrtA for to thL-m ' APPEKDIX.. ·109 alone can the people look for a. competent administration of their domestic concerns; but we will do nothing to impair the con titutional vigor of the general government, which is "ihc sheet anchor of our peace at home and our safety abroad." Some complaint was made in the argument about the sentence being for an indefinite time. If this were erroneous it would not avail here, since we have as little power to revise the judgment for that reason as for any other. But it is not illegal nor contrary to the usual rule in such cases. It means commitment until the party shall make proper submission. (3 Lord Raymond, ll08. 4 Johns. Rep. 37.5.) The law will not bargain with anybody to let its courts be defied for a specific term of imprisonment. There are many persons who would gladly purchase the honors of martyrdom in a popular cause at almost any given price, whDe others arc deterred by a mere show of punishment. Each is detained until he finds himself willing to conform. This is merciful to the submissive and :wt too severe upon the refractory. The petitioner, thcn~forc, carries the key of his prison in his own pocket. lie can come out when he will, by making terms with the court that sent him there. But if he choose to stn1ggle for a triumph- if nothing will content him but a clean victory or a clean defeat- he cannot expect us to aid him. Our duties are of a widely different kind. They consist in discouraging as much as in us lies all such contests with the legal authorities of the country. The w1·it of habeas corpus is rifused. No. IV. The dissenting opinion of J~tdge Knox in favor of g1·anting tile p etition. KNox, J. I do not concur in the opinion of the majority of this court refusing the writ of habeas CO'rpus, and shall state the reasons why, in my judO'ment, the wTit should be granted. This application was made to the court whilst holding a special ses ·iou at Bedford, on the 13th day of August; and upon an intimation from the counsel that in case the court had any difficulty upon the question of awarding the writ, they would like to be heard, Thursday, the 16th of Au- 3.5 |
