OCR Text |
Show 430 APPENDIX. Under this order 'Villiamson presented the following petition: United;. 'tates of America v. TVilliarnson, District Court of the United States, Easte1·n district of Pennsylvania. To the IIonorable the Jud.qe of the District Court of tlte United States fm· tluJ Basten~ district of Pennsyhania: The petition of Passmore Williamson respectfully showeth: That he desires to purge himself of the contempt because of which he is no·w attached, and to that end is willing to make true answers to such interrogatories as may be addre sed to him by the court, touching the matter heretofore inquired of him by the writ of lzabeas oorpus to him directed at the relation of John H. Wheeler. 'Vherefore he prays that he may be permitted to purge himself of said contempt by making true answers to such interrogatories as may be addressed to him by the honorable court touching the premises. r. vVILLIAl\1SON. Affirmed and subscribed before me, Nov. 2, 1855. CHARLES F. HEAZLITT, U. S. Com. Judge Kane hesitated to receive this petition because it did not conform to his order by containing the word legally, before the phrase "inquired of," (thus confirming the legality of the proceedings under the original writ of habeas corpus directed to \Villiamson.) But finding that vVilliamson was resolved to make no such concession, Judge Kane finally concluded to receive the petition, and made the following reply to it: 'PASS MORE 'WILLIAMSON: The court has received your petition, and, upon c.onsideration thereof, have thought right to grant the prayer thereof. : ou WJll therefore make here in open court your solemn affirmn.tion, that ~n the return heretofore made by you to the writ of habeas corpus, which Issued from this court at the relation of J ohn H "'u]1 el . d · th • H e e1, an In e pro-ceedings consequent thereupon, you have not intended a contempt of this court or of its process. 1\Iorcover, that you are now willin O' to make true . . b answc.rs to such mterrogatones as may be addressed to you by the court, touchmg t~e premises inquired of in the said writ of habeas corpus.' The reqUlrcd affirmation was then made in the form dictated by the judge. lt1r. Van Dyke, the district attorney, then submitted an interron-atory in writing, which was not ren.d alond at that time. 0 ~Ir. Gilpin said Mr. \Villiamson was perfectly willing to answer the interrogatory submitted by the district attorney, but as he did not know what other interrogatories might follow this, he thought it best that it and its nnswer should be filed. APPENDIX. 431 1\:Ir. Van Dyke said he wa willing either to file the interrogatory or to submit it for an immediate reply. J\Ir. Gilpin and Judge Kane boih r ema1·ked that they had understood the di.-trict attorney to intimate, that if the question propounded was answ red in the affirmative, he would be satisfied. The court further said, that it was for the petitioner to make his election whether or not the interrogatories and the rcplies should be filed. After con ultation with his counsel, the petitioner preferred that the questions and answers should be filed. The court directed that the interrogatories should be filed. 1\lr. Gilpin then read the interrogatory that had been propounded, and the reply of l\1r. \ Villiamson. The interrogatory was as follows; 'Did you at the time of the service of the writ of habeas cOJpus, at the relation of J ohn II. \Vheclcr, or at any time during the period intervening between the service of said writ and the making of your return thereto, seck to obey the mandate of said writ, by bringing before thi h onorable court the persons of the slaves therein mentioned? If to thi · interrogatory you answer in the affirmative, state fully and particularly the mode in which you sought so to obey said writ, and all that you diu tending to that cud.' The reply made was as follows : 'I did not seek to obey the writ by producing the persons therein mentioned before the court, because I had not, at the time of the service of the writ, the power over, the custody or control of them, and, thcrrfore, it wa') impos ible for me to do so. I first heard of the writ of habeas CO'l')JUS on Friday, July 20, between one and two o' clock A. 1\I., on my r eturn from Harrisburg. After breakfast, about nine o'dock, I went from n1y house to Mr. Hopper's office, when and where the return wa prepared. At ten o'clock I came into court, as commanded by the writ. I sought to obey the writ by answering it truly; the parties not being in my posse ion or control, it was impossible for me to obey the writ by producing them. Sinco the service of the writ I hn.ve not had the custody, possession or power over them; nor have I known where they were, except from common rumor, or the newspaper reports in regard to their public app<'arance in the city or elsewhere.' Some discussion arose between the district attorncy and the counsel of Mr. Williamson. J\Ir. Van Dyke contended that the reply of the defendant was evasive and contradictory. The judge said the difficulty, he thought, • |