Atrocious Judges Part 24

Judge Kane said that the defendant could make a declaration, that he was now ready to answer interrogatories.

Mr. Meredith asked that the court make an order submitting certain interrogatories, such as it would deem sufficient, to the prisoner, the proper answers to which would be enough to purge him of the contempt.

The court then said, 'In some of the cases mentioned we know that the party adjudged to be in contempt submitted himself to interrogatories, either by writing or _per se_. I see no difficulty in the way of the court's giving this decision in the form of an order.

'The suggestion of the counsel now has frequently been intimated by the court. The prisoner might at any time, under a proper application, have been before the court. If there was a misunderstanding of the position of the case by the counsel for Mr. Williamson, it is a matter of sincere regret to me.'

Mr. Meredith said he could not find any case of pet.i.tion that interrogatories should be filed, in any of the English books.

_Judge Kane._--The gentleman, Mr. Williamson, is now recusant, and I often think that forms _sometimes_ have meaning and I cannot interfere otherwise than to say as I have said above.

_Mr. Meredith._--I can enlarge the remark and say that forms _always_ have meaning. He argued that the purging interrogatories must be filed. If not filed, the party was ent.i.tled to his discharge. He argued from the 'Chancery Practice' of Smith, that the defendant ought only to be imprisoned until he shall have properly answered the interrogatories put to him.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e, the district attorney, then said that the question now was whether a person, in contempt, had any standing in court whatever. So far as Mr. Williamson is concerned, he has no standing. The argument of the gentlemen on the other side must be taken as arguing against the adjudication of this court. How far can a man in contempt come into court and purge that contempt? How did the counsel get over the fact, that his client was in contempt? He must first submit himself to the court by asking to be permitted to purge himself of contempt.

Mr. Meredith closed the argument, and the proceeding was closed by an entry on the part of Judge Kane of the following order on the record.

_The United States_ v. _Williamson_. And now, October the 29th, 1855, the court having heard argument upon the motion for leave to read and file among the records, in this case, a certain paper writing purporting to be the pet.i.tion of Pa.s.smore Williamson, and having considered thereof, do refuse the leave moved for, inasmuch as it appears that the said Pa.s.smore Williamson is now remaining in contempt of this court, and that by the said paper writing he doth in no wise make purgation of his said contempt, nor doth he thereby pray that he may be permitted to make such purgation; wherefore the said Pa.s.smore Williamson hath not at this time a standing in this court.

To the end, however, that the said Pa.s.smore Williamson may, when thereunto minded, the more readily relieve himself of his said contempt, it is ordered that whenever by pet.i.tion, in writing, to be filed with the clerk, Pa.s.smore Williamson shall set forth, under his oath or solemn affirmation that 'he desires to purge himself of the contempt because of which he is now attached, and to that end is willing to make true answers to such interrogations as may be addressed to him by the court, touching the matters heretofore _legally_ enquired of by the writ of _habeas corpus_ to him directed, at the relation of John H. Wheeler,' then the marshal do bring the said Pa.s.smore Williamson before the court, if in session, or if the court be not in session, then before the judge at his chambers, to abide the further order of the court in his behalf. And it is further ordered that the clerk do furnish copies of this order to the said Pa.s.smore Williamson, and to the attorney of the United States, and to the marshal.

Under this order Williamson presented the following pet.i.tion:

_United States of America_ v. _Williamson, District Court of the United States, Eastern district of Pennsylvania_.

_To the Honorable the Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania:_

The pet.i.tion of Pa.s.smore Williamson respectfully showeth: That he desires to purge himself of the contempt because of which he is now attached, and to that end is willing to make true answers to such interrogatories as may be addressed to him by the court, touching the matter heretofore inquired of him by the writ of _habeas corpus_ to him directed at the relation of John H. Wheeler. Wherefore 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.

P. WILLIAMSON.

Affirmed and subscribed before me, Nov. 2, 1855.

CHARLES F. HEAZLITT, U. S. Com.

Judge Kane hesitated to receive this pet.i.tion 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 Williamson.) But finding that Williamson was resolved to make no such concession, Judge Kane finally concluded to receive the pet.i.tion, and made the following reply to it:

'Pa.s.sMORE WILLIAMSON: The court has received your pet.i.tion, and, upon consideration thereof, have thought right to grant the prayer thereof. You will therefore make here in open court your solemn affirmation, that in the return heretofore made by you to the writ of _habeas corpus_, which issued from this court at the relation of John H. Wheeler, and in the proceedings consequent thereupon, you have not intended a contempt of this court or of its process. Moreover, that you are now willing to make true answers to such interrogatories as may be addressed to you by the court, touching the premises inquired of in the said writ of _habeas corpus_.'

The required affirmation was then made in the form dictated by the judge.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e, the district attorney, then submitted an interrogatory in writing, which was not read aloud at that time.

Mr. Gilpin said Mr. Williamson 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 answer should be filed.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e said he was willing either to file the interrogatory or to submit it for an immediate reply.

Mr. Gilpin and Judge Kane both remarked that they had understood the district attorney to intimate, that if the question propounded was answered in the affirmative, he would be satisfied. The court further said, that it was for the pet.i.tioner to make his election whether or not the interrogatories and the replies should be filed.

After consultation with his counsel, the pet.i.tioner preferred that the questions and answers should be filed.

The court directed that the interrogatories should be filed.

Mr. Gilpin then read the interrogatory that had been propounded, and the reply of Mr. Williamson.

The interrogatory was as follows:

'Did you at the time of the service of the writ of _habeas corpus_, at the relation of John H. Wheeler, or at any time during the period intervening between the service of said writ and the making of your return thereto, seek to obey the mandate of said writ, by bringing before this honorable court the persons of the slaves therein mentioned? If to this 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 did tending to that end.'

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, therefore, it was impossible for me to do so. I first heard of the writ of _habeas corpus_ on Friday, July 20, between one and two o'clock A. M., on my return from Harrisburg. After breakfast, about nine o'clock, I went from my house to Mr. Hopper's office, when and where the return was 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 possession or control, it was impossible for me to obey the writ by producing them. Since the service of the writ I have 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 appearance in the city or elsewhere.'

Some discussion arose between the district attorney and the counsel of Mr.

Williamson. Mr. Van d.y.k.e contended that the reply of the defendant was evasive and contradictory. The judge said the difficulty, he thought, could be easily overcome by amending the answer, and at the suggestion of the court it was amended in the following manner:

'I did not seek to obey the writ by producing the persons in the writ mentioned before this court. I did not seek, because I verily believed that it was entirely impossible for me to produce the said persons, agreeably to the command of the court.'

This answer was then accepted by the court and ordered filed.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e then submitted another interrogatory, the substance of which was, whether or not Mr. Williamson had been guilty of mental reservations in his reply to the first interrogatory?

The court overruled this interrogatory as superfluous and improper.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e withdrew this interrogatory and offered another, which was also overruled by the court, on the ground that it led to such replies as had already been objected to by the district attorney.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e also withdrew this question.

Judge Kane then remarked that the district attorney had been invited to aid the court in this case, but that he would bear in mind that his relation to Mr. Wheeler was now suspended. This was only an inquiry as to what injury had been done the process of the court.

Mr. Van d.y.k.e said he was aware of the position he occupied.

Judge Kane then said: 'The contempt is now regarded as purged and the party is released from custody. He is now reinstated in the position he occupied before the contempt was committed. Mr. Williamson is now before me on the return to the writ.'

Mr. Van d.y.k.e then arose and addressed the court.

After Mr. Van d.y.k.e had concluded, Mr. Meredith inquired: 'Is Mr.

Williamson discharged?'

Judge Kane replied, 'He is. I understand from the remarks of the district attorney, that a _nolle prosequi_ has been entered in the case in this court.'

The court then adjourned. Mr. Williamson was congratulated by his friends on his restoration to liberty.[159]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The German _graf_, for which the Latin _comes_ (in English, _count_ or _earl_) was employed as an equivalent, is a form of the same word. The law Latin for sheriff is _vice-comes_, a name given, it would appear, after the t.i.tle of earl or count had become hereditary, to the officer who still continued to be elected by the people for the official functions originally discharged by the earl.