The required affirmation was then made in the form dictated by the judge.
Mr. Van Dyke, 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 Dyke 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 petitioner to make his election whether or not the interrogatories and the replies should be filed.
After consultation with his counsel, the petitioner 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.’