Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1842-03-18


VANIA CASE.
We made, in our last, brief slate
ment Of The main points Of this impor-
tant case, recently decided BY The Su.
preme Court OF the United States We
are indebted to a learned Member OF the
Bar for the following more particular
statement oCthe judgment Of the Court,
and also dfthe separate Opinions Of the
Judges. .uhan we from our own knowl.
pdgeWpre able to furnish:
.Case16f Prigg against the Commonwealth
Of Pennsylvania
The points decided 10y a majority of
ldhe Court we're
list That the provision in hhe Con
silturonOf IT., United States relative to
| EUgltlves,s slaves cnoCures itself so far as
to authorize she owner or his agent to
seize The fugitive in any State Of The
Union. as property; and that no State
law is constitutional which interfere
with such right.
I'd That thisprovisIon also contem-
plates legislation 10y Congress, to make
The delivery ofa fugitive ,oIavo more e(
lectual against all SIate'or,olher inter.
ference.
Sd. That Congress having 'legsIated,
such legislation is the supreme law Of
the land, excluding all State legislation
upon tho same subject: and with which
Legislation by Congress, no State can
pass any law to qualify, impede, or con
troll the remedy given by the act OF
Congress.
4rh, Tho power Of Legislation 6y Con
eress is exclusive: and no Stale can pass
any law to carry into effect the consll.
lulional povison in regard to fugitive
slave, even though Congress had not Ie
gisIoed upon the subject.
5rh That the points thus decided are
in no manner intended to interfere with
the police po'rer Of the States 10 take
up runaway slaves, and guard against
their misconduct or depredallons
This opinion was delivered by Mr.
Justice Story.
The Chief Justice and Mr.. Justice
Daniel concurred in the opinion that the
Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional
and void, and that no Safe could pass
any law to impair or impede the right
Of the owners of fugitive slaves, as con-
ferred by the Constitution aud secured
by the act Of Congress; hnt they held
that the States were competent to legis
late with a view to etfecluale the RENE
dy given by the act OF Congress.
Mr.. Justice Mclean also concurred ms
to The unconstjrulonaliiy of the act Of
the Pennsylvania Legislature. He was
of opinion that Congress, in this Parll
cuar case, had right to confer the
power with which State officers were
clothed by the act of 1898, and held
that the States were competent TO punish
attractions of that act by the owners of
fugitive slaves; as when, for example,
the slave was seized and carried away
without procuring the certificate OF the
judges or justices Of the peace, which It
requires.
M. Justice Baldwin was of opinion
that the constitutional provision requlr-
ed no legislation, but executive l'selI
and that therefore the act OF Congress
and the Pennsylvania law were both un
constitutional.
Mr.. Justice Wayne concurrcd with
the minority, and recapiluatng the
points decided, nllmHtcd an intention OF
fling his opinion at length.
This case was brought up 10 the Su
J preme Court OF the United States under
, the 25h section Of the Judiciary act oI
1850, and the provision Of special act
Of tho Pennsylvania Legislature, he.ne
the result OF negotiation between Ma
rylOnd and 'ha, State, conducted hv j
Meredith, Esq as CommisS oner of Nla
ryland,
The cause was argued by Messrs
Meredith and Nelson for the State d