The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1843-04-12
By A WING OF OHIO.
NUMBER II.
FUGITIVE SLAVES.

ed our Federal Constitution, met with nc
trif1ing difficulty in fixing the rights OF the
people of the differen, States in regard TO fu.
gitire Slaves. BY The common Iar, and tue
law of the nations, "a slare became ALSO
lutely free By entering the territory Of a free
Stale or Gorernmoat;" whether he did so by
consent of his master, or by escaping from
his masters custody. 1t was foreseen thai,
if this principle of the common law remain.
cd in force, self emancipation would deprive
the Slave States OF an institution which they
regarded as important 10 their prosperity.
member from South Carolina moved an
amendment to the Constitution, requiring
fugitive slarss and servants 10 be deHrer.
ed up ike criminals" This was objected
10 by members from Pennsylvania and Coa.
necticut for the reason that it woul1 involve
the people ofthe free States IN the expense
of slavery-vide Sd volume Madison Pa
pers, 1447. An amendment was subse-
quently adopted, in the form in which it is
now found III The last clause Of the LIST sec.
ton of the 4th article, which provides, tina;
mo person held 10 service or labor IN one
Stale, under the laws thereof, escaping into
aiolher, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation. therein, be discharged from such
service or labor" &c. By this provision
the common law, as it then stood, was chan
ged SO far as the United States were con.
cerned. so that slave ESCAPING to free
State did not thereby become free.
Under this provision Congress passed the
law Of 1893, requiring certain officers of The
State and Federal Governments 10 act when
fugitive slaves were brought before them;
and it was supposed by our people generally.
that we were bound 10 aid tho master in re-
capturing his fugitive slave. This has led
many of our people TO believe the subject Of
fugitive slaves to form an exception TO tho
doctrine laid down in my frs, number. Blu,
the subject came before The Supreme Court
of Tie United States at their last session. in
the case of Prigg vs.. the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; and it was decided, on SOL
emn argument, that no State officer was o.
bliged 10 act in such case. ard that so much
constitutional. In this manner the doctrine
laid down in my last communication WIS
confirmed by the Supreme Court The U.
ni,ed States, in regard to fugitive slares.-
There we're many other Important points
decided in That case, from which the follow.
ing principles are deduced;
A slave, by escaping 10 free State, ac-
quires certain important rights and priy-
legcs. When he reaches our territory We
regard him as man, and not as property.
If he work for me, or sell me property, he
may sue INC in his own name, and collect
pay. Neither |, nor any other mar. except
his master, can take advantage of his hav.
ing been slave. lfany parson attempt 10
arrests him, as slave, without process, he
may defend himself, with just SO much force
as becomes necessary 10 protect bis per-
son and his personal liberty. In this respect
he enjoys The same rights and privileges
which our citizens possess. lie is liable to
be arrested. and taken back to slavery by
his former masier-in all other respects he
is regarded in law as freeman. While
in slave State he may not resist the vic.
lence of his master, by an act of selfdcfence;
if he DO SO, he may be instantly slain by his
MASTER or otherwise severely punished un-
der he laws Of such State. Ii is this law,
declaring it criminal in him TO defend his
person against the violence of his rna s,cr,
which constitutes szarery. That law can
have no operation in our Slate. The slave,
therefore. by escaping from a slave Stale,
escapes from the operation of that law. It's
penalties cannot be visited upon him for an
act done in Ohio. There is no such law
here, nor is it in The power Of our Legisla.
lure 10 enact such law. Our Constitution
forbids its existence.
The cour:. IN the case referred 10, ex-
pressly decided tha, The jurisdiction is ves-
ted solely in Congress; that the passing OF a
law upon the subject by Congress, is COR
elusive that the master shall have the benefit
conferred by the act; and that no State law
can be in,erposed TO qualify or change the
powers given by Congress. They further
decided, that it was equally plain tha, Con-
gress intended that the master should have
no other or further facilities for capturing
his slave than those expressed in the law of
Congress; and, therefore, no State lazy can
add to The powers conferred in the act of
1908. 1t, therefore, follows that he may
defend himself against his master while in
this State, for the obvious reason that self.
defence is a natural right. and there is 10
law having force within the Stale of Ohio
which forbids its exercise. If his master
attempt 10 arrest him, the slave may defend
himself with So much force as may be nee.
essary 10 protect his person and liberty. If
The master press upon him, and il becomes
necessary for his protection, he may kill his
master, or the agents of his master, be they
many or few,wi,hout inquiring whether they
come from slave State, OF be citizens OF
Ohio. 1t is importan, tina. our people should
distinctly understand. that, If they volunteer
to arrest fugitive save, they do so at their
peril. speak with confidence on his
point. There is nothing in the act of Con-
gress forbidding the slave to exercise his
natural right of self.defence; nor does it
mention any penalty for doing,so. The act
treats him as properly merely, and visits
upon him no more punishment for killing
his master than it would upon mule for
ths ..n,e ans The l.w ofCouU,a.. se,t}aa