Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-30
froo, Me National Era.
Supreme Court of the United States.
TERM, 1916.

WHARTON JOKES, PlainiiI--JonS VAN
AANDr, Defendant.
On a certificate IF diDisio- IN opinion Jciwcen
the Judge, Of The Circuit Court eCNg Cailsd
States for the district IF Ohio.
Mr.. Justice WoopDuaY delivered the
opinion Of The court.
This case comes here on a division Of
opinion ia the circuit court of Ohio.
The subject-matier of the original suit was
debt, for a penalty OF $500, under the act Of
Congress- Of February l2th 1898, for con-
cealing and harboring a fugitive slave be-
Longing 10 the pidinliT.
The certificate Of the division Of opinion,
as will be seen in the record, relates to vari-
Gus questions. arising under two heads.
First, on rulings made at the trial and
secondly, on a motion in arrest Of judgment.
These questions extend to the unusual mum
Der Of fourteen; not, however, that the pre-
siding Judge in the circuit and his associate
entertained strong doubts concerning the ge-
neral principles involved in them ali, as may
be seen in the repor. OF the case, u Mclean,
Z. c., 6l5D but because the questions in
vUlved could not otherwise be brought; and
they possessed SO wide and deep an interest
as to render it desirable ~ihatthey should come
under the revision Of this court.
For that purpose, in conformity to what Is
understood 10 have been the usaue in The cir
cults they accommodated the parties, by let
ling a division pro J0rma be entered on all
the points presented.
1t is not understood that any Of them en-
brace things urged merely az reasons for a
new trial. For if they did, az such trial
rests in the discretion of the court, and is not
a matter Of strict right, a division OF opinion
in relation 10 it furnishes no cause for bring
ing the case here for our decision on ques-
tons certified. 6 Wheat, sag, United
States, VS. Daniels 4 Wheat, 2l2; 5 Cranch
IL. 1877 / Wash, C. c., 333.
Before entering on The examination OF the
points, it will make several of them more in
telligible if We advert 10 the clause in thu
Constitution bearing on this subject, and III,
act of Congress under which the action wa
instituted.
The former ;s, that No person held t
service or labor IN one State, under the law
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in cor
sequence Of any law or regulation therein, b
| discharged from such service or labor, bl
>sneii be delivered up on claim of the party
whom such service or labor may be DUE
Art. A, sec. ?.
In respect TO the statute, il will not be n
cessary TO repeat here any Of it, except pc
lions Of the Sd and 4th sections.
Sec. 3. Sind be IL ash enaciei, That whe
a person held TO service or labor in any of tt
United States, or in either of the TergitoIie
on the northwest or south Of the river Obi
under the laws thereof, shall escape into an
other Of the said States or Territories, III
person 10 whom such labor or service ma
be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby Ell
powered 10 seize or arrest such fugitive frol
labor"
Sec. 4. find be il further enacled, Tn;
any person who shall knowingly and willing
ly ohstruct or hinder such claimant, his ager
or attorney, in so seizing or arresting sue
fugitive from such claimant, his agent or ii
torney, when so arrested, pursuant to the al
lhority herein given or declared, or shall IN,
Dor or conceal such person after notice thi
he or she was a fugitive from labor, as afori
said, shall, for either Of HE said offence
forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred do
of Feb. IL, 1898.
The first question at the trial, on which
division arose. was, in substance, wheth,
The "noiice " referred to in the 4th sectic
must be in writing.
No doubt exists with this court, that
may be Otherwise than in wiring, if it II
only bring home clearly TO the deGenda
knowledge that the person he concealed W;
a " fugitive from labor"
The offence consists in continuing to s
crete from the owner what the acts Of Co
gross and the Constitution, as well as &
laws Of several of the States treat for certa
purposes as property after knowing that clair
Of property exist in respect TO the fugitive
Now, the act Of Congress does not,
' terms, require the notice 10 be in wrltir
> nor does the reason of the provision, nor I
; evil 10 be guarded against, nor any sou
. analogy.
: The reason of the provision is merely Il
= the party shall have notice or informant
= sufficient TO put him on inquiry whether
; is not intermeddling with what belongs
another.
: = If the information given to him, orally
: in writing, is such as ought to satisfy a II
minded man that he is concealing the p
: perry of another, il is his duty, under
. Constitution and laws, TO cease TO do it lo
u er-5 East, 80 note, EieS VS. Vandeput
. D.. e. f., 22l, Blake VS. Lenyon. Sucl
: notice is sufficient, also, by way of analo
as, for instance, notice in relation to a p
y claim on property purchased, Il Gall, AZ,
Ploughboy ; . Jurist, 649; l Sumner, c.
= 1873; | Cranch, 45,) or Of a prior defens'
set-off against a demand assigned to him,
y Dali, $40, Humphreys, VS. Blight's
: signeer,) or even in crimes, that the NJ
. or coin one is passing away are counieri
Any other construction would go likew
beyond the evil to be avoided by the not
which was the punishment Of an indlvld
for harboring or concealing a person, win
"a having reasonable grounds to believe be
thereby injuring another. ,H
=, Any other construction, too, would be
:" cidal 10 the law itself; as, before a notice
=. writing could be prepared and served on
=, defendant, tho fugitive would be carried
you'd tho reach Of recovery IN many GEE