Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-30
WHOLE NO. 81.

H'ENhh'htt ~ Nfl6 IlNIll prosecutor MIS-
not concerned in getting away the apprentice
or person harbored, bot merely entertained
him Afterwards from hospitality, or in iguo-
rnuce Of his true character and condition.
Then a more formal notice and demand Of
testoTation may be proper before suit, ia or
der To remove any doubts as 10 the condition
Ct the fugitive who is thus entertained. or the
intent of the IN asier TO enforce his riyht and
reclaim his property.-l GhiG Gen. Prac.,
4i9. But verbal notice ~ enough then
(See the cases in East, and Duntord & last,
Just ciied.)
Besides this. the present is n case where
the defendant was n pArtaier in accomplish
ing the escape itself. like a ~p1rtccps rf,rin mis-,
and where the c1ncealmeBi and larhoriny
was not after the escape was over, but during
lag its progress, while the slaves were in
transiiu, and where the notice is not exclu-
siveIy with a view TO procure their resiora-
ton, hut Is also an element in ;he cass, TO
show whether the party was, knowingly or
ignorantly as TO their condition, rendering
them assistance TO escape, By temporarily Sc
cretlng or harboring them, So far az regards
this point, IL is a question merely of s%cienter.
No matter how or whence the knowlodre
came, it it only exist. The conccalment
here was pracliSed during fresh pursuit to re-
take the slaves and hence without any for
NAL notice or demand, no doubt could exist
as 10 the wish tn reclaim them, as well as the
fact of their being slaves. (See Camp, 81,
Hart VS. Albridge.)
Furthermore, that the defendant has not
suffered by the charge To the Jury in this
point is manifest from his w declarations
at the time, that he knew the fugi;ives to be
slaves, q Mclean, G. c., 500, Jones VS..
Van Zandt,) and from the instruction to the
jury that this fact must be clearly proved be-
fore they ought to convict him. q. COY
This view of the subject d~isposes of scve-
raj other points of division connected with it
because every purpose contemplated by the
! notice is accomplished, without a publication
of it previously in a newspaper, which is the
: second question. To require such 4 publica,
lion would be entirely arbitrary, and woult
: sill more surely defeat the whole law, thai
to hold the notice must be in writing, ant
served on the defendant before he is liable.
So as TO the third question, whether III
- information be sufficient if acquired from I'll
slave himself. 1t is manifest that such
- source OF information for that fact is enc c
-, the most satisfactory, as lie has good mean
- Of knowing it, and is not likely 10 admit hi
swant OF freedom. unless il actually exists.
The next question relates TO what corst
=, tutes concealment or harboring Of a slay,
within the meaning of This statute.
Ii seems fr;m The facts, by which agree
ment are all those reported ia the printed cas-
IN as tried in the court below, g McLean's Il
10 596,) as well as those inserted in this recorC
es that several slaves, owned by the plaintiff
o. in Kentucky. escaped from him and fled /
~ Ohio, adjoining, and, aided by some perso
le not named, and when about twelve miles dis
y tant from their masters residence, were take
IL in 4 covered wagon by the defendant in III
III niUhf- and irIvpn With cNaoI ttralv, 90 60,
teen miles, SO that one was never retlker
At though fresh suit was made for the whole.
Now, whatever technical definition ma
nj exist Of the word c0Acsa! or hGr6or, as apple,
III TO apprentices and other subjects, no doub
IL can exist that these words and their derivd
L. items must here be construed in reference {
+ the matter of the statute and The nature of til
at offence 10 be punished.
p These show this offence to consist often il
s, assistance to escape and reach speedily som,
H. distant place, where the master cannot fin,
ct or reclaim such fugitives, rather in deiainin!
them long in the nelghborhood, OF s~ecretins
= them about ones premises.
or We see nothing, then, in the facts here, o
m in the instruction of the Judge OH them, So
cunduHI SuJjeciuRl mnieriam, which show thi
il case not to have been, as the jury found it t
ot be, one within the manifest design Of tn,
N, statute against haThoring and concsdling per
as sons who were f~ugitives from labor, after nc
lice or full knowledge Of their character. In
az deed, the general definition Of The word "hGr
bDr," (in | Bowler, IG0.) as quoted by tn
he defendants counsel, saying nothing as 10 til
lin authority Of that work, is such as to be full
covered by the facts in this case, as stated
J.. the record, and az found by The jury. 1t
in ITO receive clandesiineIy, and without Law
mr.. full authority. a person, for the purpose
he concealing him, 50 that another, having II
md right to the lawful custody Of such perso
shall be deprived OF the same"
ba, Here was a ciandestine reception Of Il
slaves, and without lawful authority, and
be concealment Of them in covered wagon, al
IN carrying them onward and away so as to i
prive the owner Of their custody. ''ro h,
~ Dor" is also admitted in the argument oft
air. 10 mean 'to ~secreie." Such is one OF tho G
,yo- tablished definitions by the best lexicogT
The pliers. Yet, here they were secreted not o
mo-. ly as just stated, by being placed in a cove
e ed wagon and carried 10 a greater distant
h . from their master, but this done rapidly, al
,gv' in part under the shades Of night.
That no mistake on this occurred at Il
- trial is likewise manifest, from the fact III
~ the Judge charged the jury. the detcndaI
must not be considered as haiborlng on COZ
. ~ cealing the slaves, unless his conduct WI
- such las not only 10 sho" az '"oh''0H
90 elude the vigilance Of tho ulaster, but sue
Eve Eve as is calculated TO attain that Object
"ian Mclean, C.. C. Gl5.
Nor can the recovery of one Of the slave
afterwards, who was thus concealed an
transported, vary the previous fact of seer
was ting and harboing him. That is the fifth i
ouiry. The answer to The sixth is involve
sui. in that of the fourth and fifth, as is an answ
, in 10 The seventh in that 10 the first question
the because. ii the notice need not come from Il
be- claimant himself, nor be In writing, IL ne
ses, ! no; be preceded r accompanied by a CLAN