The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1847-12-04

WIN ' III AHO 1
Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis
trict Of Ohio, in an action of debt for penalty
Of five hundred dollars, under the act Of Com
gress, pussed on the l2th ofFebruary, 1898, for
concealing and harburing a fugitive slave be-
longing to the plaintiff
The act Of Congress provides in substance,
that when a person held to labor in any Of the
United States, or in either Of the Territories on
the Northwest or South Of the river Ohio. unl
der the laws thereof, shall escape into any 9TH
er Of the said States or Territory, the person 10
whom the labor is due, may seize the wig
tive, take him before a Judge Of the Circuit or
District Court Of the United States, and on
proof Of the labor or service being due to the
person making the arrest, the Judge is requir-
ed 10 give the claimant a certifi cate Of the
fact, which is a sufficient warrant Tor the re-
moval of the slave to the State from which he
fed. And if any person obstructs or binders
the owner in the pursuit Of the fugitive, or
shall rescue him when arrested or harbor or
conceal him after notice that he is a fugitive,
the act declares that he shall for either offence
forfeit and pay FIVE hundred dollars.
The declaration charged Vanzandt with hav-
ing harboured and concealed in the State Of
Ohio the slaves Andrew and Letta, the proper
ty Of Jones, which had ran away from him
from Boone county, Kentucky, and escaped
into the State of Ohio, and were known to-
VanzOndt to be fugitive slaves, when he bar-
bored and concealed them.
The case came on for trial before Mr.. JUS
tice Mclean the District Judge of Ohio, and
the evidence established that Vanzandt, on
Sunday the Oath of April, l842, was overtaken
and caught BY the witnesses in a covered wag-
on, both the hind and fore part Of which were
closed and in which ght slaves were conceal
ed, including the two of the plaintiff Van.
zandt was arrested about six miles from Sha-
ron, a little village thirteen miles north Of
Cincinnati, a little after daylight; the wagon
which belonged 10 him, was moving at a rapid,
rate, being driven by a negro man who made
mis- escape when overtaken; Vanzandt was in
side with the eight negroes.
The Jury found a verdict against Vanzandt;
and upon motion fer a new trial, there was a
certificate Of division Of opinion between
!, the Judges, to the Supreme Court Of the U. S.
in which, among other points, the following
were certified to that Court, viz:
Whether the act OF Congress Of February
18th, 1893, was repugnant to the constitution
OF the United States.
t Whether the same act was repugnant to the
ardinance Of congress adopted July, 1887, entl-
tied, San Ordinance for the Government OF
; the Territory of the United States Northwest
+ of the river Ohio"
: Nh. Wade, Of Ohio, in an argument of one
: hundred pagesi and Mr.. w, H. Seward, Of
:. New York, in an argument Of forty pag s, con.
tended that the act of Congress Of 1893, was
: in violation Of the constitution Of the United
: States and the ordinance ofl787, and was void
tina t no rights of property could be ucquir
o ed in man; that slavery was inexpedient, in
valid, and could notbe protected by eitheI
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS; and called upon the Su
q preme Court Of the United States, in view o
these considerations, to disregard The constitution
and the act Of Congress on he subject, and pro
i nounCe them VOID.
II The Supreme Court of the United States die
not shrink from the issue thus presented. AT
ter deciding some minor points as to the form
In which the action was brought, they proceed
SIT remains to consider whether the act o
Congress under which the action is brought
is repugnant either to the constitution or tn,
ordinance 'for the government OF the %territor,
northwest Of the river Ohio
"This court has already, after much delib
Grafton, decided that the act Of February 18th
1898, was not repugnant to the constitution
The reasons for their opinion are fully explain
ed By Justice Story. in Prigg Us. PnnsylUan'
!, 10 Pet. r. Gil.
sin coming to that conclusion, they wer
fortified by the idea that the constitution il
sell, the clause before cited, (Art. Nv Wy fun
its shield for security, over such property as is Il
controversy in The present ease and the right Il
pursue and reclaim it within the limits Of anoth
err State.
"This was only carrying out. in our confcd
Ie crate form of Government, the clear right 0
n every man at common law, to make pusui
4. and recapture Of his OsOH property within thu
Il realm. 3 Black Com. a.
); "But the power of natiOnallaw to pursue ant
regain most kinds of property, in the limits
d. a foreign government, is rather an act o
amity than strict right; and hence, as tie pro
er perty IN persons, might not thus be recognize
in some Of the states in the Union, and Its re
,e cIamation not be allowed through either coul
r tesy or right, this clause was undoubtedly in
d. troduced into the constitution, as one Of 4
g. compromises, for the safety Of that portion 9
it. the Union which did permit such property, an
which otherwise might often be deprived Of
s; entirely by its merely crossing the line Of a
n adjoining State g Madison Papers 1869, 1851