Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-30
Prin!e'f for The Publishing Committee ty
G. N. HAPGOOp.


which is the seventh inquiry. A claim sub
sequenily made must be equally valid with
che before the notice, Whether looking +, tina
reason Of the case or The language Of the sta
tutr.
The gist Of the or nee consists in the con-
eealment Of another's property, rnder knowl-
edge that 1t belongs 10 another, and MT in a
claim being previously made and refused
That refusal might constitute 2 separate
wrong. or be another species Of evidence 10
prove the harboring Of the slave, but it is not
the ofrBce itself for which the penalty now
sued for IS imposed.
Tae eighth aud last question under ihis
head seems to be an abstract proposition, and
does not refer to any particular facts in tho
cate.
But IL il was laid down IL relation to come
Of them, as must be presumed to have been,
in order 10 make it a proper subject for > d.
vision Of opinion TO be reconsiderrd here. we
are not awarc Of anything Objectionable in
1t.
The covert act' spoken Of was required
, 20 be one both intended and calculated TO
r elude The masters vigilance. II so, it show
= Ell acts and designs Of the defendant, which,
in the words ard spirit Of tine statute, amount
/; or tend directly 10 "A2fbJr or rg7icea!" he
fagitive from labor.
We shall how proceed TO the points of d..
vision in respect to the motion IN arrest
! They are, firstly, whether The counts contain
3 the necessary thai the slave An
drew escaped from Kentucky to Ohio.
= 1t is admitted, that this prosecution being
a penal one, the declaration must bring il
within the statute clearly, whether locking
10 us language or spirii,-Dwauis on Stat
1, utes. 736 8 Daue's Alb. 244, sec 3; 4 Wash,
: G. c., 397. Simons case.
p 1t is not necessary to multiply authorities
ON SO elementary a proposition.
On turning 10 these counts, however, twill
!. be seen that they allege the residence of the
p~l,intiT in Kentucky, the ow nership by him
of these slaves held 10 labor there, and their
"~unlawfully" and without lis consent
e going from the place to Ohio, as d" ~lugitives
m from labor All these allegations combin-
ne cd, and not merely the going away, are q clear
\. and sufficient avrrnent Of an escape Of the
IA slave .Anirsw under the first o6iecliJn IN ar
an rest. II they contain sufficient matter to show
nd an escape, II need not be alleged in The very
. words-iptissimis vcrGis-of the slaiu,e.-l
he Chitt. Pr, S57; 3 East, 244, the King rs.
he Stevens ct al.
The urrrammatica, use Of the word twas"
of ~ Were in speaking Of both slaves, Is
ms urged as an un 'ertainiy, which yilaies This
paTt &C the declaration.
But no one can doubt that both arc referred
10, anu lne i1OEb especially hiteT \ NeT0lc'.
ve. As 10 what is ,hus cured by a verdict. see 4
Howard, l3l, Garland rs. Davis and the ca
90. ses there cited, and IL Wendell. 37i.
asa The second point. certified under the no.
r ton in arrest, ia, whether tho "ccun;s cor
rd. tain The necessary averments Of notice ,ha;
if, said Andrew was a fugitive from labor. with
10 in the description OF the act Of Congress-
on We cannot doubt that they do, when the
is. first count alleges that said Andrew WAS il
on Ohio, ga fugitive from labor. and the defend.
bo ant, we'll kHO,ring that said Andrew was the
lr. slave of Tie piainiff, and a fugitive from IL.
Dor" &C.. did haibor and conceal him.
So in respect TO the ;hiTd question courcc;
nv cd with the arrest Of judgment, Which is
ed whether the avermeHts are sufficient, under
Int the statute, as TO haTboring the slave Andrew
"a the answer can be but one way. However
10 strict the construction should be, vel the count
no alleges, in so many words, - that the defend,
ant did, knowingly and wiilfuily. AGgb0r, dc.
in tain, coneeGi, aud keep said slave
ne Under the fourth general objection OF IN
nj sufliciciency in the declarations, no specific
mr. point not Otherwise designated has been call
,S cd to our attention, except that all the acts
r" alleged in the declaration are not said 10 be
"con,rary to the STATUTE This last express
sion follows the concluding portion of the
.js count, and tho oypression may be necessary
~ in a penal declaration.-2 East. 333. Lee rs.
be Clark; l Gall. $50, 2G5, 9-l; l Chit. PI.
esq.
No. But all know. that where II ia inserted al
~ the end of a declaration or Indictment, il does
,r- not, as a general rule, relate to the last pre-.
ceding averneuls alone, but the whole sub.
'he j~sct-matter before alleged TO constitute an OF
Dv fence.
IN 1t is all that misconduct. which is contrar,
is to the statute, and not the concluding part 0
NO. it only.
of 1t remains to consider tie fifth and sixtl
Tho division OF opinion under this head. The,
on. are, whether the act Of Congress under which
the action is brought, is fcPngnant either tC
Tho the Constitution or the Ordinance Z" for the
A. government of the territory Northwest Of The
river Ohio"
This Court has already. after much delib.
Grafton. decided that the Act of February
I2th, 1893, was not repugnaut to the Consti
ee. tuition.
The reasons for their opinion are fully ex.
Im planned by Justice Story, in Prigg Us. Penn.
,o~- ~sylyania, I6 Peters GIL.
100 In coming to that conclusion, they were
anI fortified by the idea that the Constitution il
self, in the clause before cited, flung its shield
the for security, over such property as is in con
h,, t7oversy in the present case, and the right Il
ant pursue and reclaim it within the limits o
another State.
vas This was only carrying out in cur confed
TO crate form of Government, the clear right O
ich every man, at common law, to make frest
suit and reception Of his own property with
in the realms 81. C. 4.
yes But the power by National law to pursul
md and regain most kinds of property in tn
re- limits Of a foreign Government. ia rather a
in act Of comfy than strict right; and hence, a
the property in persons might Rot thus be IL
~er cogniIed In some of the States in the Union
On and lis reclamation not be allowed throug
tho either courtesy or right, this clause was III