Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1847-04-15
From the Cincinnati Herald.
Fugitive Slaves,

OHuSC ZAf SUHtCHC tb CftCC " VOHHe Wv
zandt
Every one recollects the trial of the Vanzandt
case in the Circuit Court at this place None
of the sort had, ever before excited such inter-
est The case was argued at great length and
with great ability. 1t presented more fully per-
haps than any other case, ever brought to trial
many important constitutional questions, all of
which, for the sake of final decision by the
highest tribunal of the land were certified up to
the Supreme Court of the United States To
that august body it has at length been submitted
and awaits from it, its final adjudication. The
printed argument of Mr.. Chase who appears for
the defence, we have read with an unusual de-
gree of attention, and feel assured that it must
command that of the eminent men to whom it is
addressed, as well from the intrinsic Importance
of the questions discussed, as from the marked
ability with which they are treated.
The material facts ofthe case, are briefly these.
John Vanzandt, was very early in the morning
of the 25th of April, 1912, in the ordinary pros
ecution of his journey home, with covered
wagon returning from Market at this city, when
he overlook a company of negroes, who had es-
capped from slavery in Kentucky. 1t is probable
that he was made aware of this fact by the ne
oroes themselves. He received them into his
wagon, one of them taking his scat in font, as
the driver While travelling thus, their further
progress was arrested by two men who without
any authority whatever undertook to seize the
fugitiyes and carry them back. They were sue
cessful in it ,as to all but the driver who escaped
The owner of these slaves prosecuted two suits
against Eanzandt, one for damages occasoned
by the loss of the slave, the other for the penalty
Of $500 given by the Act of 1893, The former
is still pending, in the Circuit Court The lat
ter is the one now to be decided by the Supreme
Court The sections of the Act of 1893, upon
! which this action is based, are as follows:
e "&3 Be it enacted That when person, held
to labor in any of the United States, or in either
5 of the territories on the northwest or south OF
E the river Ohio, under the laws thereof shall es-
cape into any other of the said states or terrific
: ries the person to whom such labor or service
may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby EN-
powered to seize or arrest the fugitive from labor
and take him or her before any Judge Of the cir
S cult or district courts of the United States, re-
J. siding or being within the state, or before any
IS magistrate of a county, city or town corporate
n wherein such arrest or seizure shall be made
r. and, upon proof to the satisfaction Of such Judge
o or magistrate, either by oral affidavit taken be-
:. fore and certified by magistrate of any sucl
= state or territory, that the person seized or ar
rested DOTH under the laws of the state or terri
u tory from which he or she fled, owe service Of
Is labor to the person claiming him or her, it shat
be the duty of such Judge or magistrate to give
k certificate thereof to such claimant his agen
or attorney which shall be a sufficient warran
v for removing the said fugitive from labor to thu
n state or territory from which he or she fed
i, IS A. That any person who shall knowngl
. and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant
his agent or attorney in so selling or arrestin
such fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such flu
1t gtive from such claimant, his agent or attorney
III when so arrested pursuant to the authority here
in given or declared, or shall harbor or concea
such person, after notice that he or she was
fugitive from labor as aforesaid shall for eithe
of the said Offences forfeit and pay the sum
five hundred dollars; which penalty may be re
to covered by and for the benefit of such claimant
Il by action of debt in any court proper to try tn
II same; saving, moreover, to the person claimin
50 such labor service, his right of action for
nd on account of the said injuries or either Of them
n The general questions discussed are,
he L. What are the requisites of notice undo
of this actl
?. What constitutes the offence of harborin
itle9 or concealing!
n ne g. Whether this act is consistent with the O
Of dnance of 1887?
81 A. Whether it is not repugnant to the const
en- tuition of the United States
p The offence with which the defendant
ed charged, and for which the plaintiff claims til
. penalty, is that of " harborng and concealing
90 the slave The first two questions Of less il
terest than the others, and arise upon the pIeac
Al, Al. Al. a
shall content ourselves with merely stating TIL
Ike Mr.. Chase contends, with force of reasonin
ne and an amount Of authority impossible to
~ overthrown;
he That mere knowIedge of the facts, is not n
tice of them;
zee But that to charge person with the offent
- of harboring a fugitive from slavery, distin
go notice must be given of the fact of his beir
such, by the person who claims his services,
-. his agent;
re And that merely furnishing a fugitive wi
ss- the means Of escape, during his flight, does n
on constitute the offence of harboring."
we The question of the compatibility of the a
nc of 1893 with the ordinance of 1897, and the {
feet of the provisions of this fundamental la
upon the rights and duties of persons within
jurisdiction, is presented, we believe, for Il
nd first time for adjudication, in this argument
H. is question of peculiar interest to all the il
b- habtants of the States that form the North We
m Territory.
nd Upon this part of the case, Mr. Chase make
IS the following points:
III |. That the Congress of the Confederation ha
bo the power to establish this ordinance.
Of This Congress represented the United State
lrt in carrying on the war of the Revolution and
he that capacity acquired title by conquest to tn
territory, title which was afterwards confrme
nm by cesslons of the individual States and havin
us thus exclusive right both Of property and So
reignty could prescribe any conditions of settle
ment not inconsistent with the object of the a,
lily questionable common benefit of all the State
2. That this ordinance has never been abrc
d gated, in whole or in part
:. Because it was originally declared to be
IT. compact between the original States and the pc,
De and the States IN tho rVorr;torv ,,aIa.al ii