The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-17

one of the incidents of perfect ownership! The
act of Pennsylvania had made it criminal for one
to make such seizure of his own slave while in the
territorial limits of Pennsylvania. Judge Story
delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court, re-
versng, on all the points, the Judgment below:
Upon the point just referred to- his Judgment is full
and instructive. He uses the following language:
- HISTORICALLY. it is well known that the object of this
clause was to to the avehodng States the complete
every State the Union into which they might escape
from the State where they were held in servtude The full
enrty of this species of property in all the avehoing
oesc and So y t. M I
that constituted ; tee amen article without the adop
This clause was of such controlling and para
mount Importance TO the Southern States, that they
in effect made it sine qua non; the non-savehold-
ing States seemed to have regarded it in the same
light, for the clause was adopted into the constitu-
ton by the unanimous consent of the trainers of it.
The clause manfestly cOntemplates the existence
of positive, unqualified right on the part of the
owner of the slave, which no State law or regua-
ton can, in any way, qualify, regulate, control or
restrain. 1t puts the rights of the owner, with all
its incidents, upon the same ground in all the
States. His right, to be perfect must be the same
in all the non-slaveholdng States, in the State
from which the fugitive fled. The owner must,
therefore, have the right to seize and repossess the
slave, which the local laws of his own State confer
on him property, and that is right recognized Ill
all the slaveholdng States. w.
Thus far, the right of the owner to apprehend his
slave is well recognized and maintained by the
opinion but there Is another question OF more COM
plexity involved in the discussion of the case
How shall he obtain the possession when there is
a detention or denial of right on the part of indi-
viduas9 The constitution is explicit that slave
escaping into non-slaveholding State shall not be
discharged from service or labor, but shall be de-
luered up, on the claim of the party to whom such
labor may be due. For many years, as has been
stated, the State authority, both judicial and min
iseral contributed actively to aid in measures for
the delivery of the fugitive to his master. The act
of 93 pre-supposes such an agency to be implied
an obligation of duty. One of the grounds taken
lin the case adverted to was that Congress, having
exclusive Jurisdiction over the subject, was bound
to supply and enact all the legislation that might be
required to carry fully into effect the article of the
constitution and that therefore, the States had no
authority to leglslate one way or the other on the
subect-tha is either to provide for the delivery Of
a fugitive, to impair the rights of the citizens of
slavehoIding States in a remedy afforded by the
laws of the Union. The court decided that the
power of legislation being exclusive in Congress,
could not for any purpose, be concurrent Ill the
States. The consequences of the decision could
not have been foreseen and differences have been
drawn from it by most of the non-slaveholding
States certainly repugnan to the drift of the deci-
son and in violation of the spirit of the constitu-
ton, and in opposition to ancient usage and con-
tempOraneous construction
The views which were taken bV Chief Justice
fancy, evince the circumspection and wisdom of a
great constitutional magistrate. They are the
views which the trainers of the constitution had
taken and which seemed to have been confirmed
by mutual understanding of the States for many
years.
The chief Justice concurred with the court en-
tirelv in all that was said in relation the right of
the MASTER by virtue of the Sd clause of the I'd sec
ton of 4h art of the constitution, to arrest his slave
in any State wherein he might find him; and i'll
pronouncing the law of Pennsylvania, under which
Prigg was indicted, unconstitutional and void.
His reasons for this opinion strikingly out. He
does not regard any other question as necessarily
involved in the case far it regarded the inno
cence guilt of the party charged-nor do the
committee.
The court did, however, go on to say, and per-
haps to decide, that the power to provide remedy
for the master was exclusively vested in Congress
and that all laws upon the subject, passed by the
States since the adoption of the constitution, are
null and void even although they We're intended,
in good faith to protect the owner in the exercise of
his rights of property, and do not in any way con-
.Aict with the act of Congress. So far from MAIN
tanning that the States prohibited from terfer-
ing by egislationto protect and aid the MASTER the
learned chief justice says: They are not prohibit
ted but, the contrary, it is enjoined upon them,
as duty to protect and support the owner when he
is endeavoring to obtain possession OF his property
found within their respective territories. 1t does
is unanswerable. The argument so ably sustained
is summed up in one sentence: The States are,
in express terms forbidden to make any regulation
to impair the masters right but there the prohibition
stops - Justices Thompson and Daniel in well
sustained judgments, cOncurred with the chief JUS
tice. Judge Thompson said he had filed his opinion
principally guard against the conclusion that,
by nv silence, | assented to the doctrine that all
legislation the subject rested exclusively in Con-
gress and that all State legislation, in the absence
or,oVn and
void" Several of the non-slaveholding States,
those to the east and north especially, have, since
the above decision was made, which was in lS42,
shaped their legislation in such manner as to re-
neal all State laws in favor OF master In pursuit
of his fugitive slave, holding such laws as uncon-
stitutona and as dead letter the statute book.
And these States, or many of them, have gone
much further, and have passed laws making it penal
for the judicial and ministerial officers to interfere
or give aid in the apprehension and delivery OF
fugitive slave to his owner. Instead OF beng
friends under the constitution, to afford active aid
in the delivery they have devised system Of hos
tile legislation to deprive him of aid. Instead OF
being allies to discharge an obligation imposed ON
them, they have become hostile opponents to de-
feat it.
Let these laws speak for themselves. The fol-
lowing are the laws of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. Having an identity OF design they use the
same language: as
81 No Judge of court of record IN thls ate ana no
justice Of the shall hereafter VI ~
certificate in cases that may under the third section OF
the act Of Congress passed February II 79 and entitled
act respecting fugtive from JUSTICE and persons s
canng from the service their masters to any person VINO
CLAIMS any other person fugitive slave within the uris-
No sheriff deputy sheriff coroner constable TAILOR.
m other officer this State shall hereafter arrest or detan,
m aid in he arrest or detention imprisonment in jail
r other building beiOn this State or to any county,
city thereof Of any person for the reason that he
81 Any Justice of the peace sheriff, deputy sheriff, coro
nor constable or TAILOR who shall offend against the provf
sions Of this any way, directly Indirectly under
the power conferred the third section of the act Of Con-
eress aforementioned shall forfeit not exceeding five
hundred dollars for every such offence to the Of State
or shall subject imprisonment not exceeding SIX months
in the county Jail.
Laws of the same effect are now in force in all
the northern and eastern States and in Of the
northwestern non-slaveholding States
the last session of the legislature of New York and
as an evidence of public opinion in that State it
NAV be stated that one of the branches of that le-
gislature gave its sanction to bill to prohibit the