Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-02-11


soch as not only TO show an intsniion ~
crude The vigilance OF the master, but s,cb
as rs calculated 10 attain that obiect.'-2 Nc.
Lean, &. c., els.
NoT can the recovery Of one OF the slaves
Afterwards, thus concealed and transnorted.
vary the previous fact of secre,inp and ha h
ting him.. That is the fnh induirv. Tho
sns"er to the sixth is involved in that IN tho
tourlh and hilh, as is an answer to The sev-
enth IN that 10 the first question; becapse
HIniseii, nor be in writing, it need no, he nre'
reded or accompanied by a claim. which is
'hr seventh inquiry. A claim subsenuqntlv
made must be equally valid with one he fora
Inc notice, whether looking TO the reason of
the case or the language of the statute.
The gist of the offence consists in 1,o
cealmeni of another's property, under Lpoyrl-
edge that 1t belongs to another, and moi in !,
claim being previously made and rerused.--
mat refusal might constitute a sepata,e
wrong, or be another species OF evidence 10
prove a harboring Of the slave, but il il not
me oiierce itself for which the penalty now
sued for is imposed.
The eighth and last question under this
mead seems to be an abstract nroposi,ion. and
does MT refer to any particular facts in the
case.
But if it was laid down in relation To soma
81 them' as must be presumed 10 have been,
Va order to make 1t a proper subject for a d.
VISION OF opinion to be reconsidored here. we
are not aware OF any thing Objectionable in
The overt act spoken Of was required 10
DO one both intended and calculated to elude
the masters vigilance. If so, it showed
acts and designs Of the defendant, which, in
the words and spirit Of the statute, amount
or tend directly TO 'hGrbor or conceal the fu.
gilive from labor.
1t remains to consider the fifth and sixth
division of opinion under this head. They
are, whether the act Of Congress under which
the action is brought is repugnant either to
the Constitution or the ordinance sfor the 90.
vernment Of the Territory north west of the
river Of Ohio
This court has already, after much delibc.
ration, decided that the act Of FEBRUARY l2th,
1888, was not repugnant to the Constitution.
The reasons for their opinion are fully OK.
planned by Justice Story, in Prigg We. Penn.
syivania, lG Peters, eli.
In coming 10 that conclusion, they were
fortified by the idea that the Constitution it
sell, IN the clause before cited, flung ite
shield Tor security, over such property as in
controversy in the present case, and the right
to pursue and reclaim it within the limits of
State.
This was only carrying out in our confpd-
crate form of government The clear right of !
every man at common law, to make fresh {
suit and reception Of his own property with 5
in the realms Blk. c. f.. d
But the power by national law to pursue 5
md rpu1In most hind If nrppartv l., Tho 1ip, v
its Of a foreign Government is rather an act Il
of comfy than strict right; and hence, as the I
in persons might not thus be recog- I
nized in some of the States in the Union, ?
and its reclamation not be allowed through 7
either courtesy or right, this clause was un- |
doubtedly introduced into the Constitution as a
one of It's compromises, for the safety Of that :
portion of the Union which did permit such '
property, and which otherwise might often
be deprived OF it entirely, by its merely cross
ing the line Of an adjoining State--3 Madi-
sons Pa, 1869, 1889.
This was thought to be too harsh a doc
srsne in respect TO any title 10 property Of n
friendly neishbor, not brought nor placed in
another State, under its laws, by the owner
himself, but escaping there against his con-
sent, and often forthwith pursued in order to
be reclaimed.
The act of Congress, passed only four
years after tue Constitution was adopted, was
therefore designed merely TO render effective
the guaranty of the Constitution itself; and
a course of decisions since, in the courts Of
the States and General Government, has for
half a century exhibited great uniformity in
favor of the validity as well as expediency
OF the act.
Before concluding, it may be expected by
the defendant that ONE notice should be Ia
ken of the argument urging on US disregard
of the Constitution and the act of Congress
in respect to this subject, on account Of the
supposed inexpediency and invalidity of all
laws recognizing slavery or any right of pro-
perty in man.
But that is a political question. settled by
each State for itself, and the Federal power
over it is limited and regulated by the peo-
pie and the States in the Constitution itself, /.
as one of its sacred compromises, and which
we possess no authority, as a Judicial body,
to modify or overrule.
Whatever may be The theoretical opinions
Of any. as TO the expediency of some OF those
compromises. or Of the right Of property in
persons which they recognize, this court has
no alternative. while they exist, but to stand
by the Constitution and laws, with fidelity
20 their duties and their oalhs.
Their path is a straight and narrow one
TO go where that Constitution and the laws
lead, and not TO break both by ira yelling With
ont or beyond them.
Let our opinion on the several points rals-
ed be certified to the circuit court Of Ohio,
in conformity to these views.
WIN. THOS. CARROl. Il,
Clerk q The Supreme Court Of the D. S.