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

6Ly paid in advance.
II the ~informhtion given 10 him orally or in
writing is such as 10 satisfy a fair minded
man that he is concealing the properly Of an
other, II is his duty, under tho Constitution
and laws. to cease TO do it longer.
Any other construction would 90 likewise
beyond HE evil TO be avoided by the notice,
which was the punishment Of AN individual
for harboring or cOncealing a person, having
reasonable grounds TO believe lie was thereby
injuring another.
Any other construction, too, would be sui
cidal TO the law itself; as, before a notice in
writing could be prepared and served on that
defendant, the f%ugitives would be carried be-
you'd the reach OF recovery h. mary cases, aad
in others would have pass Z 40 usanown
hands.
This is not the case, like some cited in the
argument. where the party prosecuted was
not concerned III getting away the apprentice
or person harbored, but merely entertained
him afterwards for hospitality, or in igno-
rance OF his true character and condition.
Then a mere formal notice and demand of res
toration may be proper before suit, in order
to remove any doubts as TO the condition of
the fugitive who is thus entertained, or the
Intent OF the master to enforce his right and
reclaim his property. | Chit. Gen. Prac.,
4l9. But verbal notice is enough then.
Besides this, the present is a case where
the defendant was a partaker in accomplish
Ing the escape Itself, like a p~articeps crtmi-
ms, and where the concealment and harboring
was not after the escane was over. but during
Its progress. while the slaves were in h.ansifu,
and where the notice is not exclusively with
a III tt. o, ,r...z. .I-.-
so an element in the case. To show whether
the party was, knowingly or ignorantiy as to
thelr condition, rendering them assistance 10
escape, by temporarily harhoring or secreting
them. so far as regards this point. it is d
question merely Of %scienter. No matter how
or where the knowledge came, if it only ex-
Isl. The conceaIment here was p~racticed du-
ring the fresh pursuit to retake the slaves;
and hence, without any formal notice or de-
mand, no doubt could exist as to the wish TO
reclaim them, as well as the fact of their be-
ing slaves.
Furthermore, that the defendant has not
suffered by the charge Of the jury in this point
is maintained from his own declarations at
the time that he knew the fugitives to be
slaves e. Mclean, G. G. $50, Jones VS.. Van
Iandt,) aud from the instruction to the jury
that this fact must be clearly proved before
they ought to convict him, (p. GO7.)
This view Of the subject disposes of seve-
raj other points of division connected with it,
because every purpose contemplated by the
notice Is accomplished, without a publication
OF 1t previously In a newspaper, which is the
second question. 10 require such a publ
cation would be entirely arbitrary, and would
still more surely defeat the whole law, than
10 hold that the notice must be in writing,
and served on the defendant, before he is LA
BILE.
SO as to the third question, whether the in
formation be sufficient if acquired from the
slave himself. 1t is manifested that such a
source OF Information for that fact is one of
the most satisfactory, as he has good means
OF knowing it. and is not likely to admit his
want of freedom unless it actually exists.
The next question relates to what consti-
tutes concealment or harboring of d slave,
within the meaning Of this statute.
1t seems from the facts, which by arree-
inert are all those reported in the printed case
as tried in the court below, @ McL.ean's II
$3.50 as well as those inserted in this record,
that several slaves, owned by the plaintiff, in
kentucky, escaped from him and fled to O.
hlo, adjoining, and, when about twelve miles
distant from their masters residence, we're
taken into a covered wagon by the defendant,
in the night, and driven with speed twelve
or fourteen miles, so that one was never over
taken, though fresh pursuit was made for the
whole.
Now, whatever technical distinction NAV
exist Of the word conceal or har60r, as applied
TO apprentices and other subjects, no doubt
can exist that these words and their deriva-
lions must here be constructed in reference &.
to the matter Of the statute and the nature Of
the offence TO be punished.
These show this offence to consist often in
assistance to escape aud reach speedily some
distant place, where the master cannot find
or reclaim such fugitives, rather than in de-
tanning them about ones premises.
We see nothing, then. in the facts here, or
IN the instruction OF the Judge on them, Sc
cu'dum Su6jecfam maiertam, which show this
case not to have been, as the jury found il to
be, one within the manifest design ofthe stat
ute against harboring and concealing persons
who were fugitives from labor, after notice
or full knowledge of their character. Indeed,
the general definition of the word .harbor,'
lin ! Bowler, 1907 as quoted by the defen-
dants counsel, saying nothing as TO the al-
thority of that work, is such as to be fully
covered by tho facts in this case. as stated in
the record, and as found by the Jury. 1t is
ito receive clandestineiy, and without lawful
authority, a person, for the purpose of con-
cealinC him, so that another, having the right
to the la~ia. custody of such person, shall be
deprived OF ,he same
Here was a clandestine reception of the
slave and without lawful authority, a con-
cealment than in a covered wagon, and
carrying them onward and away so as to de-
Prlve the owner oftheir custody. To harbor'
is also admitted in the argument to mean SO
s%ecrefe.' Such is one the established defni-
lions by the best photographers. Yet, here
they We're secreted not only as just stated, by
being placed in a covered wagon and carried
TO 4 greater distance from their master, but