Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1848-05-24
TContinued from 1st page

Vi CdiS uot iooS t""" ~
than twen,y-one years and shall be kept
and confined 10 hard labor.
There are other provisions ofthe sta
,ute in express conflict with tho act oi
1872, to which it is unnecessary TO ad'
vert on this occasion.
One Prigg was indicted under this
statute for taking and carrying away
certain negro woman, famed Margaret,
into the State Of Maryland, with the de-
sign and intention Of selling and dispo>
sing Of and keeping her as a servant for
life contrary to the statute. The de.
fendenl pleaded not guilty 10 the indct>
ment, and, at the trial, the jury found
a special verdict, which in substance,
states ha, the negro woman Margaret,
was slave for life, and held 10 labor
and service under, and according 10 the
laws of Maryland, to a certain Marga-
ict Ashmore, a citizen of Maryland;
that the slave escaped and fled 10 Penn
sylvania, in 1882; that the defendant
as the legally constituted agent OF Mar
garct Ashmore, in 1887, caused the
said woman, Margaret to be taken and
apprehendcd as fugitive from labor by a
State constable, uGdcr warrant from a
PENNSYLVANIA Magistrate; that the said
woman was l'le'eupon brought before
the said magistrate, who refuse to take
further cognisance of the cause; and
thercupon the defendant did take and
carry away the said negro, &c, out of
Pennsylvania into Maryland, and did
deliver her tozhcr owner, Margaret
Ashmore.
Upon this state ofEacts, the courts in
Pennsylvania, both on the circuit and
ON appeal,s l,sadjudged tha, the defendant
was guilty of the crime charged. In
effect holding That citizen. of slave
holding State could no, pursue and ap-
prehcnd his fugitive slave in a nom
sIavcbolding State.
The cause was carried to the SUI.
preme court Of the United States, and
there underwent discussion aud invcsti>
CATION becoming the magnitude of the
questions involved init. 'The case is
to be found reported lG Peters, Gil.
The essential question, involving the
guilt or innocence of the accused, de-
pended upon the proper construction
of the article of the constitution relative
TO fugative slaves, aud The act of 1893
made to enforce it. And that question
presented this important consideration to
lhe court. Had tho owner of fugitive
slave, escaping into on-slavcholding
State, the right 10 apprehend and seize
him or her in such Stale, as one ofthe
incidents Of perfect ownership? The
act Of Pennsylvania had made it GRIM
inal for one to make such seizure of
his own slave while in the territorial lin
its of fPennsylvania. Judge Story de-
livcred the judgment of the supreme
court, reversing, on all the points, the
Judgment below. Upou the point just
referred to, his judrmenl is full and in.
s,ructivc. lie uses tho following Ian
guagc:
Historically, it is well known that the
object Of ibis clause tU secure 10 the slave
holding States The complete right and ii.
tie Of ownershipin their slaves, as property
in every State in the Union into which
they might escape from the Stale where
they were, they were held in scrviludc.
The full recognition Of the right and lille
was indispensable TO the security Of this
species of property in all The slave holding
States; and indeed, was vital TO The pre-
,ervalion Of their domestic interest and
that it canno, he doubted that
il constituted a fundamental article, with
,ut the adoption of which The Union could
not have been formed"
This clause was Of such controlling
and paramount importance 10 the South
'rn States, that they. in effect, made it
sine qua non; the non-slavcholding
States seemed to have regarded i, in the
;amc light, Tor the clause was adopted
uto the constitution by the unanimous
consent of tho trainers of it.
The clause manilrslly contemplatcs
he existence Of a positive unqualified
ight on the part Of the owner of the
lave, which no State law or regulation
an, in any way, qualify, regulate, con-
rol, or restrain. 1t puts the ghls Of
he owner, with all its incidents, upon
he same ground in all the States. His
Igh', 10 be pcri' CT, must be the same
n all the non>saveIro'ding States, as in
n tic State fIom Which the fugitive
led. The owner must, therefore, have
he right Ito scizn aud reposscss the
lave, which the local laws of his own
state confer on him as property, and
hat is right recognised in all the slavc>
folding States.
Thus far, the right of the owner to
pprehend his slave is well recognised !
nd maintained 10y the opinion; but ..
hcic is another question or more COM
lcNity involved in The discussion of the i
asc: How shall he obtain the posses t
ION when there is detention or denial /
rigM on The part of individuals?-
'hc. .consti tuition is explicit, that a slave