New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1848-10-25
The Philadelphia slave Case.

Chss ONel ESQ. Tor Mr. TUghmsn moved 90 Quasi
the wit Of hdbsds cpus upon the ground that the Pet
ton on which t founded does not state The nstgr,
o the alleged restraint sufficiently clear for the ~
spondert - maze The mrs; section OF the a.
beas c1ras set provides that the petitioner shall So
forth the nature OF the charge upon which he ieAa
Cd tor any criminal or supposed criminal matter The
PRISON - obliged ny the T. set out the nature and
character OF the charge that the Court may have
knoSlefge Of the case and whether & : proper o.
grant the writ He must produce copy OF the wsr.
rant OF arrest The isut Of the petition In this case j.
that The petition does state The nature 0i the re-
sirsini which Pierre alleges : exercised By NJ rl-h
man Tie mere stsies tia. 10 . Tor no criminal or al
/ legged criminal matter.
Judge King said that the form OF petition adopted
In this has been the form in existence and practice
during BIZ entire judicial recollection which extends
- years Il the petition states that he has been
restrained of BIS liberty for no criminal or supposed
criminal matter and sustained BY oath u has Away
been considered sufficient Precedent has settled tue
practice into principle. which cannot now be dis
turbed II the matter were now fe H'r0 the form
might be amended suppose the man ia restrained
without any cause being assigned. how could he then
regsin his liberty The ground resides IN the bosom
% the party who restraints The may be given
and the petitioner would BE- unable 20 make oath the
ground alleged. There s no hardship in this
II there i retrsnt the answer % the petitioner
who says You restrain me Of my liberty, j. do
n0t-you may 20 Where the party makes oath that
he Is restrained OF ms liberty without any criminal
charge puts the burden upon the other side to show
Why he does 50
Mr.. Tnghman then made return to the wrt FOL
lows Thst the said Louis Pierce, By virtue OF the
laws Of the state Of Louisiana his slave that he has
not seen the said Louis since the morning OF the 18Th
Of October. the day which this writ served
upon him. except in Court that he did not res,an him
Of his liberty At the time OF the service OF the VIII nor
has be restrained him AZ any time since.
Mr. ONci said that by virtue Of this return the Court
could do nothing with the writ Of hsbeas corpus they
could not remand the rclstOr or discharge him. The
case Of the Commonwealth vs. Robinson rules this
In hshr arra4 atff tr
the body Of Jno. R0op a soldier. The captain made
return that he did not restrain Roop OF his liberty that
the said Roop had enlisted soldier that he was not
then restrained but the end of four days unless he
reconsidered the enlistment he would De restrained.
On this return, G. J. Iilshmsn decided that he could
not remand discharge the petitioner All that he
could do was 10 say that he was Al liberty to 20 wher
ever he plcases.
Mr. ONeil said ths, was precisely what be wanted in
this case He wanted the Court not 10 remand or dis
charge him but % allow the % stand a. it was
The act OF ESQ which gave slave owner right TO
keep his slave In this state for six months had been
repealed and BY the laws OF Peunsy vana Louis Pierce
was free Mr. Tlghmsn returns that be does not re-
strain himhe cannot therefore be discharged but may
90 where he pleases This course would be- most ben
ehcis 10 Mr. under the circumstances, and he felt
inclined 10 resort 20 other means 10 assert his property
IL would not operate as discharge. which might pre-
udice his right to hs slave In his own state
Mr. Earle, for plaintiff contended that the return was
evssve and intended 70 prevent the habess corpus act
from having its beneficial operation 70 did not state
that he restrained when the writ issued. Judge
King said that he thought IL was evasve A return
was therefore made by Mr Tlghmsn, and sworn b.
The amendment that Mr. Tlghmsn did not restrain
Pierce OF his liberty in Pennsylvania At the time when
the writ issued
The case wa. the argued by George Earle for the re-
ator who read the act Of l7-0 abohshing slavery In
Pennsylvania and the act Of -i7 repeating the section
giving right TO shareholders TO retain title 10 their
slaves tor six months after they came here.
Mr. ONeil, in answer, commended for the disposition
OF the case az made in Commonwealth Robinson
He said that under the Act Pierce had rightto
into Court and claim his discharge because the Act Of
l-i7 makes him tree in Pennsylvania and until he is
restrained be cannot the habsds corpus IL
undoubtedly that he had been brought here as a
slave Mr. Tighman supposed that be had right 10
hold him for six months under the act Of 1850 and did
not know that repealed BY the set of l-I, or be
would have brought him. He thought Il was his
right 20 bring bis slave here, and knew nothing OF the
change in the law But the law of Pennsylvania makes
him free and he must abide by IT, II that law is const
tuonal. II 10 is then Pierce free from the time
when he touched the soil Of the state and needs
habeas corpus TO regain the liberty given him by the law
Mr. ONe therefore pressed his position that the Court
here would make the same disposition OF this case as
was made In Commonwealth rs Robinson, leaving the
matter 10 stand as it was. If Mr.. Tlghman then at
tempted 20 take his slave commit any breach Of the
peace, he will take the responsibility OF the act.
ThOs Earl for the relstor. asked 10 introduce witness
&c 10 contradict the return Of Mr. Tilghman he wsud
show that he did attempt to restrain Pierce Of his liberty
since the writ issued, and when asked tor manumit
ting bond refused b give H.
Judge King said that he could not allow the return 10
be conravened and the relstor may except and show
whore the return not good. supposng i true but
the evasiye the remedy by motion 10 attach
the respondent for his evasion.
Mr.. Earle then went on 70 argue that slavery was
founded upon municipal regulation and not upon The
law Of nature The states had only ceded % the Fed
era Government certain powers. reserylng all which
not delegated Among these were the regulation
Of Slavery within their own limits. The Constitution
u the United States applied only to fugtyes from
Lob. nd .Ha~a vplu y
brought bis slave into free State Mr.. h. cited
ers where this night recognized and where,
by law the state declared that al slaves Imported
within their boundaries were made free They were
held 10 be after being brought into the state even
where they had been back into slave Ststesthe
right Of freedom acquired by their being IN free state
was recognized-snd the claim Of the master held 10
be last
Judge King delivered his opinion as follows The
constitutional question raised this is tree from
real difficulty The State Of Pennsyl Ike any other
independent sovereignty has the clear right 10 declare
that slave brought within her territory becomes pso
iscto freeman. This and : principle OF the
common law (somersets case, State Trial vol. 20)
and in terms asserted by the 10th section Of the act
Of l7-0
Pennsylvania retains all the rights Of any other
reignty which she has ceded renowned In enter
lng into the national compact which binds this con
iederscy together II she has stipulated anything In
that compact which limits her otherwise penary power
IN regard the passage of such Law the act OF
l then Of course the act OF Assembly must yield %
the paramount authority Of the Constitution OF the
United states This restr amt the penary authority
Of the state II Il exists al all Is TO be found IN the
third section Of the fourth article Of that instrument
which declares that no person held 10 service Or Ia
Dor IN STATE, under the laws thereof escaping into
another shall in consequence Of any law or regulation
therein be discharged from such service labor but
shall be delivered up on claim OF the party b whom
such services or labor may be due.
Ii seems 10 me difficult % argue that this section.
which stipulation % surrender tugitives from
labor. escaping from their in state into
another has any relevancy the right OF state 10 de
clare free slaves brought voluntarily into her territory
by tneir owners Where the master Of ais swn motion
brought his slave into free State the operation of
whose laws De "a bound 10 know what ground has he
70 complain II those laws gives freedom 10 MS slave
Il was MS own act which produced the result and for
al the legal consequences of which be must Of course
respond Has such state Of things anything IN com
with the In which slave has against the will,
and without the agency OF his master fed from his
vice in state and sought shelter and protection In
smother This the intended 10 be provided
tor By the Sd section Of the 18th Of the Constitution
Of the United states. And undoubtedly, Pennsylvania
bound % the faithful execution Of this Of al other
cations imposed herself Ia becoming party 70
the national union
But when Pennsylvania stipulated With her sister
States deliver up fugitves from labor ieeng from
other States and seeking shelter IN her territories sne
certainly meant deprive herself Of the right
pertaining TO every independent sovereignty 70 forbid
the voluntary Introduction Of slaves iato her territory
by their owners under the penalty Of their being I'M
uedisrel = declared free such a Remuneration Of ner