Weekly national intelligencer., 1850-11-09

rescued from bis by force before he convey
him beyond the limits of the State where the arrest was made
to retain the fugitive in custody him the State
whence he fed, and there deliver him 10 the claimant his
agent, attorney"
These provisions. necessary render the law Efficient
in view Of the violent feeling already manifested the Morrill,
and the threats OF resistance to nothing of the vexaous
proceedings esorted TO deter Of slaves from seek
ing to recover their property are not contained in the act
of 1898.
Before proceeding to discuss its consutionaity
ce the objections which have been raised to the fugitive
slave law, the Of September 49, 1885, usually called
may be well to direct attention the for the admission
OF the State Of Missouri into the Unon approved March g.
1920 by which provision also made for the recpue OF
fugitive slaves The proviso to the inhibition of slavery by
that act north of $50 80, is in these words
Provided a,oays, That any person escaping into the
same, The country ceed by France to the United States
under the of Louisiana, north of $50 3O, not
cluded within the limits Of Missouri, " from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed, in any State Territory Of
the United States such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed
and conveyed the person claiming bis her labor
vice as aforesaid ~ s. Stat. at Large, uol g. 545.
This extended the operation Of the Of l793, and fur
nshed another evidence Of the disposition Of Congress
maintain the meaning and adhere the principles of the
constitution And, much the Northern people may have
been chagrned and ncensed because Of the admission Of
Missouri into the Unon with constitution recognising sla-
very, voice sweed the agitation then with fierce and fear
full camor against the surrender Of slave property to its
owners.
The consutionaty of the act of l793 respecting per-
escaping from their masters" has been universally
Cured by the judcis tribunals of the country, State well
National We have already seen that the act of 1850 diff
fers in nothing from it. either in principle or in its substantial
provisions follows therefore, that far the decisions
CO. the first be constitutional the last be also It only
remains give outline Of the decisions in point In the
celebrated Of Prigg the Commonwealth Of Pennsy
paa Justice SroRY, who delivered the opinion Of the court
expounded the law az follows:
Of Tsai1 hc7 in
validity of the act Of 1893 upon the other part Of the sub
tect NATTER that of fugitive slaves has prevailed throughout
the hole Union until comparatively recent period Nay
being from its nature and character readily susceptible
of being brought into controversy in courts OF justice than
the former and Of ensng in opposition TO it the feelings
and preudces Of portions of the nslaveholdng
sates has naturally been brought under adjudication in
several States of the Unon and particularly in Massachu
sets, New York, and Pennsylvania
OCCASIONS VALIDITY BEEN AFFIRMED" Ci'ed the
of Wright Deacon, Serg and Rawle, g. Glen
Hodges, Johns. Rep. 81; Jack Martin, 10 Wend.
50z; and Comth Griffin, Pickering, IL, as cases
directly point $50 far the judges of the courts
the United States have been called upon enforce it. and
to grant the certificate required by it, is believed that has
been uniformly recognised binding and valid law, and
imposing constitutional duty" Peters's Supreme
Court Reports, vok l6, p. 539, et sequitur
Again s-
But do not wish to rest present opinion upon the
ground Of conemporaneous exposition, long acquescence
practical action neither do to admit the
questan to be Of doubtful nature, and therefore pro-
pery calling for the aid Of such considerations On the
tyary our JUDGMENT SAME, IT the question
soere entirely ne, and the act of Congress ,cere ofrecent
origin."-Ibid.
And again The clause Ian relation to fugitiues from
labor manifesy contempaes the existence of positive
unqualified right the part of the of the slave
,ohich STATE ldto regulation any Uay qIaLy
regulate CONTROL restrain The slave not to be dis
charged from service labor consequence of any State
law or regulation. Any State law or State regu-
Of the to the immediate possession Of the slave, and
the immediate command of his service and labor operates pro
tanto as discharge Of the slave therefrom. We
have not the slightest hesitation in holding that under and
in virtue Of the Constitution the owner of slave is cloth
ed with entire authory, in every State in the Union,
seize and recapure his slave, soenever he do ,oh
out any breach Of the peace any illegal uiolence
But the clause Of the Constitution does not stop here
indeed consistently with its professed Objects could it do
Many in which, the remedy of the
Uere confined to the right of seizure and recapture,
he tcotsld be utterly whot any adequate redress"
And thleads the consideration Of the other clause
which implies guaranty and duty 1t says 6 But
he he slave shall be delivered up claim of the party
whom such service labor may be due. Now think
it exceedingly difficult, if not impraccabe to read this
language and not 10 feel that contemplated further
remedial redress than that which might be administered at
the hands of the himself. 1t requires the
aid of legislation to protect the right to enforce the delivery,
and to the subsequent possession Of the slave If
indeed the Constitution guarantees the right and if re-
ques the delivery upon the claim Of the owner as cannot
UeH be doubed the natural inference certainly that the
National Government clothed 0ih the appropriate auho
rity and functions to enforce it."-lbid.
This decision Of the Supreme Court places beyond all doubt
the and duty Of Congress- under and in virtue OF the
second section OF the third clause Of the fourth article of the
Constitution Of the United States pass the act Of epem
Der lS, 1880 There have been however, decisions by the
circuit upon other points the act Of l793 equally
applicable the fugitive slave law Of this year. which It is
proper to examine brief analysis Of them will answer the
purpose.
In the case Of Hill vs. Lowe, which tried in
Pennsylvania, wash Rep VOL A. p 327,) il was decided
that person knowingly obstrucs the owner or bis agent
in eeizng fugitive slave he cannot the penalty pro-
vded in such by the of 1793 upon the ground Of
ignorance Of the law Of honest belief that the party
rested was not fugitive from service or labor.
And in the Of Jones Vanzand, which decided
in the Ohio circuit e McLeans Rep. 596,) il was further
decided that
st It is not necessary for the his agent to give
notice in writing verbally even that the person harbored
harbors conceas such fugitive the penalty The notice
under the act of 1898 knowledge and nothing more
and Of the sucency of that knowledge notice the jury
Judge And knowledge obtained from the fugitves
themselves from other that they have escaped from
their masters is notice under the statute.
3D. That any act, by which fugitive slave inen
tionay placed beyond the reach Of the owner, which is
intended calculated to have that effect under the law,
harboring OF such fugitive. ie36s
3d. That the l793 respecting fugves from service
labor, is constitutional and neither conflicts with
violates the ordinance Of 1857 for the Government of the
Northwest Territory.
Such the decision of Mr.. Justice McLKAx, who
,ainy has anies sympathies with the institution Of
slavery and affirmed appeal by the Supreme Court
Of the United States. (Howad's Rep, vol s, p. 2l5.)
And in the of Johnson Tompkins, Badw., Rep.
571 arising under the act Of 1898, settled also that
-kt