The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-12-12
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW IN INDIANA.

INDIANAPOLIS, Nov. %, 1850.
To The Editor Of The National Era.
DEAR SIR: A very important question in rela-
ton 10 the new Fugitive law has recently been
argued in the United States Circuit Court, now
in session here, held by Hon. f. M Huntington
District Judge; and as some of your readers May
feel an interest in the euhject, perhaps 1 report
OF the case may not be embarrassing;
JoHN NORRIS u.s. ELISHA EGBKRr e a.
Z. CVeua CoWt, District Of Indiana. NorenBsy
Tenn, 1850.
This was az action Of debt brought, by the
plaintiff, to recover Of the defendants the sum of
$500, the penalty prescribed by the act Of 1893,
respecting fugtives from labor. The suit was
- 80 Et1;ssccei - .In3 81 60 - s-2.a.S.i0n
charges the defendants with having hsrbored
concealed, and rescued four fugitive slaves from
the plaintiff, in st. Joseph county, Indiana. The
defendants filed general demurrer to the decIa-
ration. Ten other suits against different PER
sons, in favor Of the came plaintiff, were also
pending)
Jernegan and Niles, for defendants insisted on
the following points, in support of the demurrer
|. The act respecting fugitives from labor,
adopted September Is, 1850 Furnishes the same
offence charged in the declaration with fine
not exceeding 81 900, and Imprisonment not ex-
ceeding six months and Is therefore inconsistent
with and repugnant to the act of 1893, which
gives the claimant penalty Of $500 for the same
offences.
? The act of 1880 repeats, by implication, so
much of the act Of 1898 AS is inconsistent or re-
pugnant thereto, citing the following cases 1
Burrows, 2O2G; 5Pick, lGs 81 Pick, 373, .
New Hampshire, 50; Dana, $50, 3Ii
3. Such repeal puts an end TO all suits pending
nj the time or commenced after the act of 1850
founded upon offences committed before-citing
3 Burrows l,456; 8 Blackford, 1873; Cranch,
$50; Yeates, 392; Randolph, G57; | Wash.
G. C. Repq 81; A Alabama, 1877; 3 Howard u. S.
Rep, 53l; 10 Peters, 362 IS Maine, 1903; 20
Maine, 1925 New Hampshire, 81.
o. III. Smith, for plaintiff, insisted upon the fol-
lowing points
/. The act of 1850 applies only to offences oc-
curing after its passage.
?. The penalties prescribed by the act of 1850
are cnnmiaiUe, and do not operate as repeal of
the penalties Of the act of 1893. Adding new
penalties by law will not operate rs repeal of u
prior law, unless there ia repeating clause which
| there ia not in the act of ls50--citng Cowper,
297; 9 Bacon's Arrangement, Bouvers edition,
| page geo
3. The plainuin had a rcst,,I ,ieL 10 the penal
ty Of 5000, which the act Of Congress has not
taken away.
4. The act of 1880 il merely an amendment
and supplementary TO the act of 1879, by its ex-
press terms
}. A. Liston, for plaintiff, insisted that the two
acts were not inconsistent with or repugnant TO
each other that they merely adopt different modes
of recovering fugitives, imposing different penal
ties on those violating the provisions of either
| that claimant can now pursue the remedy pre-
scribed by the act of 1893, and if person inter
fere with him in the violation of that law, he can
recover the penalty of $500; but If he should
elect 10 DrOcppt unHer the net nf ism "A
violating that law would be punished by fine and
Imprisonment.
The argument occupied two entire days, and
the Court has taken the case under aiviscmcnt
until the next term, when the decision will be
pronounced. There can be but little doubt that
the demurrer will be, that no penalties he re-
covered after September ~, 1850, for any offences
committed before that time in violation Of the
act of 1893. BRYANT.