The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-30

ne tlIne mas not come Wnen DoA VIII
be contaminated by men whose moral perceptions
are 80 perverted by strange Authorization that
they will not render a true verdict according TO
their ualhs and the law of the land.
have been led TO make these remarks, because
the subject has been brought TO your attention in
the course of the argument, and by the reports Of
meetings and conventions which must have met
your eyes in every newspaper since the commence
ment of this trial. But desire that you will not
suffer any prejudices to arise in your minds to af-
feet either of the parties in this case. With what
may be the peculiar opinions" of the defendants,
you have no concern. They are free TO entertain
any opinions they may choose to adopt and are on
trial only for their acts.
They are charged with having done acts contrary
TO law and are entitled to your verdict, unless the
plaintiffs have given satisfactory evidence to show
that they have transgressed the law the injury of
the plaintiffs.
The right Of the plaintiffs TO support this action,
as have already stated, depends the act of Con-
gress, and not on the principles of the common
law. And although the declaration does not say
the offence is committed against the statute, we
must look to it for the definition of the offence with
which the defendants are charged. In assisting
you in this investigation, shall only state the
general principles Of the law applicable to the case,
without any application of them to the facts this
case For the testimony is 80 contradictory, that
the court cannot assume any thing as proved with
out trespasSing on your peculiar province of decid-
ing contested facts and passing on the credbity of
conflicting Witnesses
As to the nature of the harboring and conccaling,
(Which is the substance of the complaint in this
case,) and which would subject the defendants to
liability in this form Of action, shall repeat the
observations made on former occasion:
lst What is meant by ''notice," and, End, what
constitutes harboring.
On the first point, the court has been relieved
from much difficulty, by late case tried before
Mr.. Justice Mclean in Ohio, and which has been
affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States,
(sce Vanzandt u.s. Jones, I'd Mclean; and same case,
5th Howard, 2l6) In that case it was decided that
n q uaP N { X N
ledge; that it is not necessary that specific, writ
ten, printed, or verbal notice from the owner be
brought home 10 the defendant, but that tits sutli
cent if the evidence show that he knew the person
he harbored or concealed was fugitive from labor
The word harbor is defined by photographers by
the words, to entertain, to shelter, secure, to
crete. 1t evidently has various shades of meaning,
not exactly expressed by any synonyme 1t has
been defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, "to re-
ceivc clandestinely, and without lawful authority,
person for the purpose OF concealing him; so that
another, having the right TO the lawful custody of
such person, shall be deprived of the same" This
definition isquoted in the opinion of the court
delivered by Mr.. Justice Woodbury., in Jones ps.
Vanzandt, Howard, 227 but without the intention
of affirming either the authority of the book, the
correctness OF the definition. For although the
word may be used in the complex meaning there
given to it, ii does not follow that all these condi
tions necessary elements in its definition. Re-
ceiyng and entertaining person clandestinely,
and for the purpose of concealment, may well be
called harboring, as the word is sometimes used.
Yet one may harbor without concealing He may
afford entertainment, lodging, and shelter to vaga
bonds, gamblers, and thieves, without the purpose
attempt at concealment, andi it may be correctly
affirmed of him that he barbors them.
The act of Congress- by using the terms ''harbor
Conceal" evidently assumed that the terms were
not synonymous, and that there might be har
boring without conceament. The act seems to be
drawn with great care and accuracy, and bears no
marks of that slovenly dcton which sometimes
characterizes acts of assembly, where numerous
synonymes heaped together, and words are
multiplied only to increase confusion and OBSCURE
ty. But, neither in legal use or in common par
lance, is the word harbor precisely defined by the
words entertain or shelter 1t implies improperly
in the conduct of the person giving the entertain
ment or shelter, III consequence OF some imputa-
ton the character of the person who receives it.
An innkeeper is said to entertain travellers and
strangers, not TO hGrbor them; but may be accused
of hdrborng vagabonds, deserters, fugitves, or
thieves-persons whom he ought not to entertain.
1t ID too plain for argument that this act does not
in tend to make common charity crime, or treat
that man guilty of an offence against his neigh
Dor who merely furnishes food, lodging, raiment
to the hungry, weary, or naked wanderer, though
he be an apprentice or a slave. On the contrary,
IT contempates not only an escape of the slave, but
the intention of the master to reclaim him. Ii points
out the mode in which this reclamation is TO be
made, and it is for unlawful interference him
derance of this right of reclamation secured TO the
master by the Constitution and laws, that this pen
atty is imposed.
requires some other ingredient besides mere kind
ness charity rendered to the fugitive. The in
tcntion or purpose which accompanies the act must
be to encourage the fugitive in his desertion of his
master, 10 further his escape, and imptd and frus
trate his reclamation. "Ihe act must evince an in
tenton TO elude the vigilance Of the master, and be
calculated TO obtain the object" q Mclean, 60S.)
This mdld mems, or fraudulent intent required by
the constitute illegal harboring, is not to be
measured by the religious political notions othe
accused or the correctness or perversion OF his
moral perceptions. Some men may conceive II a
religious duty 10 break the law, but the law will
not receive that as an excuse.
II the defendant was connected with any society
or association for the purpose OF assisting ugiuves
from other States to escape from their masters, and
in pursuance of such scheme afforded this shelter
and protection to the fugitive in question, he would
be legally liable TO the penalty of this act, however
much his conscience that of his associates might
approve his conduct.
The difference between the action for the penal
ty and the action the is this the defendants
might be liable for the penalty If they illegally har
bored and concealed the fugtives, even though the
master may have afterwards reclaimed them.
But in an action the casc for damages, the
plaintiff must show that the slaves were lost to him
through the illegal interference Of the defendants,
that some other appreciate loss, injury, or dam
age suffered by him in consequence thereof
In the first case he would recover the whole value
of the slaves as damages; in the latter, only TO the
amount Of loss or actual damage which he shows
he has suffered
In answer TO point put by deiendans counsel,
as follows:
"That if the jury shall believe that before the nc
groes came, or were brought by George Cole to
KaufIman's barn, they had eluded the pursuit of
the owner and his agent, the plaintiffs are not en-
titled 10 recover"
The Judge remarked that, in the abstract, this
point was true, but it did not become the defend
ants to say, if IL be proved that they barborcd or
concealed the slaves, carried them of in their
wagon, that they did not thus assist the slaves in
GLIDING the pursuit Of their owners, and illustrate
their efforts to reclaim them, much 30 az II per
carried of another's horse, and when nc
rcacheda certain stage delivered him TO comradc,
who in turn delivered him 10 another, 10y which the
property became entirely lost to the owner no ono
would doubt their responsibility.
Have you evidence 10 satisfy your minds that the
defendants, or any Of them, harbOred or concealed
the fugitiyes mentioned ia the declaration?
Did they do this knowing them TO be fugitivcs
from labor, and 10 further promote their escape
from the pursuit reclamation Of their mastersy
Did they, by such harborng and concealing,
cause the escape Of the fugitives, or hinder their
rccapture2 you find these facts TO be true, your
verdict should be for the plaintiffs for tho value Of
the slaves, say $4,000, aud interest II you sec III
10 add IL.
But the burthcn Of proof is on the plaintiff, and,
unless lac has made out his case by satisfactory
evidence you should find for defendants, or for
Il. 80 q. - -saaIHr