Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1851-07-10
A Review of a Slave Case.

OUWCS tlt Ito JuoC ub lIIOF ItpOIt6u wv itB AOIb
VoIume Of Peters Reports, in favor Of Prigg
vs. The Slate Of Pennsylvania.
Prgg the Plaintiff in Error, was indicted
under statute of Pennsylvania made to pre-
vent kidnapping. The facts, as they appeared
before the Court, were that Prigg and his as.
sociates took and carried off into Maryland a
person residing in Pennsylvania, under such
circumstances that it would have been kidnap-
ping within the true and proper meaning and
provisions of the Pennsylvania statute, if the
person kidnapped had not been a slave. But
the person kidnapped was a slave to some per-
son in Maryland. There then existed a statute
in Pennsylvania, enacted on purpose to aid
shareholders in carrying home their fugitive
slaves and this slave was a fugitive slave,
having fed from Maryland. But Prigg, in car
rying off this slave out Of the State, did not act
in accordance with the provisions of that statute
of Pennsylvania, nor of any statute of the Uni
ted States. If therefore, the statute ofPennsyl
vania upon which the Indictment was predicated,
was unconstitutional and void, Prigg was wrong
ly convicted if that statute was constitutional
and of binding force as respects the removal of
a slave then the conviction was proper, and the
Judgment ought to be affirmed. 1t will be read
lily seen upon this short statement of the case,
that if the Court once arrived at the conclusion
that this statute, as applied to slave, was
unconstitutional and void, no other question
claimed their attention, for the slavery of the
person removed by Prigg, was admitted in argu-
ment, and found by the special verdict of the
Jury The Court did decide this statute to be
unconstitutional and void and they decided
other things also. The majority Of the Justices,
also decided, that State Legislature can enact
no binding statute to affect the removal of fugi-
tive slaves not even to aid the owner to retake
and carry home his slave. The minority of the
Justices considered, that, if Congress had not
legislated upon the subject, state could pass
law to aid, but not to obstruct the owner in re-
claiming his slave. If | correctly understand
the opinion of Mr.. Justice Mclean, it is, that
the constitution secures the right of the owner
to reclaim his fugitive slave from another state ;
but does not provide the means Of doing it.
That legislation is necessary that Congress
have legislGted by the act of Feb. 18th, 1893 /;
that Congress had q right as in said act, to call
upon the state Judges, &c, to aid the owner as
the act requires that this legislation is exclu-
sive, and no state or people have any right to
throw any distractions IN the way but that
the owner has no right to reclaim his slave by
force he has right to seize him for the pur-
pose of carrying him before the Judge or magis-
trate but for no other purpose that the slave,
while in Pennsylvania was presumed free, sub
iect to, and under the protection of, the very
law, under which Prigg was indicted that
Prigg was subject to this law of Pennsylvania
until he would enttle himself TO the protection
of the said act of Congress of 1898 that Prigg
never did this, but forcibly carried off the pre-
tended slave, without any proof, or decision with
regard to the slavery.
Thus, there IS no conflict between these stat
utes The statute of the state is u proper one,
applicable and of binding force to guard, protect
or punish, as The case may be, those within her
Jurisdiction but when a man comes from
slave state, and claims one of his slaves, and
proves his claim before the proper tribunal, that
proceeding and that proof bring him within the
purview of the act of Congress, and out of the
reach of the state statutes and the state authorl
ties that, without this course, and furnishing
of this proof, pretence, that the person seized
was his slave, would be as good as the reality
slave state, and out of the jurisdiction of the
state where he seized his victim So | UNDER
stand the reported opinion of Mr.. Justice Nc
Lean.
After what is already observed about the
views of Justices in the minority with regard to
the reasons of their decisions, would observe
none of these were in the minority as to the
decision, only as to their reasons, except Mr..
Justice Mclean. As l read the report, the
Court decided the following points:
LIST The Constitution of the United States
executes itself, securing to the STAKEHOLDER the
right to reclaim his slave. who may have fled
into state, where the laws do not tolerate sla-
very.
Cd. That though the right is thus secured,
it requires a statute to prescribe the means
and mode of operation thus TO reclaim his fu
gitive.
Sd. That the act of Congress of Feb. 10Th,
1893, is clearly constitutional and made all nee
essary provisions and that this is wholly ex-
elusive, and not liable TO be affected by any
state legislation.
4th. That the provisions of that act refer
ring to the action Of state magistrates to aid the
owner Of the slave, is Of no avail, being out of
the power of Congress to enact it.
9Th. That slave having fled into free
state is still property, and that the owner may
seize him without warrant, and carry him
home into slavery, if he can accomplish it with
out breach of the peace, just as he might any
other property.
9th, That the Constitution and the act of
1893 do not at all interfere with the rights of
the States, to regulate their internal police, and
remove runaway slaves, dlers, vagabonds, pau
pers &C., out of each state.
7th. That the statute of Pennsylvania, I'M
der which Prigg was indicted, is unconstitution-
al and void. 1t purports to punish for the very
act of seizing and carrying away, which is au-
thorized by the Constitution and act of Congress.
1t cannot be improper for the citizens, indeed,
it is their duty, carefully to study the decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United States up
on Constitutional questions, SO as to know
where we stand, and what our constitutional
rights are and whether the different provisions
Of the Constitution, securing our rights, and
pointing out our duties, are at war with each
other. Surely none will deny, that all parts Of
the Constitution must be so construed, if the
words will bear it, as all to stand together in
harmony. 1t is an object of serious enquiry,
whether the Court, in some of the points decided
in this case, have not construed one portion Of
the Constitution so as wholly to PROSTATE others,
of at least, equal Importance. will now place
some of them side by side, to render the COM
parson easy.
The points decided. The Constitution
The owner of slave "The right of peo-
who has escaped into pie to be secure in
State the laws of which their persons, houses,
do not tolerate slavery papers and effects, a
may there seize him gainst unreasonable
without any warrant, searches and seizures,
and carry him to bis old shall not be violated.
home in slavery, ifhe And no warrants shall
can do it without any issue, but upon probable
breach of peace. That cause, supported by oath
is, with no regard to or affirmation, and par
his peace, but not break ticularly describing the
ing the peace of those place to be searched,
by whom he finds him and the person or thing
surrounded. to be seized"
Again. Constitution.
The owner may seize No person shall be
his slave as above, deprived of iis, liberty
without warrant, and or property, without due
carry him off into an process Of law"
other,-nto slave
state,