The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-05
Fugitivss from ssrvice-The Laws OF 1893
and 1850.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No l65.-DECRMBER Term, 1851.
John Norris, plaintiff, Us. Edwin II. Croker and
Elisha Egbert.
On a certificate Of division in opinion between the
judges Of the Circuit Court Of the United States
for the District Of Indiana.
Mr.. Justice CArRoN delivered the opinion of the
Court
The following questions are certified to US a
district of Indiana:
l. Whether the 4th section of the act Of 1913,
spectng persons escaping from service of their
masters is repealed, 30 Tar relates to the penalty
by the act of 1850, on the same subject. s.
2. Whether if the act of 1893 s repealed to the
penalty, the repeal will bar action that was pend
ing at the time of the repeal.
The Fugitive SlAvelaw Of 1850 does not repeal the
4th section OF the act OF 1899 in terms; and if it is
repealed, il must be by implication. AS general
rule it is not open to- controversy, that where
| statute covers the whole subject matter of an old
one, adds Offences and prescribes different penal
ties for those enumerated in the old law. that then
| the former statute is repealed by implication; as
| the provisions of both cannot STAND together.
To ascertain whether there be repugnance, the
| two enactments must be compared.
The 4th section of the act of 1893 provides lst.
That any person who shall. knowingly and willing
ly, obstruct or hinder u claimant, his agent or at
torney. in arresting fugitive from Labor;
Or I'd. Shall rescue the fugitive from the claim.
ant, his agent or attorney, after he has been ar
rested;
| Or Sd. Shall, knowingly and willingly, harbor
or conceal the fugitive, knowing he is such: That
for committing either Of said offences such person
| shall forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dol
lars; which penalty may be recovered by the
claimant for his benefit; and reserving also to
| the claimant his right Of action in damages for
| the actual injuries he may have sustained be they
| more or lesl.
| The net Of 1850, section 7, declares:
| LIST. That any person who shall, knowingly and
willingly, obstruct, binder prevent such claim
ant, his agent, or uttorney-or any person, or per-
sons, la,sfally assisting him. her, them from ar.
resting such fugtive-eiMer aoih without pro-
| cess;
Or I'd. Shall rescue, attempt to rescue, such fu
gitive, when arrested, from the custody Of the
claimant, his agent, or attorney. or from the Gus
tody Of any Other person persons iatpfuliy assist.
| ing;
| Or Sd. Shall aid, atet, assist the person ow-
ing service, directly or indirectly. to escape from
such claimant. his agent, or attorney, or other
person or persons legally assissing;
Or 4th. Shall harbor or conceal such fugitive so
as TO prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice
or knowledge of the fact that such person was a
fugitive: The person offending, in either of the
cases specified, shall be subject to fine not ex-
ceeding one thousand dollars, and Imprisonment
not exceeding six months, on conviction by indct-
| ment. Secondly, that the person thus offsndng
shall forfeit and pay, by way OF civil damages, to
the party injured By such illegal conduct, the sum
| OF one thousand dollars for each fugitiveost by
reason of such conduct, to be recovered by action
| of debt.
And the question is, whether the foregoing pro-
| visions of the act of 1850 repugnant to those
contained in the act OF 1898, far as the penalty
| of five hundred dollars is concerned.
The former statute gives this penalty to the
! owner in three cases for obstructing arrest ];
| for a rescue; and for harboring the fugitive. Il,
given regardless of the fact whether the own
had or had not recovered his slave and, in add
ton, by the act of 1893, he may for and recover
the value, if the slave lost by the illegal con
duct of the defendant; or he might recover iuferi
| or damages if the slave was obtained.
By the act OF 1850, penalty is inflicted by way
of fine, on conviction and imprisonment is added
The prosecution is at the instance of the United
States, with which the owner OF the slave is not
necessarily connected, the Government taking the
penalty recovered ; nor is it of any consequence
under this mode OF proceeding, whether the owner
has or has not recovered his slave, the offender be-
ing equally liable to prosecution for committing
any one of the offences enumerated in the statute
including the old found in the act of 1893,
and the additional ones supera dded in that of 1856
| and which indicated by the words in italics
TIE recent statute covers every offence found in
the former act, which subjects the offender to a
penalty of five hundred dollars, and prescribes a
| "A 4,
ment, and is plainly rcpugnant to the act of 1893
seeming difficulty exists in the concluding
part of the seventh section Of the now act which
awards civil compensation to the owner for the loss
| OF each slave, if that loss was occasoued by any
one Of the Illegal acts that arc made indictable
But no recovery under and by force of the statute
can be had, unless the has lost the slave
The policy Of the law is obvious. On trials illegal
conduct and loss might b, fully established; but
then the wide range Of proof, to value, could
STILL in effect, defeat the suit by verdict for low
damages; and therefore Congress fxec the value
alike in every of loss, and took the assessment
OF damages from the jury. This provision is new
and inconsistent with the 4th section of the act of
1893, in THE: The former act imposes a penalty of
five hundred dollars in the enumerated cases re-
gardless of any actual loss on part of the owner;
whereas, for the same offences, the act of 1850 al.
loWS CIVIL uatuaRes Ul ono Thousand dollars Tor
each slave lost; but nothing when he is regained-
loss being til. ground of action; nevertheless, the
party injured is left to his common law remedy
for any damage nc may have sustained short of
actual loss OF the slave by the illegal conduct of The
offending party and for actual loss also, if he pre-
fcrs and elects that remedy to action for civil
damages under the statute; but both modes cannot
be pursued.
We therefore answer to the first question certi-
fed, that the act of 1850 has repealed, far az
aes to the penalty, the fourth section of the act of
1898.
The next question referred to u, for decision
presents no difficulty.
The suit was pending below when the act Of Sep
TENDER IS, 1850, was passed, and was for the pen
atty of five hundred dollars, secured by the 4th
section Of the net or 1893 AZ the plaintiffs right
TO recover depended entirely on the statute, its
peal deprived the court Of jurisdiction the
subect matter. And in the next place, the
plaintiff had vested right in the penalty, the
legislature might discharge the defendant by re
pealing the law. We therefore answer to the so.
4