The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-12-30
IMPORTANT LAW CASE.

Our special correspondent at Washington
has sent us statement of she facts and argu-
ments in highly interesting case now pend
ing IN the Supreme Court Of the United States,
which presents very important point of con-
troversy, relative to the power to enact laws
for the arrest and delivery of fugitive slaves
The case arose under the Fugitive Slave Act
Of Illinois, and involves the question whether
the power to legislate on the subject of the
delivery of fugitive slaves does not vest exclu-
slvely, either in Congress or in the several
States and if So which has the jurisdiction
the State, or the Federal authority!
Dr. Richard Eels, q warm. hearted, benevo-
lent man, and highly respectable physician
was indicted, under a statute Of Illinois for
harboring and secretng fugitive slave; was
convicted and sentenced to pay fine of four
hundred dollars. From this sentence an ap-
peal was taken to the Supreme Court of ILL
nois, where the sentence was affirmed by di.
yided Court. Judge NOW Senator) Shields de-
livered the opinion OF the majority and Judge
Lockwood the opinion Of the minority (among
whom was the Chief Justice) against afirms
ton Of the sentence
From this judgment of the Supreme Court
Of Illinois a writ of error was taken to the
Supreme Court Of the United States The
cause stood first on the docket for the present
term, and was argued by Senator Chase, of
Ohio orally and by Mr.. Dixon, of Illinois, in
writing, for DR.. Eels, and by MIR. McDougal
Attorney General Of Illinois, also in writing
for the State
The leading point made by the plaintiff in
in error il, that the exclusive power to legslate
in relation to the arrest and delivery Of fugitive
slaves is vested either in Congress or in the
States and that as Congress had already tby
the act Of 1899 legislated thereon, the State
could not, and therefore the statute under which
the plaintiff in error was convicted and SEN
fenced, is void Thus the case necessarily
brings under review the decision of the Su-
preme Court in the famous case Of Sprigg vs.
The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, in which
the Court held that the master of a fugitive
slave had right to seize him and take him
out OF the State where found, without any pro-
cess; and, second that the exclusive power of
upon the subject Of fngitives from
service Is vested IN Congress.
Senator Chase il well known TO hold tho
opinion that no such rights of seizure and de-
portation exist in the master and that the |
power to legslate on the subject of fugtives
from service is not in Congress ut ALL but srelu-
avety in the State Legislatures. That is the
" Free Democratic doctrine; and it will be
seen ut once that this opinion operates against
his own client. In opening his argument to
the Court he adverted to his own opinions, and
to his endeavors to impress them upon the
Court but, having failed in these attempts he
now claimed the benefit Of the adjudication in
the Prog case for his client in the suit. He
argued:
l. That the power Of Legislation on the sub
ject Of fugitves from service having been held
to be exclusive in Congress, all State legisla-
ton upon the same subject must necessarily be
void