Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-11-13


mode by which the might have the form and
support of legal process and guilty of improper
interference with his rights might be punished For TINS
purpose the act of Congress Of 18th February lI93 was
passed BY the third section Of this act the master OF
his agent is empowered to seize and arrest the fugitive
and take him before judge magistrate, and, having
proof of his ownership obtain certificate, which should
serve as legal warrant for removing fugitive.
heourth section describes four different offences: lst
knowingly and wifuy obstructng the claimant IN sez
ing arrestng the fugitive ID rescung the fugitive
when arrested; 3D., harboring 4th conceahng such
person after notice that he is fugitive from labor
Under this statute you viii observe that penalty OF
five hundred dollars incurred for harborng conceal
ing fugitive which the party injured may recoyer but
the present action is not for this penalty In this SUIT
the plaintiff is only entitled the damages he has
actually sustained by the acts of the defendants You
viii first determine whether the proof under the princi-
pies here laid down. entities the plaintiffs to recover
And if they be entitled you will then have to consider
the amount Of damages
In order to entitle the plaintiffs your verdict they
mrst have proved to your satisfaction
A. That the slaves persons held to labor, mentioned
in the declaration of them by the laws Of
property of the plaintiffs NJ the statute
it that their labor and services were due 10 The
plaintiffs for life a term of years
q That these persons held to labor escaped TO the
State of Pennsylvania.
g. That The defendants some of them, aware OF
these facts ayng notice or knowledge that the persons
harbored or concealed fugitives from abor) did
harbor conceal hem contrary to the true intent and
meaning of the statute.
And if you find these facts in favor of the plaintiffs,
the of the damage, injury loss sustained by
the plaintiffs in consequence OF such harborng ana con-
cealing.
On the first two points there is no contradictory testi-
mony But while the escape of the twelve negroes has
been disputed the defendants counsel contend that
the proved do show that the fngtves were
slaves the property Of the plaintiffs but on the con-
trary, that they We're free.
1t has not been disputed that the fugtives the
property of Shadrach s. Oliver the time of his death
in Arkansas. By the laws of that State the widow has
right third of them, if treated either real or per-
sonal estate. But however the law might divide them,
the widow and children, entitled to the succession,
after the payment Of debts could by any family arrange
ment, settlement understanding divide the property
their discretion and third persons would have no
right to dispute its validity Slaves, though for some
purposes treated as real property chattes and like
other chatte may pass by delivery without any formal
bill of SALE Possession of them is therefore prfma Jdcte
/ evidence of title.
Ii has been contended that these slaves became free by
the Of the plaintiffs, in voluntarily bringing them into
| the State Of Pennsylvania.
This question depends upon the law of Maryland and
not of Pennsylvania. This court cannot go behind the
status of these people where they escaped We know
of law decision of the courts OF Maryland which
slave liberated who has been conducted by his
master along the national road through the State OF PENN
sylyania On this subject Lord Mansfield has said some
very pretty things, Tin the of Somerset which are
often quoted principles Of the common law But they
will perhaps be found by examination of later cases, to
be classed with rhetorical hourishes rather than legal
dogmas Since the former trial of this the point has
been decided in the Supreme Court, think But how
that may be- the point is ruled in favor of the plain
s for the purposes of the present case as we desire TO
have your verdict the facts Of the which are SO
much contested
The great question: them which your attention will
be directed is whether the defendants, any of them,
guilty of hnrboring conceang the fugitves as
laid in the declaration. I'll
whether the plaintiffs could have sustained action
the the guaranty Of their rights as con-
taned in the constitution, we need not inquire Ihe ac
ton has been instituted with reference TO the terms used
the Of Congress of 1893 The fine inflicted by that
act can longer recovered because the act Of $780,
having changed the penalty has thereby repealed the act
of 1898 to the which it has been thus supplied
But the satute far gave action on the case
for harborng and conceang has not been supplied or
repealed.
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.
ist What is meant by notice J" and ID what consti
tutes harboring
On the first point the court has been relieved from
much difficulty, by late tried before Mr.. Justice
Mclean in Ohio, and which has been affirmed IN the Su-
preme Court of the United States. (See Vansandt
Jones, I'd Mclean; and case, 9TH Howard, 2l6.)
In that it decided that the word notice. as
used in this act means knowledge that it is not neces-
sary that specific, written, printed, verbal notice
from the owner be brought home to the defendant but
that it is sufficient if the evidence show that he knew
the person he harbored concealed was fugitive from
labor
The word harbor is defined by photographers by the
words to entertain shelter secure, to secrete 1t
evidently has various shades of meaning not exactly
pressed by any synonyme Ii has been defined in Rou-
yiers Law Dictionary ito receive clandestney, and
without lawful authority person. for the purpose of
conceang him, that another having the right to the
lawful custody of such person. shall be deprived OF the
same" This definition is quoted in the opinion Of the
delivered by Mr.. Justice Woodbury. in Jones rs
Vanzandt Howard, 227. But, though the word may be
used in the complex meaning there given to it. ii does
follow that all these conditions necessary elements
in its definition. Receiving and entertaining person
candestney, and for the purpose Of concealmen may
well be called harborng, the word is sometimes used
Yet one may harbor without coneeang He may afford
entertainment lodging, and shelter to vagabonds gam
bers and thieves without the purpose attempt at
cealment and il may be correctly affirmed of him that he
harbors them
The act of Congress- by using the terms " harbor
conceal" evidently assumed that the terms not
synonymous and that there might be harboring with
out conceamen The act to be drawn with great
and accuracy and bears marks OF that sloveny
dction which sometimes charaoterizes acts OF Assembly,
where numerous synonymes are heaped together, and
words multiplied only to increase confusion and OBJ
scury But neither in legal in common parlance is
the word harbor precisely defined the words entertain
shelter 1t implies mpropriey in the conduct Of the
person giving entertainment shelter in consequence
of mputaton the character of the person who
receives it. An nnkeeper is said 10 entertain travellers
and strangers them but may be accused of
harJog vagabonds deserter ugtiyes, or thieves per-
sons whom he ought not to entertain.
1t is too plain for argument that this does not in
tend to make charity crime treat that man
as guilty Of offence against his neghbor who merely
furnishes food lodging rament to the hungry, weary
or naked wanderer, though he be apprentice or
slave On the contrary, it contempates not only
cape Of the slave, but the intention Of the master to re-