The daily union., 1852-12-31
Deeisiou OF a Fugitive slave Case in the Unf-
ted states supreme Court.


Richard Esiis plaintiff in vs. Ihs People of ne
Ssa Of Illinois In Supreme Court OF the United states
Writ of error 10 the supreme court OF Illinois mi
Chase and Mr. Dixon Tor plaintiffs Mr. MeDougah
Mr. Justice Grier delivered the opinion OF the court as
follows
The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted under
ihe criminal code Of illinois for haroong and seeeng
negro slave" The record was removed py VIII, o & et
ror to the supreme oil that state and was iheie
coaended, on behalf OF the planun IN error ihai me
Judgment and conviction should be reversed because ,he
statute Of Illinois upon when Inc & ,hs sres
ol the constitution oi the United States when declares
sthst no person held labor service IN one Staeun
der the laws thereof. escaping into another shall, IN
consequence OF any law or regulation therein 90 ais-
charged from such service or labor but shall DC dev-
cred up claim OF the party 10 whom such labor may oe
due" And also because said statute Is IN conhct WIN
the act of Congress on the subject.
That this record presents OF which this cour
has jurisdiction under the twenty fifth section OF The Iu-
dietary act is not disputed
ss The statute of Illinois. whose validity IS called ~
question: contained in the l49h section OF the criminal
code, and is as follows
II npy person shall ha rhor or secrete any negro
atto person OF COLOR the being slave or servant
m h. ~ or 10 amy other se Or Ts ory o.
District within the limits and under the jurisdiction OF me
lawful owner or owners such from
taking them In lawful manner every snch person 20 on
fined exceeding hve hundred dollars OF imprisoned MOI
exceeding six months
tans four counts The first charges tha RICHARD Esi,s
certain negro slave owing service 10 Z, d., OF me
State Of Missouri did unlawfuy seersts, contrary TO The
form oil the statute" &c.
q That he harbored the same
For unlawfully seceting negro owing labor N The
State OF Missouri TO c. d., which said negro had Sc
cretly fed from said Stale and from said Z. D.
g. For unlawfully preventing G. d., the lawful owner
OF said slave, from etaking him in lawful manner, by
secreng the said negro contrary to the form OF 'ne
In view Of this section OF the criminal code OF Illinois
and this Indictment founded it, are unable to ais
anything that conflicts with the provisions ol Inc
constitution OF the United States the legislation OF
Congress the subject OF fuginves from labor II does
not interfere IN any manner with The owner or claimant
in the OF his right to arrest and recapture nus
slave II neither interrupts delays mpedes The right
of the master to immediate possession gives no lm
munity protection 10 the fugitive against the claim OF
his master 1t neither the master nor his slave
on his right his remedy. 1t prescribes rule OF con-
duct for the citizens OF Illinois 1t is but the exercise OF
The power which every State Is admitted 10 possess o. de-
6nng offences and furnishing offences against its laws
The power to make municipal regulations for me reshl ~
and punishment OF crime, The preservaiion OF ne
health and morals of her citizens and OF ihe puDc
has never been surrendered by the States or restrained
by the constitution OF the Dated sales In 'he eAeIise
OF this power which has been @ s po.,e -
introduce paupers CRIMINALS, fugitive slaves WITHIN
their borders and punish those who ihwan this policy
by harborng, concealng, or secIeting such persons
Some OF the States coieninous with those who tolerate
savefy have found necessary to protect themselves
against the influx either Of liberated fugitive slaves
budensomc and injurious, either as paupers or CRIMINALS
Experience has shown also that the results OF such
conduct that prohibited by the statute In question are
not only demoraZe their citizens who live IN daily
and open disregard OF the duties imposed upon them by
the constitution and laws, but TO destroy the harmony
and kind feelings which should exist between citizens OF
this Union create border euds and bitter animosiies
and breaches OF the peace violent assaults ros
and murder No deny or doubt the right OF a
State 70 defend iiselt against evils OF such aha
punish those who perversey persist in conduct which
promotes them.
As this statute does not impede the in The
else OF his rights neither does it interfere TO aid or
sst him Ii State in the exercise of its legitimate pow
promotion OF its policy OF excluding an unacccpta
bic population, should thus indirectly benefit the master
of fugitive, has right TO complain that II has,
thns far al least, fulfilled duty assumed or imposed by
its compact member of the Union.
But though of opinion that such is the charac
Ter, policy and Intention OF the statute in question, and
that for this alone the power OF the State to make
and enforce such law cannot be doubted yet we wous
wish il to be inferred, by any Implication from what
we have said, that any legislation of State to aid and
assst the claimant, and which does not directly or in
directly delay impede, or Illustrate the reclamation OF
fugitive. interfere with the claimant in the prosecu
ton OF his other remedies, is necessarily void This
question has been before the COURT and cannot be de-
cided in anticipation OF future cases.
II has been urged that this act is void 1t subjects the
delinquent a double punishment for single offence
But think that neither the fact assumed in this popo
ston the inference from it will be found TO be cor
rect The offences Tor which the fourth section OF the
act OF 18th February I793 subjects the delinquent 10
ns of Eve hundred dollars, different in many respects
IRON those dehned by the statute OF Illinois. Inc act oil
Congress conemplaies recapure and reclamation, and
Furnishes those who interfere with the IN the
cise Of this right, first, by obstructng hndenng the
claimant in his endeavors 10 seize and arrest the fng
ves; secondly. by rescuing the fugitive when arrested
and, thirdly by harborng conceang him after notice
But the act Of Illinois, having for its object the preven
ton oil the immigration OF such PERSONS Furnishes the bar
boring secrellng negro slaves whether domestic Tor
egn, and without regard TO the masters desire either TO
reclaim abandon them The fine imposed is not given
10 the master, the party injured, but 10 the Stale,
penalty Tor dsobedIence of its laws And II the hne in
cted by the act OF Congress had been made recoverable
BY Indictment, the offence stated in any one OF the
counts OF the bill before us, would not have supported
the plaintiff in with "unawfuy preventing c. ID
the lawful owner, from reaking the negro slave il
does not alege notice. does not describe offence pun
ishable by the act OF Congress.
But admitting that the plaintiff in may be liable
action under the act of Congress- for the acts
Of bar boring and preventing the from retskne
his slave, il does not follow that he would be twice
punished for The offence. An offence, in is legal
sgRihcalon means the transgresslon OF a law. man
uay be compelled TO make reparation IN damages TO the
injured party, and be liable also TO punishment Tor
breach OF the public peace, consequence OF the
act and may be said, in common psranee TO be twice
punished for the same oiencs. Every citizen OF the
United States ~ also citizen OF State Territory
He be said to allegiance TO two soveregns and
may be liable 10 punishment Tor nacon OF the laws
OF either. The ac, may be offence ransgres-
sion OF The laws OF both Thus assault upon the
marshal OF the United States, and hinderng him in the
execution OF legal process, high offence against the
United States, Tor which the pcrpetraor is liable TO pun
ishment and the act may also be gross breach Of
the peace OF the State, ROT assault or murder and
- ~ AszNZ