The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-08-18

Relating 10 fugttIpeS from Srrics, and the act
of Congress under At Of 1898 and 1850 con
strmd 10 ertend 10 the case Of Fugitirs Gppren
ticeS.
Opinion of Judge Kane, of Philadelphia il
case of James NJ. Boaler, of Smyrna, in thu
State of Delaware, claiming the rendition o
his apprentice William CUMMINGS jr., VII,
had escaped into Pennsylvania, under the Flu
gtive Law of 1850:
! KANE, i'll have had my attention called tc
the clause of the Constitution, and the Act Of
Congress of 1898 and 1850, providing for the
rendition of persons held to labor and the mode
of SO doing very often and the result of the at
tenton heretofore bestowed and the simple ma
ture of the question to be decided induce me
to give my decision now. Taking the words Of
the clause of the Constitution, and those of the
Act of 1850 alone, there can be no difficulty
/ the words are Persons held to service or labor
| in one State under the laws thereof Now |
know of no words that could more clearly in.
clude apprentices than those have quoted for
! the plain effect of the words of every indenture
! of apprenticeship are to hold the party to ser
vice; and if could 60 beyond the words of the
Act Of Congress and those Of the article of the
Constitution should say that every considera-
ton Of policy would dictate such a construc-
ton, because to decide the contrary would he
to discharge every apprentice in Pennsylvania
that chose 10 cross the Delaware, and every
one elsewhere that repaired to this State and
refused to return to his duty. The relation
created by an indenture of apprenticeship is Of
such character that minors and orphans, in
stead of remaining ignorant and unprotected,
become acquainted with the arts and sciences
and are fitted for the duties of life and to pre-.
serve such state of usefulness the principles
of extradition should be applied. 1t is true
that no case has been cited in which United
States Court or Judge has decided this very
question; but, perhaps it is because the master
has enforced his rights by seizing his appren-
tice and conveying him home, that this law,
and that of 1893 has not been resorted to, and
the want Of use, or non-use has no influence
upon the construction of plainly expressed
statute.
1t is equally clear, that though a Judge in |
the case of fugitive slave in con-
nection with the statute, might speak only of
slaves as within its purview, and another, in a |
case like the present. might speak only of ap- |
prentices; yet each might with propriety use |
The words "a person held to labor 1t is |
equally to be observed, that no decision has
been had in which it has been held that the |
words of the Constitution apply only to slaves |
Most certainly this lad is held by binding |
under local proceeding within the authority |
Of any State to provide, and thereby to affect |
persons within her limits and subject to her
Jurisdiction. The marriage of minor in Del |
aware good by the law Of that State, would be |
good everywhere else. Now, one of the objects |
Of apprenticeship is to prevent pauperism and
q child whose parents are in another and a dis |
tant State, and who have deserted him, is a |
pauper, notwithstanding the fact of his having |
lawful protectors, who do not discharge their
1uty to him, and the disposition Of him under |
regulations of the State in which he
8 deserted, is binding on him and his parents
100. 1t cannot however, be said that, in this
case, the binding was against the fathers will,
Tor it is in proof before me that it was with the
consent of the father, who sent his son to Del
aware on trial, to be bound if he was liked, and
sent him back to that State after he was bound,
when, on one occasion, he had absconded. The
question, therefore, is between the father and I
master on this proof; and it cannot be that /
the father shall stand by aud see his son bound I
in another State, to receive education and nur- I
ture, and just when he becomes valuable to a |
master, to take him away such course would |
amount to a positive fraud. The consent is 30
material that it is not going too far to say that
if slave should come here with his masters
consent and bind himself apprentice, Or, being
here, should so bind himself with the masters
consent in the first case he would not be fu-
gitive slave within the meaning of the act Of
Congress, and in the second the master would
not be allowed to question the validity Of the
indenture The case, therefore returns to the
Commissioner for adjudication, he being now
in possession of my views on the subject
Relator remanded to the custody Of the mar
shal-N. Y. Tribune.