Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-01-05
Decision of a Fugitive Slave Case In the
United States Supreme Court.


Richard EsHs, plaintiff in error, Ds. tie people Of
I tkG GATED Sfutes. In the Supreme Court of the
United States. Writ Of error TO tile Supreme
Court of Illinois. Mr. Chase and Mr.. Dixon for
plaintiffs; Mr.. MeDongan for defendant in
error. Ri Ett,
MF. Justice Grier delivered the opinion of the
Court as follows:
"The plaintiff in error was indicted and convict
ed under the criminal code OF Illinois for "harbOr-
ing and Secleting negro slave" The record was
removed by writ of error TO the Supreme Court Of
that Statej andit was there contended, on behalf
of the plaintiff in error, that the judgment and con-
viction should be reversed because the statute of
illinois, upon which the indictment was founded,
IS void by reason of its being in conflict with that
article Of The Constitution of the United States
which declares "that no peROn held to labor or
seryice.in one State, under the laws thereof es-
Gaping into another shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labor; but shall be delivered upon claim
of the party TO whom such labor may de due" And
also because said statute is in conflict with the act
of Congress on the same subject
''ln view of this section of the cTiminal code
ofIllinois ant this indictment founded on it, we
are unable to discover any thing that conflicts with
the provisions OF the Constitution of the United
States the legislation of Congress ihe subject
OF fugtiTeS from labor. 1t does interfere in any
manner with the owner or claimant i'll the exercise
of his right to arrest and Tecapture his slave. II
nelheE interrupts delays nor lmpeueS lne right OIL
the master 10 immediate possession. 1t gives no i'm
munity OF protection to the fugitive against the
claim of his master; it acts neither the master
nor his slave, on his right or his remedy; it pre-
scbes rule Of conduct for the citizens of Illinois;
it is but the exercise ofthe power which every State
is admitted to possess of defining offences and pu-
niShing offences against IFS laws.
Experience has shown also that the results OF
such conduct, that prohibited by the statute in
question: are not only 10 demoralize their citizens
ybn in doil nd n thtad
imposed upon them by the Constitution and laws,
but 10 destroy the harmony and kind feelings which
exist between citizens Of this Union, to create boz
der feud aud bitter animOSltIeS, and to cause
breaches ofthe peace, violent assaults, riots aud
murder. No one can deny nor doubt the right of a
State to defend itself against evils of such magni
tude and kunish those who perversely persist in
conduct which promotes them.
HAs this statute does not impede the master in
the exercise Of his rights, so neither does il inter-
fere to aid or assist him.
awe would not wish il to be inferred, from what
we have said, that any legislation of State to aid
and assist the claimant, and which DOES not
directly nor indirectly delay impede OF Illustrate
the reclamation Of fugitive OF interfere with the
claimant in the prosecution of his other remedies,
is necessarily void. The question has not been
before the Court and cannot be decided in antcipa-
ton of future cases.
''It has been urged that this act is void, as it
subjects the delinquent to double punishment for
aSingle offence. But we think That Neither the
fact assumed in this proposition nor the inference
from it, will be found to be correct.
''But admitting that the plaintiff in error may be
liable 10 an action under the act of Congress, for
the same acts of hardening and preventing the
from Tetaking his slave, it does not follow that he
would be twice punished for the same offence. An
offence, in its legal Specification, means the trans
erosion of law. A man may be compelled to
make reparaton in damages to the injured party and
be liable also to punishment for breach OF the
public peace, in consequence of the same act; and
may be said, in common parlance, 20 be twice pu-
nished for the same offence. Every citizen of the
United States is also a citizen of State terr.
tory. He may lie said to owe allegiance TO two sove
reigns and may be liable 10 punishment for an in
fraction of the laws of either. The same act may
be an offence or tranSgreSSon of the laws Of both.
Thus, an assault upon the Marshal OF the United
States and hindeTing him in the execution of legal
process is high offence against the United States,
for which the perpetrator is liable to punishment
and the same act may also lie gross breach of the
peace of the State; riot, assault or MURDER and
subject the same person to a punishment under the
State laws for miSdemeanor or felony. That either
or bohmay (if they see fly punish such an offender,
cannot be doubted. Yet, it cannot be truly aver
red that the offender has been twice punished for
the same offence; but only that, by act, he has
committed two offences, for each of which he is
Justly punishable. He could not plead the punish
ment by one in blr to a conviction by the Other,
"Upon these grounds, we are OF opinion that the
act of Illinois, upon which this indictment is found
ed, is constitutional, and therefore the judgment
affirmed. Judge Mclean dlSSented."