The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-01-06
NO 3I4.

| er, which has been denomInated the potce
power, State has right TO make it penal
offence to introduce paupers, criminals, or fugi-
tive slaves within their borders and punish
those who thwart this policy by harboring con-
cealing, or secreting such persons. Some of
the States, cotermnous with those who tolerate
slavery, have found it necessary to protect
themselves against the influx either of liberated
or fugitive slaves, and to repel from their soil
population likely to become burdensoms and
INJURIOUS, either as paupers or cripinsls
Experience has shown, also that the results
Of such conduct as that prohibited by the stat
ute in question are not only to demoralize their
citizens who live in daily and open disregard Of
the duties imposed upon them by the Constitu-
tion and laws but TO destroy the harmony and
kind feelings which should exist between citi-
zens Of this Union, to create bcrder Ga1s aI,,s
bitter animosties and 10 cause breaches Of the
peace, violent assaults, riots, and murder No
one can deny or doubt the right of State TO
defend itself against evils of such magnitude,
and punish those who perversely persist in con-
duct which promotes them.
As this statute does not impede the master in
the exercise of his rights so neither does il in
terfere to aid or assist him. If State. in the
exercise of its legitimate powers in promotion
of its policy of excluding an unacceptable popu-
lation, should thus indirectly benefit the master
of fugitive, no one has right to complain
that it has, thus far, at least fulfilled q duty
assumed or imposed by its compact as mem
Der of the Union.
But though we are of opinion that such is
the character policy, and intention of the stat.
ute in question, and that for this reason alone
the power of the State to make and enforce
such law cannot be doubted, vet we would
not wish it to be inferred, by any implication
from what we have said, that any Legislation of
a State TO aid and assist the claimant and
which does not directly or indirectly delay, inn
pede, or Illustrate the reclamation of fugitive
or interfere with the claimant in the prosecu-
ton Of his other remedies, is necessarily void
This question has not been before the court
and cannot be decided in anticipation of future
cases.
1t has been urged that this act is void, as il
subjects the delinquent to double punishment
for a single offence But we think that neither
the fact assumed in this proposition, nor the
influence from il, will be found to be correct
The offences for which the fourth section of the
act of 18th February, 1893, subjects the delin-
quent to a fine of five hundred dollars are diff
ferent in many respects from those defined by
the statute of Illinois The act of Congress
{ contemplates recapture and reclamation, and
Furnishes those who interfere with the master
in the exercise of this rght-frst, by obstruct.
ing or hindering the claimant in his endeavors
f to seize and arrest the fugitves; secondly by
rescuing the fugitive when arrested; and, third
ly, by harboring or concealing him after notice.
But the act of Illinois, having for its object
; tho prevention Of the immigration of such per.
sons, Furnishes the harborng or secreting negr}
D slaves whether domestic or foreign, and with
out regard to the masters desire either to I'd
oil or nj m thaVrn Iha 4
q not given to the master, as the party ipiur(
a but to the State, as II penalty for disobediet
4 Of its laws. And if the fine inflicted BY tine
e of Congress had been made recoverable byl
!. dictment, the offence, rs stated in any one
the counts Of the biz before ~ would s2ct has,
q supported such en- Indictment Even the last
:. count, which charges the plaintiff in error with
o "unlawfully preventing c. d.. the lawful owner.
from retaking the negro slave" as it does not
:. allege notice, does not describe an offence pun
ishable by the act of Congress
). But admitting that the plaintiff in error NAV
q be liable to an action Under the aet of Con-
/ gress, for the same acts Of harboring and pre-
r venting the owner from retaking his slave, il
! does not follow that he would be twice pun
isbed for the same offence. An offence. in ita
legal Specification, means the transgression Of
law. man may be compelled 10 make rep
araton in damages to the injured party, and
be liable also 10 punishment for breach of
the public peace, in consequence of the same
act and may be said, in common parlance, to
be twice punished for the same offence Every
citizen of the United States is also citizen of
State or Territory. He may be sud 10 owe
allegiance to two sovercigns and may be liable
to punishment for an infractiOn of the laws Of
either. The same act may DO an offence or
transgression of the laws of both Thus an as
sault upon the marshal of the United States.
and hndering him in the execution of legal
process, il n high offence against the United
States, tor which the perpetrator is liable to
punishment; and the Same act may also be n
gross breach of the peace of the State, riot,
assault, or murder, and subject the same per.
son to punishment under the State laws for
a misdemeanor or felony That either or both
may Ut they BEE fit punish such an offender,
cannot DO doubted yet it cannot be truly
ayerred that the offender has been twice nun.
ished for the same offence, but only, that by
one act he has committed two offences for each
Of which he is justly punishable. He could not
plead the punishment by one in bar to con-
vction by the other; consequently, this court
has decided, in the case of Fox U.s. The State Of
Ohio, Is Howard, 432,) that a State may punish
the offence Of uttering or passing false coin, as
q cheat or fraud practiced on its citizens and
in the case Of the United States U.s. Marigold,
70 How, $780, that Congress, In the proper ex-
ercise Of its authority, may punish the same act
as an offence against the United States
| 1t has been urged, in the argument on behalf
OF the plaintiff in error, that an afirmance of
the judgment in this case will conflict with the
decision Of this court in the case of Prigg Us.
The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, nc Pc
ters, $40. This, we think, is mistake
The questions presented and decided in that
case differed entirely from those which affect
the present Prigg, with full power and au-
thority from the owner had arrested q fugitive
slave in Pennsylvania, and taken her to her
muster in Maryland. For this he was indicted
and convicted under q statute Of Pennsylvania
making it felony to take and carry away any
negro or mulatto for the purpose OF OBTAINING
them as slaves.
The following questions were presented by
the case and decided by the Court:
I. That under and In virtue OF the Constitu.
ton Of the United States the owner of slave
is clothed with entire authority, in every State
in the Union, to seize and recapture his slave
wherever he can do it without illegal violence
or breach Of the peace
2. That tho Government 10 clothed with ap.
propriate authority and functions TO enforce the
delivery ON claim Of the owner and has prop
| erly exercised it in the act OF Congress of 18th
February, 1893.
3. That any State law or regulation which
interrupts, impedes, limits, embarrasses, delays,
or postpones the right of the owner to the i'm,
mediate possession Of the slave and the imme-
date command Of his services is void.
We have in this case assumed the correct
ness of these doctrines and II will be found that
| the grounds on which this case is decided were