Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-01

surrendered by the States restrained by
of the United States In the exercise Of this which
has been denomnated the police power q State has
right TO make it penal offence TO introduce paapers
criminals fugitive slaves within their borders and
punish those who thwart this policy by harborng con-
ceang secretng such persons. Some Of the States
cotermnous with those who tolerate slavery have found
il necessary protect themselves against the Influx either
Of liberated fugitive slaves and repel from their
soil population likely to become burdensome and inin
rious, 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 demoraize 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 to create border euds and bitter anmosities and
to cause breaches of the peace, violent ASSAULTS riots
and murder. No one can deny doubt the right Of
State to defend itself against evils Of such magnitude and
punish those who perverseypersis in conduct which
notes them.
AS does not impede the master in the exercise
OF his rights so neither does interfere to aid or assist
him. II o State, in the exercise Of its legitimate
powers in promotion of its policy of excluding an unac-
ceptabe population, should thus indirectly benefit the
master o. might've no one has right to complain that
1t has, thus far at least fulfilled duty assumed or i'm
posed by its compact as member Of the Union
But though we 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 Ia 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 aState to aid and
sst the claimant and which does not directly or ndi
recty delay, impede, Illustrate the reclamation of
fugitive interfere with the claimant in the
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 sub;ecs
the delinquent to double punishment for single Of
fence But think that neither the fact assumed in
this proposition the inference from it, will be found
to be correct The offences for which the fourth section
Of the Of 18th February l798 subjects the delinquent
to fine OF Ave hundred dollars different In many re-
spects from those defined by the of Illinois The
act OF Congress conemplates recapure and reclamation
ana furnishes those who interfere with the in the
exercise Of this right FIRST by obstrucng or hnderng
the claimant in his endeavors seize and arrest the g
tves secondly by rescuing the fugitive when arrested
thirdly by harborng concealng him after notice
But the act of illinois, having for its object the pre-
yention OF the immigration Of such persons Furnishes the
harborng or secretng negro slaves whether domestic or
foreign and without regard to the masters desire either
to reclaim or abandon them The fine imposed is not
given to the MASTER the party injured but 10 the State
as penalty for dsobedience of It's laws And if the fine
inflicted by the act of Congress had been made recover
able by indictment the offence stated in any Of
the counts OF the bill before would have supported
such an indictment Even the last count which charges
the plaintiff in with unlawfully preventing c. d.
the lawful owner, from retakng the negro slave as it
does not aege notices does describe offence punish
able by the act OF Congress @
But admitting that the plaintiff in error may be liable
to an action under the act of Congress- the same acts
OF harborng and preventing the from retaking his
for the same offence An offence in its legal signifca-
ton, means the transgression Of law. man may be
compelled to make reparaon in damages to the injured
party and be liable also to punishment for breach Of
the public peace, in consequence Of the act and
may be said in parance to be twice punished
for the same offence Every citizen of the United States
is also citizen of State Territory He may be said
10 owe allegiance to two soyeregns and may be liable to-
punishment for an nfracton of the lws of either The
same act may be offence transgression of the laws
OF BOTH Thus assault upon the marshal Of the Uni
ted States and hinderng 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 be gross breach the peace OF
State riot assault murder, and subject the same
person to punishment under the State laws for misde-
meanor felony That either or both NAV If they see
h punish such an offender, be doubted Yet it
be truly avered that the offender has been twice
punished for the offence but only that by one act
he has committed two Offences for each Of which he
Justly punishable. He could not plead the punishment
by one in bar conviction by the other:
this Court has decided In case of Fox ps the
OF Ohio, % Howard 432 that State may punish the Of
renee Of utterg or passing false coin as cheat fraud
pracced on its citizens and in the Of the United
Satesrs Marigold 20 How, 560 that Congress- in the
proper exercise Of its authority may punish the same
act as an offence against the United States.
II has been urged in the argument on behalf Of the
plaintiff in error, that armance Of the Judgment in
tins case will conflict with the decisions Of this Court in
The case Of Prigg the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
10 Peters, 640) This we think is mistake.
ID entirely from those which affect the present Prgr
With full power and authority from the owner had arrest
ed fugitive slave in Pennsylvania and taken her to her
master in Maryland For this he was indicted and CON-
Ficted under statute Of Pennsylvania making felony
% take and carry away any negro muato for the pu
pose of OBTAINING them as slaves
The following questions we're presented BY the case and
decided by the Court: -
l. That under and Ia virtue of the Constitution of the
United States the Of slave clothed with entire
authority in every State in the Union to seize and re-
apfure his slave wherever he do it without Illegal
Violence or a breach of the peace
2. That the Government Is clothed with appropriate
authority and functions TO enforce the delivery on claim
u the owner and has properly exercised ii in the act of
congress of 18th February, 1893.
o. That any State Law regulation which interrupts
mpedes, limits, cmbarrasses delays or postpones the
light Of tho owner to the immediate possession Of the
lave and the immediate command Of his services void
We have in this assumed the correctness Of these
ioctrincs and 1t will be found that the ground on which
his case IS decided fully recognised in that eve
ntertan say the Court, (page 1885, "no doubt what
oeSer that the States in virtue Of their general police
'oNer possess null Jurisdiction TO arrest and restrain
unaWay slaves and remove them from their borders and
otherwise TO themselves against the depredations
md evil example, as they certainly may do In cases Of
ders yagabonds and paupers The rights of the owners
might've Slaves are in just inerfered with or
eguiaed by such course and in many the opera
ions OF the police power although destined essentially
or other purposesfor the protection safety and peace
u the Statemay essentially promote and aid the inte-
ests OF the owners But such regulations never be
permitted to interfere with obsruct the ust rights
4 the owner to reclaim his slave, derived from the Com
ttuton Of the United States with the remedies pre-
cribed by Congress TO aid and enforce the same
Upon these grounds Of opinion that the act Of
Illinois, upon which this indictment is founded is const
utonal, and therefore affirm the Judgment.
Judge Mclean dissented