Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-01-15
From the National Intollgencer.
Decision OF q Fugitive Slave Case In The
United States Supreme Court.

HtNbtttV
Of The STATE of Illinois. In Supreme Court
of the United States. Writ of error 10 the
supreme court of Illinois. MIR. CHASE aud
Mr.. Dixon, for plaintiffs; Mr. McDoUGALL,
for defendant in error.
Mr.. Justice GRrER delivered the opinion Of
the Court us follows:
The plaintiff in error was indicted and con-
victed under tie criminal code OF Illinois for
harboring and secrcting negro slave."--
The record was removed by writ OF error TO
the Supreme Court of that State and il was
there conten6ed on behalf of the plaintiff in
error, that tho judgement and conviction
should be reversed, because the statute of
Illinois upon which the indictment was iound-
Q is void by reason of its being in conflict
with that article OF the Constitution oil the
United States which declares " TINT no per-
son held to service or labor in one state,
under the laws thereof escaping into another,
shall, IN consequence of any law or rcgua-
ton therein, be discharged from such service
or labor, bur shall bc delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such labor may be due
Aud also because said statute is III conflict
with the net of Congress OH the same subject.
Tint this record presents n cnse of which
this court has jurisdiction under tho twenty
fifth section OF the Judiciary act is not dis
puted. ... .... ....
The statute of Illinois, whose validity is
called in question, is contained ia the ll9th
section OF tho criminal code, and is as fol-
ows:
{" If any person shall harbor or secrete any
negro, muiutto or person of color, the same
being slave or servant owing service or
labor to nny other persons, whether they re-
side in this State or in any other State or
Territory, or district, within the limits aud
under the Jurisdiction of the United States,
or shall in anywise hinder or prevent the law
tul owner or owners of such slaves or ser
wants from retakiug them in lawful manner,
every such person so offending slmll be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and fined
not exceeding five hundred dollars, or i'm
prisoncd not exceeding six months"
The bill Of indictment framed under this
statute contains four counts The first charges
that "Richard Eells, certain negro slave
owing service 10 one G.. d., of the State of
Missouri, did unlawfhlly Secreie, contrary TO
tho form of tl,e-staiute," sc.
2. That he hnrbored the same.
3. For unlawiully secreting negro owing
labor in the State of Missouri, TO one G. d.,
which said negro had secretly fled from said
State and from said Z. ID.
d. For unawiiilly preventing G. d., the
lawful owner of said slave, from rotaking
him in lawful manner, by secreting the said
negro contrary to the form of the statute, &c.
In view of this section OF the criminal code
Of Illinois, and this indictment founded on it,
we nre unable TO discover any thing that con-
flicts with the provisions of tho Constitution
of the United States or the legislation of
Congress on the subject of lugitives from
labor. Ii does not interfere in amy manner
with the owner or claimant in the exercise oi
his right TO arrest and recaptnre his slave.
IL neither interrupts, delays, nor impedes the
right of the master to immediate possession.
IL gives no immunity or protection to the fu-
gitiye against the claim of his master. IL
nets neither on tho Inuster nor his slave on
his right or his rcmGdy. 1t prescrlbcs arule
of conduct for the citizens of Illinois. Ii is
but the exercise Of the power which every
State is admitted to possess of deiinining Of
fences and furnishing Offences against its laws.
The power to make municipal regulations
for the restraint aud punishment of crime, or
or the preservation of the health and morals
of her citizens and of the public peace, has
never been surrendered by the States, or re-
strained by the Constitution of the United
States. In the exercise Of this power, which
has been denominated the police power,
right to make il penal offence to introduce
paupers, criminals, or fugitive slaves within
their borders, and punish those who thwart
this policy by hnrboring, conccallng, or Sc
creiing such persons. Some of the States,
coterminous with those who tolerate slavery,
have found it necessary TO protect themselves
against the influx either of liberated or tugi.
tive slaves, and TO repel from their soil
population likely to become burdensome aud
injurious, either as paupers or criminals.
Experience has shown, also, that the re-
suits of such conduct as that prohibited by
the statute III question nre not only to demor-
aliZe their citizens who live in daily and open
disregard of the duties imposed upon them
by tie Constitution and laws, but to destroy
the harmony and kind feelings which should
exist between citizens of this Union, to create
border feuds aud bitter nnmosties, and TO
cause breaches of the peace, violent assault
riots, and murder. No one can deny or doubt
the right of Stnte to defend itself against
evils OF such magnitude, and punish those
who perversely persist i'll conduct which
promotes them.
| AS this statute does not impede the mas
ter in the exercise of his rights, so neither
does il interfere to aid or assist him. II
State, in the exercise of its legitimate pow
ers, in promotion of its policy of excluding
an unacceptable population, should Tins in
directly benefit the mnster of fugitive, no
one has right to complain that il has, thus far
at enst, fulfilled duty assumed or imposed
by its compact rs a member of the Union.
But though we are of the opinion that
such is the character, policy and intention Of
the statute in question, aud that for this rea-
son alone the power of the State to make
and enforce such law cannot be doubted,
yet we would not wish il inferred,by any
implication from what we have said, that
any legislation of State to aid and assist
the claimant, and which does not directly or
indirectly delay, impede, or Illustrate the re-
clamation Of fugitive, or interfere with the