The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1856-02-22
THE DAILY DISPATCH.



JOHN RANDOLPH TUCKER, Esq, the Commission
er appointed by him under the authority Of tn
Legislature, to attend the trial of JAMES PARSONS
jr., at his recent arraignment before the Court O
Blair county, Pennsylvania The Governor take
occasion to express, very decidedly, his opinion
and sentiments touching the Northern eneroacL
ments upon Southern rights, and the duty of th,
South to resist them.
The report of Mr.. TUCKER IL an able document
We extract below from it the argument relative tC
the case of Parsons, and the general view touch
ing the rights of slave owners which will be fount
highly interesting
Mr.. TUCKER having briefly stated the time o.
his departure, and after some delay his arrival al
Holiday sburg, in Blair county, on the Goth Janu
AIRY, the day before the trial. proceeds as follows:
was gratifed to learn from several sources, re.
liable in their character, that the public sentiment
OF the county was not unpropitious to the fair and
impartia trial of the case, which your appoint.
menf had confided to me and as the result proved.
the information was correct 1t is further but Just
to say, that the utmost courtesy was rendered,
and that respect was paid to me, which however
agreeable, personally, was more So as il was no
doubt intended as q tribute of honor TO the State
was deputed to represent
II is proper to state that before leaving Wash
lnston, learned that Mr.. Parsons had secured the
tuTed experience and ability Were guarantees of
the efficiency Of the defence of the cause.
Upon the morning of the Both January, tue day
of the trial was surprised to find that Il new
charge had been made and a new indictment sent
to the grand jury then in session The indictment
was found charging in substance riotous seizure
and carrying away of negro-breach of the
peace &C. This renewed attack, while il seemed
TO be all &c acknowledgement of the weakness of the
prosecution upon the prior indictment for kidnap.
ping, seemed TO indicate tenacity of purpose, i'll
holding TO some penal responsibility the young ci-
tlzen Of Virginia, whose rights had been SO seri
ou=ly invaded, and whose liberty had been endan.
gered This view was confirmed by the fact that
III Penusylyau jury, in cases of misdemcanor,
(to which class kidnapping, though punished by
confinement III the PelitcntiaTy, belonss,) may
ind the accused not guilty aud yet adjudge in
their discretion that he shall pay the costs of the
prosecution and 1t was nsizted i'll the progress OF
the cause that such q verdict should be rendered
We determined to try all the charges by the
same jury. jury wss selected according to the
forms prevailing in the State and was sworn.
The two indictments transmit herewith. The
statute under which this prosecution was conduct
cd may be found in Purdons Digest, Gil.
That the purpose of its enactment was practical
ly to annul the constitutional of the siaveho
der, is upon its face clear and ndsputable-and is
certain The bad faith indie ated in the
section refusing the use of the jais of the State
for the reception of fugitive slaves throw a shadow
over an honor, which has been, in great degree,
removed by its repeal.
But the provision, the obvious tendency Of
which is to make the Shareholder rioter when as
serting his constitutional rights become VIGOROUSLY
opposed by mobs, continues blot upon the
statute book; and good faith earnestly demand its
repeal.
In the opening of the case by the counsel, assist
ing IN the prosecution, II was insisted that Jas
Parsons yr, was not the owner of the slave seiz-
ed but was agent, he had no right, without
written authority under seal. from the owner
and warrant from the L. s. Commissioner, to seize
the negro slave because the act of 1850 required
these forms in certain proceedings under it. This
view seemed to rest upon the idea that the provis
ions of the fugitive act of 1850 were restrictions
upon the rights of the slave owners and were man.
datory upon him.
notion that the legal status of the fugitive chang
ed by passing from the slave State to the free
State. The service to which he is held under
Virginia lsw in Virginia. binds him and is not dis.
charged in Pennsylvania &C. U. s. Art. 4, sec. q
The same right, therefore, which the master had
in Virginia the slave carries in his fight 60 Pennsyl
yania
The right to seize him pertaining to the master
in Virginia, by virtue of the Constitution pertains
to him in Pennsylvania, and as the constitution is
the supreme law, irrepealabe by ordinary statute.
Federal or State that right is independent of and
cannot be taken away, or modified by any Federal
or State law.
The same reasoning applies to the right of an
oScAk VI the 10 fugitive. Ii exists
by parol in Virginia. it exists by parol in PennsyL
vania
State and Federal laws may aid the master, and
help to carry out the Constitution, in his favor
but by no ot little can either restrict or i1Dnir
his rights under it.
This Is the reasoning of the Supreme Court in
Prlggs case reported in 16 Peters 1t was in fact
substantially similar to this case and the point
mooted oy the prosecuting counsel in this was de.
cided in that, according to the reasoning have
ado pied.
Three forms of opinion prevailed upon the
bench Chief Justice Taney and others held that
the Constitutional provision was as stated above
sei'executye that Congress was bound, having
the power, to pass laws TO facilitate its execution:
and that the States tikeoist obliged 10 do The
same.
Judge Story and others concurred with Chief
Justice Taney in the first tsoO points but denied
the last though they held that all the State legsla
lon, restrictive of the Shareholders right or rene.
dy, under the Constitution and law of Congress
was unconstitutional and void.
Judge Mclean alone held that while the Const
tuition gives Congress the power to pass law in
execution of that clause-and though prior to the
passage of such law by Congress, the Constitution
is selfexeeutive-yet, after it's passage its prov
sons being exhaustive of constitutional authority
themselves for the Constitution and the
STAKEHOLDER is bound to pursue the provisions of
such law of Congress.
Prig9 was an agent-perhaps with written au
thority, but without warrant The law of 1893
prescribed that an agent having such authority
should obtain warrant, &c Judge Mclean held
that as Prigg did seize and carry away nithom
rant, he was guilty but the other members of
the court held that the law was not maadatory but
was peymisstre-was not intended to restrict his
right, but to provide remedy for him. and he
was discharged.
Thus it will be found, that, upon reason and au-
thority, under the Constitution, STAKEHOLDER or
his agent may arrest his fugitive, wherever he
finds him in free State-even though the act of
1850 forbade it.
But it does not forbid it. Its language is perns.
sive, not mandatory. 1t provides mode of proof
satisfactory to u commissioner but does not pre-
scribe any thing, condition to the right Of the
slav eholder under the Constitution, which is indie
pendent Of and above all legislative enactment.
! thought proper to refer 10 this position, as 1t
seems TO have found some place in the minds OF in
telligent gentlemen in Pennsy lvania, as well as in
this State-and was stated in the opening speech
for the prosecution in the case against Parsons.
MT Tucker then gives an outline of the testi-
mony and trial which resulted in R0ue prose9ai,
and the discharge of Parsons. The following is
he conclusion of his report:
shall not transcend the limits Of my duty, II l
enture some views upon this and kindred cases.
am satisfied that in the community In which
his outrage upon young Parsons was committed,
he mass Of the people are at heart opposed to the
b. tha<.