The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1861-01-24

otherwise made provisions 10 secure lts 4
effective execution aud at the same tune
to prevent its abuse.
This law continued quietly in opera
tion until the decision Of the Supreme
Court of the United States. made in ]
1912, in the case of Prigg Us. The Conn
monwealth of Pennsylvania. The histo- I
ry of the case may be briefly stated Ed 4
ward Prigg was Indicted in the Court of 4
Oyer and Terminer, of York county, for
kidnapping a colored person, named
Margaret Morgan. Upon the trial it ap
peared that she was held as slave in
the State of Maryland, and that she es-
capped into the State of Pennsylvania in
the year 1S35-that in 1887 Edward
Prigg was appointed by the owner of the
slave, to seize and arrest her as fugi-
tive from labor. In pursuance of this
authority, and under a warrant issued by
a justice of the peace, Prigg caused the
negro woman to be arrested, and without
having obtained any warrant of removal.
he delivered her to her owner, in the
State of Maryland These facts were
founded by a special verdict, and by the
agreement of counsel judgement was
entered against Prigg. From this judg-
ment a writ Of error was taken to the
Supreme Court Of the State, where
pro torma judgement of a[firmance was
again by agreement entered, and the case
removed to the Supreme Court of the
United States
1t will be observed that the question,
whether Edward Prigg was really uilty
of the crime of kidnapping. under the
Pennsylvania statute of 1926, was never
actually passed upon, either by the court
or jury, in the county of York, or by the
Supreme Court Of the State. The jury
merely found the facts, and the action of
both courts was but matter of form.
In the argument and determination
of the case, in the Supreme Court of the
United States, it appears to have bren
taken for granted. that our act of IcGC
made it criminal offence for master
to take lis slave out of this State, w.tH-
out a warrant of removal and upon tH.a
construction, the act was declared uncon.
stitutional and void. This, | submit,
was clear mi>apprehension of the pur-
port and meaning Of our legislation. The
first section of the act of 1926, under
which the indictment against Prigg was
framed, was almost literally copied from
the seventh section of the act of 1888,
to which a construction had already been
given BY the highest judicial tribunal Of
the State of Pennsylvania, where 1t was
held to have 10 application whatever to
the removal of slave by the master or
his agent, with or without a warrant.--
Such was the undoubted law of the State
under the statute of 1903, and in re-en-
acting that statute, in the act of 1926,
with an increased penalty, it is manifest
that the intention and object of the Leg,
islature was to protect free persons Of
color, and to punish those, who by fraud,
force or violence were guilty of kidnap
ping, and holding or selling free men as
slaves This the State had clear right
to do; and nothing but misconstruc
tion of ssher act cou.d have induced the
declaration that it was forbidden by the
Constitution of the United States. 1t
is perfectly clear, that Edward Prig$'
had committed 10 crime in removing
Margaret Morgan from the State of Penn
sylvania to the State of Maryland, and
delivering her up to her owner; aud it
is equally clear, that no attempt was
made, by the statute of Pennsylvania, to
declare his act crime He should have,
been discharged, not because the act OF
The State was unconstitutional, but be-
cause he had not transgressed its com-
nands.
The Supreme Court of the United
States not only pronounced the particular
section of the act of 1926, then before
hem, unconstitutional, but majority OF
he court held that the whole act was
Ioid, because the power to provide for
he rendition of fusitlves from labor was
,ested exclusively in Congress, and the
everal States were, therefore, incompe.
ent to pass statutes either in aid of, or
o hinder, delay, or prevent the delivery
# such fugtives. That this was the ex.
en-: of the decision, as delivered by Judge
Story, not only appears from the opinions
# the majority, but also from the dissent.
ng opinions delivered by the minority Of
he court. By this unfortunate decision,
was authoritatively proclaimed that,
in enacting her liberal
tatute of 1926, making it the duty of
Ter own officers to aid 10 arresting and
up fugitives from labor, had
mistaken her constitutional obligation.
nd that her act was in violation Of,
athcr than obedience to the Con.
titu,ion of the United States
Jnder such circumstances, it WIS tn
manifest duty of the State to repeal
NV thus declared unconstitutions Hu.