Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1861-01-09

4 -
| ance with that mandate of the Constitution Of
the United States, which declares ssthat no
person beld TO service or labor in one State,
under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
snail, IN consequence OF any law or regulation
| therein, be discharged IRON such service or
labor, bnt shall be delivered up, on claim OF
the party to whom such service or labor may
be DUE" So far from admitting the truth of
this charge, I unhestatjngly aver, that upon a
careful examination, ii viii be found that the
legislative and judicial action of Pennsylva-
MIA, whether as colony, as a member OF the
old confederation, or under the existing Con-
stitution of the United States, has been al
most Invariably Influenced by proper appre-
citation of her own obligations, and by high
regard for the rights, the feelings and the in
terests of her sister States.
AS early as 1705, the provincial authorities
OF pennsylvania, after recitiDg in the pream-
ble, that ssthe importation of Indian slaves
from Carolina, or other places, hath been OBJ
served to give the indians Of this province
some umbrage for suspicion and dissatisEac-
tion," passed IN act against the importation
OF Indian slaves from any other province, or
colony, in America, but at the same time de-
ciared, ''that no such Indian slave, as desert
ing his masters service elsewhere, shall fIy
into this province, shall be understood or
construed TO be ecomprehended within this act"
And when, in 1880, more than eight years be-
fore the Constitution of the Uniled States
went into operation, Pennsylvania passed her
law for the gradual abolition of slavery, mind
fui OF the rights of her confederates, she do
clared that 'sthis act, anything in il contain
ed, shall not give any relief or shelter to any
ascending or runaway negro or mulatto slave,
or servant, who has absented himself, or shall
absent himself, from his or her owner master
or mistress, residing in any other State or
country, but such owner, master or mistress,
shall have like right and aid 10 demand, claim
and take away his slave, or servant, as he
might have had in case this act had rot been
made" provision much more unequivocal
III its phraseology, and direct in its commands,
than those fonnd, on the same subject, in tho
Constitution Of the Union. The act, by its
terms, was made inapplicable to domestic
slaves attending upon delegates in Congress
from The other American States, and those
held by persons while passing through this
State, or sojourning therein for period not
longer than six months.
In IES8 it was made high penal oferce
for any person, by force, violence or fraud,
to take ont of this State, any negro or mtlatto,
as slave, for term of years. Soon after
the passage of this act, the Supreme Cont OF
pennsylvania decided that it did not apply TO
the forcible removal of slave, by the owner
or his agent, but that its object to punish
the forcible or fraudulent abduction from
State of free negroes, with the intention OF
keeping or selling them as slaves. Thus, at
q
doctrine, that a master had the right to toke
his slaves wherever he could find them
The first act of Congress providing for tho
rendition OF fugitives from justice or labor,
was passed in 1898, and originated from the
refusal of the Governor of Virginia to surrcn-
der and deliver up, on the requisition of the
Governor OF Pennsylvania, three persons who
had been indicted in Pennsy lvania for kidnap-
ping negro, and carrying him into Virginia.
And when it was found that this Congrcssion-
al statute did not afford simple, speedy and
efficient remedy for the recovery of fugitiyes
from labor, the Legislature of PENNSYLVANIA,
at the request of the adjoining State Of Mary
land, in 1926, passed her act ssto give effect to
the provisions of the Constitution OF the U
nited States relative to fugitives from labor,
for the protection of free people OF color, and
to prevent Kidnapping This excellent and
well considered law met all the existing einer-
gencies. 1t required the judges, justices OF
the peace and aldermen, OF the State, upon
the oath Of the claimant, 10 Issue their war
rent for the arrest of any fugitive from labor
escaping into this State; directing; however,
that snch warrants should be made retnrnable,
by whomsoeyer issued, before judge of the
proper county. 1t required sheriffs and con-
stables to execute such warrants. II author
lied the commitment of the fugitive to the
county Jail, and otherwise made protisions to
secure its effective execution, and at tie same
time to prevent its abuse.
This law continued quietly in operation un-
til the decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United States, made in 1912, in the case of
Prigg rs. The Commonwealth OF Pennsylva-
mia. The history of this case may be briefly
stated: Edward Prigg was indicted in the
court of oyer and terminer of York county,
for kidnapping colored person, named Mar
garet Morgan. Upon the trial it appeared
that she was held as a slave in the State of
Mary land, and that she escaped into the State
Of Pennsylvania in the year lS32-that in
1887, Edward Prigg was appointed, by the
owner of the slave, to seize and arrest her
might've from labor. In pursuance of this au-
thority, and under warrant issued by JUS
ice of the peace, Prigg caused the negro wo-
man to be arrested, and without having OBJ
.ained any warrant of removal, he delivered
her to her owner in the State of Maryl land.
These facts were found by special verdict,
and by the agreement of counsel, judgment
vas entered against Prigg. From this judg-
nent writ of error was taken to tie Sdpreme
Court of the State, where pro fdTrad judg-
nent of affmanee was again, by agreement,
entered, and the case removed to the SupFeme
Court of the United States.
1t will be observed that the question, wheth-
,r Edward Prigg was really guilty Of the crime
If kidnapping, under the Pennsylvania statute
IF 1926, was never actually passed upon, eth
,r by the court or jury, in the county of York,
Dr. by the Supreme Court OF the State The
ury merely found the facts. and the action Of
both courts was but a matter of form.
In the argument and determination of the
:ase, in the Supreme Court OF the U. States,
It appears to have been taken for granted
hat our act of 1926 made it q criminal offence
'or master to take his slave out Of this State,
without warrant of removals and, upon this
the act was declared unconstitu-
ional and void. This, l submit, was clear
of the purport and meaning
Of our legislation. The first section of the
A ct of Jg0f under which fh., ,ndictment a