The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1861-01-10

a warrant issued by ustice of the Pace
Prigg caused the negro woman to be ar
rested, and without having obtained any
warrant of removal, be delivered her tc
her owner in the State of Maryland. -
These facts we're found By a special yer.
dict, and by the agreement of counsel, q
judgment was entered against Prigg.-
From this judgment writ Of error was
taken to the Supreme Court of the State,
where a pro tornto judgment OF afirmance
was again by agreement; entered, and the
case removed to the Supreme Court oil
the United States.
1t will be observed that the question,
whether Edward Prieg was really guilty
of the crime OF kidnapping under the
Pennsylvania statute of s26 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, 10 the Supreme Court of the u
nited States. it appears to have been ta-
ken for granted that our act of 1926
N ade it a criminal offense for % sster to
take bis slave out OF this State without a
warrant of removal; and, upon this con
>truction, The act was declared unconsti-
tutioual and sod This, submit. " as a
clear misaPpreLen.ion of the purport and
meaning of our legislation. The first
section of the act OF 1896, under which
the indictment against Prigg was framed,
was almo-t literally copied from the sew
enth section OF the act of l7Ss, to which
construction had already been given by
the highest judicial tribunal OF the State
of PepDsy where it was held to
have no application whatever to the re-
tnoval of a slave by the master or his a.
gent, with or without warrant. Such
was the undoubted law OF the State under
the statute OF l7ss, and In re-euactictine
that statute, in the act of 1896, with an
incre ased penalty, it is manifest that the
intention and object OF the Legislature
vas to protect free persons of color. and
to punish those who, by fraud, force or
siOlence, we're guilty OF kidnapping. and
holding or selling free men as slaves
This the State had a clesr right to do !;
and nothing but miscon-truction of her
act could have induced the declaration
that it was forbidden by the Constitution
of the United State-. 1t is perfectly clear
that Edward Prigg had committed no
ernie in removing Margaret Morgan from
the State of Pennsylvania to the State of
Maryland, and delivering her up to ber
owner; and it is equally clear that no at
tempt was u ade, by the statute of Penn
sylgaDia, to declare bis act a crime. He
should have been di>ch ara ed, not because
the act of the State vas unconstitutional.
but because be had not trapsgressed its
commands.
The Supreme Court of the United States
not only pronounced the particular Sec
tion of the act OF S26, then before them
unconstitutional, bat majority of the
Court held that the whole act was void,
because the power to provide for the rem
dition of iugitives from labor was vested
exclusively in Congress, and the several
States were, therefore, incompetent to
pass statutes either 10 aid of, or to hinder,
delay or prevent, tie delivery OF such fu-
.itiyes That this was the extent of the
deci-iou, as delivered by Judge Story,
not only appears from the opinions of the
q sjority, but also from the dissenting o.
piDioDs delivered by the minority of the
Court. By thi- unfortunate decision, it
was authoritatively proclaimed that Penn
sylvania, in enacting her liberal statute
of $40. uakiHg it the duty of her own
officers to aid 10 arresting aud delivering
up fugitives from labor, had mistaken her
constitutional obligation, and that her act
was in violation OF, rather than obedience
to, the Constitution of the United States.
Under such circumstances, it was the
u snifest duty Of the State to repeal her
law thus declared unconstitutional. This
was done by the act of lo47; and If that
act had contained nothing more than a
repeal Of the Law of 1926, aud the re-en-
actment OF the lev, against kidnapping. i,
could not have been subject to any just
eomplsi0t. But the third section of the
act OF 847 prohibits. under heavy penal
ties, our judges aud magistrates from as'
ting uuaer any act OF Congress, or other
wise taking jurisdiction OF the case OF
fugitive from labor; and the fourth sec
ton puDisbes with fue and Imprisonment ut
the tumultuous and riotous arrest OF fu
gitise slave. by any person or persons
under any pretense of authority whatever
so as to create breach of the putli'
peace. The sixth section, denying th'
use of the county jsils for the detention o
fugitive slaves, was repealed in $50, ane
need ouly be referred to as showing th'
general spirit of the act. The seventh
section repealed the proVision- of the &C
ofl7e0, which authorized persons passing
through our State to take their slave
with them. aud gave to soJourners sh
right to bring their slaves into the State
and retain them here for any period no
exceeding six months.
The provisions of the third and fourt
sections of the act of l847. seems to hav