Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1861-01-09


fore the Constitution of the United States
went into operation, Pennsylvania passed
her law for the gradual abolition OF slave
ry mindful of the rights OF her coniede-
rates, she declared that "this act, or any
thing in it contained, shall not give any
relief or shelter to any absconding or run
away negro or mulatto slave, or servant:
who has absented himself or shall
absent himself, from his or her owns
er master or mistress, residing in any
other State or country, but such owner,
master or mistress, shall have the right
and aid TO demand, claim, and take away
his slave or servant, as he might have had
in case this act had never been made" A
proysion much much moro unequivocal
| in its phraseology, and direct in Its cons
mands, than those found, on the same
subject. in the Constitution Of the Union
The act, by its terms, was made inaprii'
cable TO domestic slaves attending upon
DELEGATES in Congress from other Ameri-
car States, and those held by persons
while passing through this State, or 30
iourning therein for q period not longer
than six months.
In l778 it was made high penal af1en ce
for any person, by force, violence, or fraud,
to take out of this State, any negro, or
mulatto, with the intention OF keeping OF
selling the said negro or mulatto as slave,
for term of years. Soon after the passage
OF this act, the Supreme Court OF Pennsyl'
yania decided that it did not apply to the
| (crcible removal of slave, by the owner
or his agent, but that its object was to
punish the fraudulent abduction from the
State of free negroes, with the intention
of keeping or selling them as slaves. Thus
at that early day giving judicia! sanction
| TO the doctrine, that q master had the
right to take his slaves wherever he could
find them.
The first act of Congress providing for
the rendition Of fugitives from justice OF
labor, was passed in 1893, ana originated
! from the refusal of the Gov ernor OF Vlr-
ginia to surrender aud deliver up on the
reouisition of the Governor of Pennsylva'
MIA, three persons who had been indicted
in Pennsylvania for kidnapping. negro,
and carrying him into Virginia. Ano
when it was found that this Congressional
statute did not afford simple, speedy,
and efficient remedy for the recovery o.
Ifugtiyes from labor, the Legislature OF
Pennsylvania, at the request of the ad'
Looming State of Maryland, in 1926, passed
her act "to give effect to the provisions o
the Constitution of the United States rel
atiye to fugitives from labor, for the pro-
lection of free people of color, and to pre-
vent kidnapping" This excellent and
we'll considered law met all the existing
emergencies. 1t required the judges, jus
tices of the peace, and aldermen o. the
State, upon the oath of the claimant, tC
issue tLeir warrant for the arrest Of any
fugitive from labor escaping into thi:
State; directing, however, that such war
rants should be made returnable, by
whomsoeyer issued, before judge OF the
proper county. 1t required sheriils ant
Iconstables to execute such warrants. il
authorized the commitment of the fugi
tiye3 to the county Jail, and otherwise
made provisions to secure its effective ex-
ecution, and at the same time to preven
| it, abuse.
This law continued quietly in operation
until the decision Of tho Supreme Court o
the United States made in 1912, in tn,
case Of Prigg VS.. The CommonN ealth o
Pennsylvania. The history of the cast
may be briefly stated Edward Prigg wa
indicted in the Court of Oyer and rermine
of York county, for kidnapping colorec
person, named Martha Morgan. Upon
the trial it appeared she was held slave
in the State Of Maryland, and that she
escaped into the State of Pennsylvania in
the year 1882; that in 1887, Edward Prigl
was appointed by the owner of the slave
| to seize and arrest her as a fugitive from
labor. In pursuance of this authority
and under warrant issued by a justice o.
the peace, Prigg caused the negro woman
to be arrested, and, without having oh
tanned any warrant of removal he deliv
cred her to her owner in the State Of Ma
/ rylsud. These facts were found by spe
cal verdict, and by agreement of counsel
judgment was entered against Prigg
From this judgment writ of error wa
taken to the Supreme Court of the State
where a pro torma judgment of atfirmancC
was again, by agreement, entered, and the
case removed to the Supreme Court of til,
United States.
1t win be observed that the question
whether Edward Prigg was really guilty
of tho crime Of kidnapping, under thS
Pennsylvania statute Of 1926, was never
actually passed. upon, elbHer ny lne CouTI
or jury, in the county of York, or by the
Supreme Court of the State. The jury
merely found the facts, and the action o.
both courts was but matter of form.
In the argument and determination o.
\ the case, in the Supreme Court of the
United States, it appears to have been ia
ken for granted, that our act of 1896 made
it criminal offence for master to tax,
his slave out of this State, without war
rant of removal and upon this cons.ruc-
ton the act was declared unconstitution
al and void. This l submit, was a olea
misapprehension of the purport an'
meaning Of our legislation. The first sec
ton of The act of 1926, under which tn
, Indictment against Prigg was framed
was almost literally copied from the sew.
tn section of the act Of l7SS, to whicl
, construction had already been given b.
} the highest judicial tribunal Of the Stat
of Pennsylvania, where it was held t
have no application whatever to the re
moval OF slave by the master or hi