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

the Court held that the whole act was
void. because the power 10 provide ior
the rendition OF fugitives from labor, was
vested exclusively in Congress, and the
several States were, therefore, incompetent
to pass statutes either in aid OF, or TO nm
der. delay or prevent, the delivery OF
such fugitives. That this was the extent
of the decision, as delivered by Judge
Story, not only appears from the opinions
of the majority, but also from the dlssen-
ting opinions delivered by the minority
of the Court. BY this unfortunate deci
sion, it was autboritatively proclaimed
that Pennsylvania, in enacting her liberal
statute Of 1926. making it the duty OF her
own officers 10 aid in arresting and dcllY1
erina un fugitives from labor, had mista-
ken her constitutional obligation, and
that her act was in violation OF, rather
than obedience to, the Constitution OF
the United States. Under such circum-
stances, it was the manifest duty OF the
State to repeal her law thus declared un-
constitutional This was done by the act
of 1917; and if that act had contained
nothing more than repeal of the law, OF
1896, and the recenactment OF the law
against kidnapping, 1t could not nave
been subject TO any just complaint. But
the third section of the act OF lo4l pro-
hibts, un ler heavy penalties, our judges
and magistrates from acting under any
act of Congress, or otherwise taking JurIs-
diction of the case of fugitive from labor; /;
and the fourth section Furnishes with line
and imprisonment, the tumultuous and
riotous arrest Of fugitive slave, by any
person or persons under any pretence OF
authority whatever, SO as 10 create breach
of the public peace. The sixth section,
denying the use of the county jails for
the detention of fugitive slaves, was re.
pealed in 1862, and need only be referred
TO as showing the general spirit of the act.
The seventh section repealed the provi-
sions of the act of $780, which authorized
persons passing through our State to take
their slaves with them, and gave to So
journers the right to bring their slaves IN
to the State, and retain them here Tor any
period not exceeding sixsmonths.
The provisions of the third and fourth
sections OF the act of iS47, seem to have
been predicated upon the language of the
Supreme Court in Prigg's case. 1t is
there admitted that the several States
may prohibit their own magistrates, and
other officers, from exercising an author,
ty conferred by an act of Congress and
that while an owner OF q slave, under and
in virtue of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. is clothed with power, in eve
ry State of the Union, to seize and recap
ture his slave, he must nevertheless, DO so
without using any illegal violence, or
committing any breach of the peace. 1t
is evident that the framer of the act OF
| 1917 had closely studied the case of Prigg
VS.. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and had ept this law strictly within it
letter. In many respects, the act is cod
iication of the principles enunciated by
the Court; and more fault may justly be
found with its temper than its want OF
constitutionality.
If fugitive slaves we're still claimed un-
der the act Of Congress of 1893, the de-
/ nial to .hc master of the aid of State
judges aud magistrates, might bea source
Of great Inconvenience to him; but the
complete and perfect remedy now p'ovi'
ded by the act of Congress of 1850, rem
ders him entirely Independent Estate
officers. And the punishment of arrests
without warrant, by master in the exerr
else of his constitutional right of recap
ton but made in violent, tumultuou us
and unreasonable manner. amounting tc
breach of the peace is but recognizing
lby statute, what was before the common
| law. These sections were reenacted III
the revised penal code of Pennsylvania,
at the last session of the Legislature, and
are still the law of the State; but they
are not now of any practical importance,
and as their retention on our statute book
! is calculated TO create the impression
that the people of this State are uniavor-
able to the execution of the fugitive slave
| law, and the discharge of their confeder-
ate duties, aud with the view of removing
this subject Of reproach, | earnestly re-
commend their unconditio onal repeal.
While q maiority.of judges Of the Su-
preme Court Of the United States, in the
Prigg case, held that State had no con
istitutional right to provide by legislation
for delivering up fugitives from labor, o
minority were then OF the opini II that
State laws, consistent with, and in aid of,
the constitutional Injunction, were valid
and proper. And this minority opinion
is now the judgment of the pres eni
court, as recently Indicated in case
which arose in the State of Illinois,
There is, therefore, nothing to prevent
the revival Of the act of 1926. and its res
toration, to .he place ir our code to which
by its merits, il is so justly entitled. This
would leave to the option of the claimant
whether he would seek his remedy under
the State or National laws. He had this
right before the repeal OF our act of 1926,
and, in my opinion, no good reason can
be assigned for refusing TO place him again
in the same position.
would also recommend that the con-
sent Of the State be given, that the mas
ter, while sojourning in our State, for O
limited period, or passing through it, may
be accompanied by his slave, without 10.
sing his right to his service. While such
legislation is due to the comfy which
should ever exist between the different
States Of this Union, it would undoubted
ly tend greatly to restore that peace and
harmony, which are now so unwisely i'm
periled. By it Pennsylvania would con