Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1861-01-10

that this act, or anything in it contained,
shall not give any relief or shelter to any
absconding or runaway negro or mulatto slave,
or servant, who has absented himself or shall
absent himself from bis or her owner, master
or mistress, residing liz any other state OF
country, but such owner, master or mistress,
shall have like right and aid to demand, claim
and take away his slave, or servant, as he
nirht have had in case this act had not been
made" A provision much more unequiyocal
in its phraseoogy, and direct in its commands,
than those found, on the same subject, in the
Constitution of the Union The act, by its
terms, was made inapplicable to domesticA
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 1888 it was made high penal offence
for any person, by force, violence or fraud, to
take out of this State, any negro or mulatto,
with the intention of keeping or selling the
said negro or mulatto as q slave, for term OF
years Soon after the passage of this act, the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that
it did not apply to the forcible removal of
slave, by the owner or his agent, but that its
object was to punish the forcible or fraudulent
abduction from the State Of free negroes, with
the intention Of keeping or selling them as
slaves Thus at an early day, giving judicial
sanction to the doctrine, that master had
the right to take his slaves wherever he could
and them
The first act of Congress providing for the
rendition of fugitives from justice or labor was
passed in 1893, and originated from the refu-
sal of the Governor of Virginia 70 surrender
and deliver up, on the requiSiton OF the Go
vernon of Pennsylvania, three persons who
had been indicted in Pennsylvania for kidnap-
ping a negro, and carrying him into Virginia.
And when il was found that this CongresSion-
al statute did not afford simple, speedy and
efficient remedy for the recovery OF fugltiVeS
from labor, the Legislature of Pennsylvania,
at the request of the adjoining State OF Mary
land, in 1926, passed her act to give effect
to the provisions Of the Constitution Of the L.
States relative to fugitives from labor, for the
protection Of free people OF color, and to pre-
vent kidnapping" This excellent and well
considered law met all the existing emergen-
cies 1t required the judges, Justices Of the
peace and aldermen, OF the State, upon the
oath of the claimant, to issue their warrant
for the arrest of any fugitive from labor escaP-
ing into this State directing, however, that
such warrants should be made returnable, by
whomsoeVer issued, before judge OF the
proper county. 1t required sheriifS and con
stables to execnte such. warrants. 1t author
lied the commitment of the fugitive to the
county Jail, and otherwise made provisions to
secure its effective execution, and at the same
time to prevent its abuse.
This law continued quietly in operation un.
til the decision Of the Supreme Court of the
- =.
Prigg rs The Commonwealth of PennsylVa
MIA The history of the case may lie briefly
stated Edward Prgg was indicted in the
court Of oyer and terminer of York county,
for kidnapping a colored person, named Mar,
garet Morgan Upon the trial it appeared
that she was held as q slave in the State of
Maryland, and that she escaped into the State
of Pennsylvania in the year I832-that in
1887, Edward Prigg was appointed, by the
owner, to seize and arrest her as fugitive
from labor In pursuance of this authority,
aud under warrant Issued by 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 found by { special verdict, aud by the
agreement or counsel, 4 judgment was enter
ed against Prigg. From this Judgment wit
of error was taken to the Supreme Court OF
the State, where pro f2rmq judgment Of al
firmance was again, by agreement, entered,
and the case removed to The Supreme Court Of
the United States
It viii lie observed that the question, whether Edward
Prge was really guilty OF the crime OF kidnapping,
der the Pennsylvania satute Cr lS2G wa never actually
passed upon either by the cGurt CTy the county
York or bv tie Supreme Court Of the State The Jury
merely found the facts, and the action Of both
Kp.s hut mo r "a |lFHrH
In the argument and determination the case in the
Supreme Court OF the nitc4 State appears to hive
been taken for granted, that our act Of ls2G made
criminal oencc for muster 70 take his slave out o this
State, without a warrant Of removal! and this
construction the act declared unconstitutional and
void Tins, submit was clear lnlSapprehenslon OF
the purpor and meaning Of our legislation. The first
section OF the act OF l2j, under which the Indictment
against Prlgg was framed was almost AteraAy COPIED
from the seventh section Of the OF 1857, TO which
construction had already been given by the highest ju
dical tribunal OF the state C Pennsylvania where II
was held to have application whatever to the removal
of slave by the master MIS- agent, with without
warrant S1ch was the undgubCd law of the State mn
der the 1888, and in re-enactng that statute
in the act OF l26. with an increased penalty II mani
fest that the intention and object OF the Legislature
TO protect free persons Of color and to punish those Who
by fraud force or violence guilty OF kidnapping
aud holding selling free slaves. This the State
had clear right to Go and nothing but misconstruc
on of her act could have induced the declaration that
it forbidden 10y the Constitution OF the United States
1t is perfectly clear that Edward Prgg had committed
crime in removing Margaret Morgan rom the state
of Pennsylvania the State Maryland and delivering
her up to her owner and it is equally clear, that at
tempt made by the statute Of Pennsylvania, to de-
clare his crime. He should have been discharged
not because the act Of the State unconstitutional
but because he had not transgreSsed its commands.
The Supreme Court OF the United states not only pro-
nouneed the particular section OF the act OF 1926 then
before them, unconstitutional, but majority Of the
court held that the whole void because the pow
.er to provide for The rendition Of iGgtves from labor
was vested exclusively in Congress, and the several
States were therefore, incompetent to pass statutes
either in aid Of TO hinder, delay prevent the de-
livery of such utyes. That this the extent OF the
decision, delivered by JGdge Story not ouy appears
from the opuiops of the majority but also from the dis