The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1861-01-16

selling the said negro or mnlafto as slave
for Term of years. Soon after the passage
of this act ibe Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vanis decided that ii did not apply TO the
forcible removal of slave, by the owner
or bis agent, but that It's object was to pun
irh The forcihle fraudulent ahdnciion from
the State of free negroes, with the intention
of keeping or selling them as slaves -
Thus al that early day. giving judicial -anc
tion 10 the doctrine, that master had the
right 10 take bis slaves wherever be could
f.d them.
The first act of Congress providing for
the rediiion of fueitives from Justice or labor
was passed in 1893, and originated from the
refusal of the Governor o. Virginia to sur
reader and deliver up, on the requisition Of
the Governor of Pennsy ylvania, three per-
kons who had been indicted in Pennsylva
MIA for kidnapping negro, and carrying
him into Virginia. And when il was found
that this Congressional statute did not afford
a simple, speedy and efficient remedy for
the recovery of fugitives from labor, the
Legislature Of Pennsylvania, at The request
Of the adjoining Slate of Maryland, in 1926,
passed her act s'to give effect TO the pro
visions of the Constitution OF the United
States relative to fueitives from labor, for
The protection of free people OF color, aud
20 prevent kidnapping" This excellent
and well considered law met all the exist
ing emergencies. Ii required the judges,
justices of the peace and aldermen. OF the
State, upon the oath of The claimant, 10 issue
their warrant Tor the arrest of eny fugitive
ixom labor escaping into this State direct
ing, however, that such warrants should DE
made returnable, by whomsoever issued,
before judge of the proper county. It
required sheriffs and consiables TO execute
such warrants. Ii authorized The commiI
ment of The fugitive to the county Jail, and
Otherwise made provisions to secure lie.
effective execution, and al the same time to
prevent its abuse
This law continued quietly in operation
until Tie decision of The Supreme Court of
the United States, made in 1912 in the case
of Prigg VS.. The Commonwealth of Penn
sylvania- The history of the case may be
briefly stated: E.dwsrd Pfigg was indicted
in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of York
county, for kidnapping a colored person,
named Margare. Morgan. Upon the trial
it appeared that she was held slave in the
State OF Maryland, and that she escaped
into The State of Pennsylvania in the year
is32-lhat in 1887, Edward Prige was ap-
pointed, By the owner OF the slave, to seize
and arrest her as as fugitive from labor
In pursuance of this authority, and under a
warrant issued by Justice of the Peace,
Prigg caused the woman 10 be arrested, and
without having obtained any warrant of
removal, ne delivered her to her owner in
the State oil Maryland. These facts were
found by a special verdict, and By the a
greement oil counsel, judgement was en-
tered against Prigg. From this indgemen;
q writ Of error was taken 10 The Supreme
Court OF the State, where pro forma judge
ment Of affirmance was again By agreemen;
entered and the case removed 10 the Su-
preme Court Of the United States.
II viii be observed that the question.
whether Edward Prgg was really guilty of
the crime of kidnapping, under the Penn
sylvania sis.nie of 1926, was never actually
passed npon. either by the court or jury, in
the county of York OF by the Supreme Conr;
of the State. The Jury merely found the
facts, and the action of both courts was but
a matter of form.
In The argument and determination Of
the case, in the Supreme Court Of the Uhi-
led States, it appears 10 have been taken
for granted, that our act of 1926 made it a
criminal offence for a master TO take his
slave out OF this State, without warrant of
and upon this construction the
act was declared unconstitutional and void
This, submit, was clear misapprehen-
sion OF the purport and meaning of our leg
i-laiion. The first section of the act of 1926
under which the indictment against Prigg
was framed, was almost literally copied
from the seventh section ofthe act OF 1888
10 which construction had already been
given by the highest ju.licial tribunal OF the
State of Pennsylvania, where it was held TO
have no application whatever TO the reno
val Of slave by the master or his agent,
with or without warrant. Such was the
,ndoubied law OF TIE State under The stat
Lie of 1888, and in re-enaciing that statute
IN the act of 1926, With an increased pen
ally il is manifest that the intention and OBJ
] ct OF The Legislature was TO protect free
persons of color, and TO punish those who,
by fraud, force or violence were guilty of
kidnapping. and holding or selling Tree
men as Slaves. This the State had clear
right 10 do; and nothing but miscoustrnc
lion of her act, could have induced the
declaration that it was forbidden by the
q