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

tha tUuti held that lhr Whoio ~, .W
t,,l hsrkHte Tho pnWw tb rt1fi'o loi
,he fenduisn WI mgityea nom lebou WW
,csied exclusively in Congress- AMI lhe
s.,r,al gintrs Wofr, therefore, incomplont
I, r,s, ttaluics either in aid oi pt to mn.
.J.i dolny or prevent the delivery OIL
.,,h mgiiiyca That this was the extent
ntibn docision, ~ delivered by Judge
g,crv. not only hppcats FROM the opinions
~. ,r,ioritv. but also from the dissen'
,t,o o,inions delivered by tho minority
oc 6,n Court By this unfortunate deci
sion. il was authoriietively prcclmme9
lint ponnsylyanin, in onncting her liberM
statute Of 1926, making II the duty OF ner
own officers To aid in nrrosting ana d,lN'
crnp up lugtiyes from labor, hau mls.n,
hon her constitutional Obligation, ana
| that her act was in violation Of rather
/ than obedience TO, tho Constitution OF
Tho United States. Under such circum-
stances. IL was the manifest duty OF the
State 10 repeal her law thus declared un-
constitutional. This was done by tho act
of lSI7 and il that act had contained
nothing more than repeal OF the law oil
! 1896. and the re.enactment Of the law
against kidnapping, it could not have
| been subject to any Just complaint Du'
the third section of the act oil lo4i pro
hibits, un Ter heavy penalties, our Judges
and magistrates from acting under any
act of Congress, or otherwise taking Juris'
dction Of the case of fugitive from labor
and the fourth section Furnishes with hne
and Imprisonment, the tumultuous and
riotous arrest Of o fugitive slave, by any
person or persons, under any pretence OF
authority whatever, so rs TO create breach
of the public peace. The sixth section,
DENYING tho use of the county Jails ior
the detention of fugitive slaves, was re,
pealed in 1852, and need only be referred
TO as showing tho general spirit of the act
The seventh section repealed the proyl-
sions of the act Of 1880, which authorized
persons passing through our State to take
| their slaves with them, and gave to So
iourners the right to bring their slaves IN
{ to the State, and re ain them here for any
period not exceeding six months.
The provisions of the third and fourth
sections OF the act Of !S47, 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 authorl--
ty conferred by an act of Congress; and
that while an owner OF 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, co SO
without using any illegal violence, OF
committing any breach of the peace IL
| is evident that the framer OF the act oi
! 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
! ifcation Of the principles enunclated by
the Court; and more fault may justly be
found with its temper than its want oi
constitutionalty.
If fugitive slaves we're still claimed un-
der the act OF Congress Of 1898, the de-
NAL to The master of tho aid of State
Judges and magistrates, might be 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 OF State
officers. And the punishment of arrests
without warrant, by a master in the eXer'
else of his constitutional right OF recap
ton, bat made in a violent, tumultuous
and unreasonable manner, amounting &c
breach OF the peace. is but recognizing
lby statute. what was before the common
law. These sections were re'enacted 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 10 create the impression
| that the people of this State are unfavor-
able to the execution of the fugitive slave
law, aud the discharge of their confeder-
ate duties, aud with the view of removing
this subject Of reproach, earnestly re-
commend their unconditi onal repeal.
While majority of judges of the SUI
preme Court Of the United States, IN the
Prigg case, held that State had no con
sti;utiopal right to provide by Legislation
for delivering up fugitives from labor, {
minority were then OF the opini n that
State laws, consistent with, and in aid Of
the constitutional injunction, were vaIio
and proper. And this minority opinion
is now the judgment of the presen
court, as recently Indicated in cast
which arose in the State OF Illinois,
| mere lS, luSIelOIct hOhPliiS ~ H'N'~"
the revival Of the act of 1896. and its res
toraion, to The place r our code to which
by its merits, it is so justly entitled. Thi
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 car
be assigned for refusing TO place him agair
in the same position.
l would also recommend that the con
sent of the State be given, that the mas
ter, while sojourning in our State, for
limited period, or passing through it, ma!
be accompanied by his slave, without To-
sing his ri ght to his service. While such
legislation is due to the comfy which
should ever exist between the differen
} States of this Union, it would undoubted
, ly tend greatly to restore that peace anc
harmony, which are now 80 unwisely i'm
periled. BY it Pennsylvania would con
cedc no principle-we would simply b
falling back upon our ancient policy
- 4 Al