Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1861-01-19

| Notwithstanding lhe dtCbuHt III Irlgg case
until the act was repealed. This view of
the case has since been sustained by the
unanimous decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, in the case of Moore
VS.. the people of Illinois, ID Howard's Re-
ports ID The constitutional obligation of
the State to "deliver up" fugitive slaves,
therefore, remains as binding as it was
before Priggs case was decided. The
cause which produced most of the unjust
legislation on this subject having thus been
removed, there is now no reason why JUS
tice and comfy should not be restored by
wiping from our statute books every unjust
or unfriendly enactment.
The 9Th and eth sections of the act of
Sd March, ls47, and the 95th sections of
the new penal code, passed 3lst March,
1850, are now in force. 1 Iproceed, ac-
cording to your request, to give my views
/ of those sections.
The act of Congress of 18th February,
1893, gave jurisdiction to State magis-
trates. The act of lssh September, 1850
did not repeal the act of 1893. There
were no words indicating an intention to
repeal. On the contrary, the last act was
entitled, a supplement to amend the first.
There was no repugnancy in the provis-
ions of the two acts, in regard to the juris-
diction of State magistrates. The rule is
that when two acts in pari materia, may
stand together, they are to have a concur
rent operation, and one is not repeal of
the other; for "inpljed repeals are not
favored by the law" But the 95th Sec
ton of the Pennsylvania act of 3lst March
1860, expressly prohibits all State magls-
trates from taking jurisdiction of fugitive
slave cases "under any act of Congress"
, If the State had not repealed the act of
1926, or if she had made other effectual
provisions for the delivery offugitive slaves,
| this part of the 95th section of the act of
f 1860, would not be unconstitutional; but
r as she has made no provision of her own,
and also refuses all aid in executing every
| federal enactment on the subject she stands
t justly liable to the charge of disregarding
| the Constitution. Sins of omission may be
/ as criminal as sins Of commission. The
e circumstance that the constitutional obliga.
t ton in question is of a character which
= must necessarily be entrusted to our own
sense of justice and honor, only renders
!. the duty to fulfill it the more imperative il
r the forum of conscience.
e Another part of the same section pro.
II hibits the seizing of fugitive slaves ''vio
!. lently and tumultuously," althoug h "undei
c pretence of authority and although the
! intention be to "carry the fugitive before q
e District or Circuit Judge" There is toe
d much reason to fear that this .provisiol
j. NAV ha const~,,~rT - ---.t--' -
lt mcnt of those who aid in the execution o
l. the act of Congress To understand its ef
g feet properly, we must remember that ;
to fugitive slave will, in general, resist an.
a attempt to arrest him, and that in the fire.
es State of Pennsylvania the sympathies o
III the bystanders will be excited in his favor
of In such cases it would be impossible to ar
ly rest him without ''yiolence and tumult. -
10 The tendency of this enactment is to EN-
to barrass the rights Of the stakeholder, ant
T. it creates an inviduous distinction agains
I'd his property. 1t establishes statute reg
y, ulation of great severity against his right
u which we do not apply to our own citizen
he and their property.
n The Doth section of the act of 1860 pre-
V, hibits the sale of fugitive slave within I'll
" State and makes it a criminal offence
he the purchaser to exercise his right of r.
he clamation. If it be true that the right
ial property is not impaired by the abscon'
M ing of the slave,it is equally true th'
G. the right to sell the property remail
ed also uuimpaired, because the right
i've sell is one of the chief incidents of owner
es. ship. If State law may destroy oil
I've of the incidents of ownership it may d
os, stroy all. So long as the owner does n
M attempt to retain the slave within the Sta
Use or to exercise ownership over him with
of our jurisdiction, except with view to 7
m clamation, we have no authority to int
ere fere with his right of ownership; we a
ch, bound to deliver him up "to the person
lct whom the service may be due" whether
the be the original owner or subsequ(
ind purchaser. The original owner may b'
on female or minor, or too poor or inirm
ase, pursue the fugitivc,o having arrested Il
the it may become apparent that the saf
dis and happiness OF both parties would
that promoted by a change of ownership. l
de, not perceive that the State has either
pee, tcrest or right to interfere with the ow
~