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


e.,.tb, t,,r,iunllbn of tho United slhlce
vent into operation Penney ltnnN r9',,'
her law nt The pbluol hnollion ol tlpio
w mindful ~ thq tights ~ bet con'to.
,,trs tho declared That "tha net, 0t any
thing I'M n contained shall not give ANY
tcliot ON shelter 10 any nhtcohding ot run
away negro or mulatto slave, or sefVaht,
who has nbscntcd himself or thal'
absont himself from his or her owns
on. master or mistrcat residing w any
other state or country, but such owner
master or mistress, shall have the fight
and aid to domsnd, claim, and take away
his slave or servant, rs he might nave hR.
i'm case this oct had never bccn made n
Iproyision much much moro unequiyocnl
/ In its phraseolopy, and direct IN It's com>
lmands, than those found, on the same
subject in the Constitution Of the Union
The act by It's terms, was made inaprll>
cable To- domestic slaves attending upon
Delegates in Congress from other Ameri-
can States, and those held by persons
while passing through this State, or 80
iourning therein for q period not longer
| than six months.
In 1878 il was mado high penal aiience
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 muiatto as slave
for term Of years. Soon after the passage
of thi, act, the Supreme Court Of Pennsyl'
yania decided that it did not apply to the
iorcible removal of slave, by tho owner
or his agent, but that its object was to
nunish the fraudulent abduction from the
State of free negroes, with the intention
of keeping or selling them as slaves. Thus
at that early day giving judicial sanction
| TO the doctrine, that master had the
right to take his slaves wherever he could
find them.
The first act Of Congress providing for
tho rendition Of fugitives from justice or
labor, was passed in 1893, ana originated
lfrom the refusal OF the Governor OF Nir-
rinia TO surrender sud deliver up, on the
reouisition of the Governor of Pennsylya-
pia three persons who had been indicted
| in Pennsylvania for kidnapping negro,
and carrying him into Virginia. And
when it 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 ad-
Iioining State of Maryland, in 1876, passed
| her act "to give effect to the provisions oil
| the Constitution of the United States rel
atiye to fugitives from labor, for the pro-
lection of FREQ people of color, and to pre-.
vent kidnapping" This excellent and
we'll considered law met all the existing
emergencies. 1t required the Judges, jus
tees of the peace, and aldermen o. the
State, upon the oath of the claimant, to
issue their warrant for the arrest Of any
fugitive from labor escaping into this
State: directing, however, that such war
/ rants should be made returnable, by
Iwhomsoever issued, before judge OF the
proper county. 1t required sheriffs and
Iconstables to execute such warrants. 1t
authorized the commitment Of the fugi-
tiyes to the county Jail, and otherwise
made provisions TO secure its effective ex-
ecution, and at the same time to prevent
It's abuse.
This law continued quietly in operation
until the decision of tho Supreme Court oi
the United States, mado in lo42, IN the
case Of Prigg vs. The CommonN ealth oi
Pennsylvania. The history OF the case
may be briefly stated: Edward Prigg was
indicted in the Court of Oyer and rerminer
Of York county, for kidnapping colored
person, named Martha Morgan. Upon
|the trial it appeared she was held slave
! in the State Of Maryland, and that she
ESCAPED into the State Of Pennsylvania in
the Year 1882; that in 1887, Edward Prieg
was appointed by the owner of the slave,
TO seize and arrest her as q fugitive from
labor. In pursuance of this authority,
and under q warrant issued by Il justice OF
I the peace, Prigg caused the negro woman
/ to bc arrested, and, without having OBJ
tanned any warrant of removal, he deliv-
cred her TO her owner in the State OF Ma
rylsnd, These facts were found 10y aspe-
cial verdict, and by agreement Of counsel
judgment was entered against PriGg
From this judgment n writ of error was
taken to the Supreme Court of the State,
where a pro tormid judgment of atfrmance
was again, by agreement, entered, aud the
case removed 10 the Supreme Court Of the
| United States.
! 1t win be observed that the question,
whether Edward Prigg was really guilty
of the crime Of kidnapping, under the
Pennsylvania statute of 1926, was never
actually passed upon, either by the court
or Jury, in the county of York, or by the
Supreme Court Of the State. The jury
merely found the facts, and the action OF
both courts vas but a matter Of form.
In the argument and determination OF
the case, in the Supreme Court OF the
United States, it appears to have been to
ken for granted, that our act of 1896 made
it criminal offence for master to take
his slave out of this State, without war
rant of removal and upon this cons:ruc-
ton, the act was declared unconstitution"
al and void. This submit, was clear
mslpprehension of the purport and
meaning of our legislation. The first sec
ton of the act of 1896, under which the
, indictment against Prigg was framed
was almost literally copied from the sew
enth section of the act of 1888, to which
, a construction had already been given by
, tho highest judicial tribunal of the State
/, of Pennsylvania, where it was held tC
have no application whatever to the re-
moval of slave by the master or hi!
/ agent, With or without a warrant. Sucl
, was the undoubted law Of the State under