OCR Text |
Show 356 LIDERTY AND SJ~AVERY. magistrate or judge in the State of Pennsylvania. The court tlcclarccl that he had a right to do so under and by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Most a£surcclly, if he had a constitutionrtl right to such proceeding, tben, in such cases, the Constitution dispenses with the necessity of trial by jury. It WM urged by counsel that such summary method of reclaiming fugitive slaves was unconstitutional; but the court decided otherwise. It was insisted by ~fr. Ilambly, just as it is now insisted by Mr. Sumner and others, that such arrest was unconstitutional, because it was made by the mere will of the party, and not, as the Constitution requires, "by clue process of law." 'l'hus the point was presented by the record, argued by th? counsel, and ovel'l'ulecl by the court. In overruling this argument the court says: " The owner must, therefore, have the right to seize and repossess the slave which the local Jaws of his own State confer upon him as property; and we all know that this right of seizure and recaption is universally acknowledged in all the slave-holding States. Iu(lccd, this is no more than a mere affirmance of the principles of th~ common law applicable to this very sub- TilE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 357 ject." Then, after a quotation from Blackstone, the court adds: "Upon this ground, we have not tho slightest hesitation in holding that, under and in virtue of the Constitution, the owner of a slave is clothed with entire authority in every State in the Union to seize and recapture his slave whenever he can do it without any breach of the peace or any illegal violence." In accordance with this opinion of the courtdelivered by ~Ir. J usticc Story-~\Ir. Chief Justicc Taney says: the master "has a right, peaceably, to take possession of him, and carry him away, without any certificate or warrant from a judge of the District or Circuit Court of the United States, or from any magistrate of the State; and whosoever resists or obstructs ·him is a wrong-doer; and every State law which proposes, directly or indirectly, to authorize such resistance or obstruction, is null and void, and afl'orcls no justification to the individual or the officer of the State who acts under it. This right of the master being given by the Constitution of the U nitcd St:<tes, neither Congress nor a State Legislature can by any law or regulation impair it or restrict it."* * This decision of the Supreme Courl, which authorizes the master to seize his fugitiYC slnve without proctn, (sec his speech, |