| OCR Text |
Show 406 THE DHED SCO'l,T CASE. The Supreme Court of the United State~ in tho cnse of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16th Peters' Rep., wh.crein Jndge Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, says : 11 H is historically well known that the clause in the Constit 111 ion of the United States, relating to persons owing scrvit' · nnd labor in one State c. ca.ping into other State was to secure to the citizenR of the slavcholding States the' complete right and title of ownership in their slavos, as property, in every Stale in the Union into which lucy might escape from tho State wher? they were held in servitude. The full recognition of thi. right ancl title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding States; and, indce<l, was o vital to ihe preservation of tueit· domestic interests and institutions, that it caunot be doubted that it i3 constitnted a fnndamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevailing in the non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermed(11ing with, or obstructing, or aboli~hing the rights of the owners of slaves. * * * * * * ~~The clause in the Constitution of the United States I relatiug to fugitives from labor, manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no Stale bw or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. * * * * * * * "The owner of a fugitive slave has the same right to seize, and to take him in a State to which he has escaped or fled that he had in the State from which he escaped; and it is well known that this right to seize or recapture is universally acknowledged in all the slaveholding States. The court have not the slightest hesitation iu holding, that under and in virtue of the CotJslitution the owner of the 1 'rilE DRED ~CO'l''l, C A~E. 407 slave is clothed witll authority in every SLate of the Union to seize and recapture his slave, ·where ver he can do it with· out any breach of the peace, or illegal violence. * * * * * * * " * "'!'be right to seize and retake fugitive slaves, and the duty to deliver them up, in whatever State of tllC Union they mny be found, is, under the Constitution, recognized as an absolute positive right and duly, pervading Lhe ·wholo Union with an equal and supreme force; uncoutrollcd aud uucontrollaule by State sovereignty or SLate legislation. The right and duty are co-extensive and uniform iu remedy and operation throughout the whole Union. 'l'he owner bas the same security, and the same remedial justice, aud the same exemption from State regulations and control, through however many States he may pass with the fugitive slave in his possession, in l'ransitu, to his domicile." Here the Supreme Court emphatically declare that this clause in the Constitution manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of tho ownf-r of a slave, which no State law or regulation can control, and without which the Union could not have been formed, and, further, that the right io seize and retake fugitive slaves, in whatever Stale of the Union they may be found, is an absolute, positive right. But we arc not left simply with this constitutional provision, for Congress, in 1793, passed on act designed to put the provision into practical operation, the last two sections of which are as follows: " SEc. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the north west, or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, sha1l escnpe in to any other of the said States or territories, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent or attorney is; hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to take |
