7/31/2015

41U.S.539

41U.S.539

up

16Pet.539
10L.Ed.1060
EDWARDPRIGG,Plaintiffinerror,
v.
TheCOMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA,Defendantinerror.
JanuaryTerm,1842
1

[Syllabusfrompages539542intentionallyomitted]

ERRORtotheSupremeCourtofPennsylvania.Thedefendantinerror,EdwardPrigg,
withNathanS.Bemis,JacobForwardandStephenLewis,Jr.,wereindictedbythe
grandjuryofYorkcounty,Pennsylvania,forthat,onthefirstdayofApril1837,upona
certainnegrowoman,namedMargaretMorgan,withforceandviolence,theymadean
assault,andwithforceandviolence,feloniouslydidtakeandcarryherawayfromthe
countyofYork,withinthecommonwealthofPennsylvania,tothestateofMaryland,
withadesignandintentiontheretosellanddisposeofthesaidMargaretMorgan,asand
foraslaveandservantforlife.EdwardPrigg,oneofthedefendants,havingbeen
arraigned,pleadednotguilty.Thecausewastriedbeforethecourtofquartersessionsof
Yorkcounty,onthe22ddayofMay1839andthejuryfoundthefollowingspecial
verdict:

'ThatatasessionofthegeneralassemblyofthecommonwealthofPennsylvania,
holdenatthecityofPhiladelphia,onthefirstdayofMarch1780,thefollowinglawwas
passedandenacted,towit,'Anactforthegradualabolitionofslavery:

3.Allpersons,aswellnegroesandmulattoes,asothers,whoshallbebornwithin
thisstate,shallnotbedeemedandconsideredasservantsforlifeorslavesandall
servitudeforlife,orslaveryofchildren,inconsequenceofslaveryoftheirmothers,in
thecaseofallchildrenbornwithinthisstate,fromandafterthepassingofthisactas
aforesaid,shallbeandherebyisutterlytakenaway,extinguishedandforeverabolished.

4.Providedalways,thateverynegroandmulattochild,bornwithinthisstate,after
thepassingofthisactasaforesaid(whowould,incasethisacthadnotbeenmade,have
beenbornaservantforyears,orlife,oraslave),shallbedeemedtobe,andshallbe,by
virtueofthisact,theservantofsuchpersons,orherorhisassigns,whowould,insuch
case,havebeenentitledtolikerelief,incaseheorsheshallbeevillytreatedbyhisorher
masterormistress,andtolikefreedomduesandotherprivileges,asservantsboundby
indentureforfouryearsareormaybeentitledunlessthepersontowhomtheservice
ofanysuchchildshallbelong,shallabandonhisorherclaimtothesameinwhichcase
theoverseersofthepoorofthecity,ortownshipordistrict,respectively,wheresuch
childshallbesoabandoned,shall,byindenture,bindouteverychildsoabandoned,as
anapprentice,foratimenotexceedingtheagehereinbeforelimitedfortheserviceof
suchchildren.

5.Everypersonwhois,orshallbe,theownerofanynegroormulattoslaveor
servantsforlife,ortilltheageofthirtyoneyears,nowwithinthisstate,orhislawful
attorney,shall,onorbeforethefirstdayofNovembernext,deliverorcausetobe
deliveredinwritingtotheclerkofthepeaceofthecounty,ortotheclerkofthecourtof
sessionsofthecityofPhiladelphia,inwhichheorsheshallrespectivelyinhabit,the
nameandsirname,andoccupationorprofession,ofsuchowner,andthenameofthe
countyandtownship,districtorwardwhereinheorsheresidethandalsothename

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

1/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

andnamesofanysuchslaveandslaves,andservantandservantsforlife,andtilltheage
ofthirtyoneyears,withinthisstate,whoshallbesuchonthesaidfirstdayofNovember
next,fromallotherpersonswhichparticularsshall,bysaidclerkofthesessionsand
clerkofthesaidcitycourt,beenteredinbookstobeprovidedforthatpurposebythe
saidclerksandnonegroormulattonowwithinthisstateshall,fromandafterthesaid
firstdayofNovember,bedeemedaslaveorservantforlife,ortilltheageofthirtyone
years,unlesshisorhernameshallbeenteredasaforesaidonsuchrecords,exceptsuch
negroormulattoslavesandservantsasarehereinafterexceptedthesaidclerktobe
entitledtoafeeoftwodollarsforeachslaveorservantsoenteredasaforesaid,fromthe
treasuryofthecounty,tobesallowedtohiminhisaccounts.
7

6.Providedalways,thatanypersoninwhomtheownershiporrighttotheserviceof
anynegroormulattoshallbevestedatthepassingofthisact,otherthansuchasare
hereinbeforeexcepted,hisorherheirs,executors,administratorsandassigns,andall
andeveryofthem,severally,shallbeliabletotheoverseersofthepoorofthecity,
townshipordistricttowhichanysuchnegroormulattoshallbecomechargeable,for
suchnecessaryexpense,withcostsofsuitthereon,assuchoverseersmaybeputto,
throughtheneglectoftheowner,masterormistressofsuchnegroormulatto,
notwithstandingthenameandotherdescriptionsofsuchnegroormulattoshallnotbe
enteredandrecordedasaforesaid,unlesshisorhermasterorownershall,beforesuch
slaveorservantobtainhisorhertwentyeighthyear,executeandrecordintheproper
county,adeedorinstrumentsecuringtosuchslaveorservanthisorherfreedom.

8.Inallcaseswhereinsentenceofdeathshallbepronouncedagainstaslave,the
jurybeforewhomheorsheshallbetried,shallappraiseanddeclarethevalueofsuch
slaveandincasesuchsentencebeexecuted,thecourtshallmakeanorderonthestate
treasurer,payabletotheownerforthesame,andforthecostsofprosecutionbutin
caseofremissionormitigation,forthecostsonly.

9.Therewardfortakinguprunawayandabscondingnegroandmulattoslavesand
servants,andthepenaltiesforenticingaway,dealingwith,orharboring,concealingor
employingnegroandmulattoslavesandservants,shallbethesame,andshallbe
recoveredinlikemanner,asincaseofservantsboundforfouryears.

10

10.Nomanorwoman,ofanynationorcolor,exceptthenegroesormulattoeswho
shallberegisteredasaforesaid,shall,atanytimehereafter,bedeemedadjudgedor
holden,withintheterritoriesofthiscommonwealthasslavesorservantsforlife,butas
freemenandfreewomenexceptthedomesticslavesattendingupondelegatesin
congressfromtheotherAmericanstates,foreignministersandconsuls,andpersons
passingthroughorsojourninginthisstate,andnotbecomingresidenttherein,and
seamenemployedinshipsnotbelongingtoanyinhabitantofthisstate,noremployedin
anyshipownedbyanysuchinhabitantprovided,suchdomesticslavesshallnotbe
alienatedorsoldtoanyinhabitant,nor(exceptinthecaseofmembersofcongress,
foreignministersandconsuls)retainedinthisstatelongerthansixmonths.

11

12.Andwhereas,attemptsmaybemadetoevadethisact,byintroducingintothis
statenegroesandmulattoesboundbycovenanttoserveforlongandunreasonable
termsofyears,ifthesamebenotprevented:Therefore

12

13.Nocovenantofpersonalservitudeorapprenticeshipwhatsoever,shallbevalid
orbindingonanegroormulatto,foralongertimethansevenyears,unlesssuch
servantapprenticewere,atthecommencementofsuchservitudeorapprenticeship,
undertheageoftwentyoneyearsinwhichcase,suchnegroormulattomaybeholden
asaservantorapprentice,respectively,accordingtothecovenant,asthecaseshallbe,
untilheorsheshallattaintheageoftwentyeightyears,butnolonger.

13

14.Thatthisact,oranythinghereincontained,shallnotgiveanyrelieforshelterto
anyabscondingorrunawaynegroormulattoslaveorservant,whohasabsconded

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

2/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

himself,orshallabscondhimself,fromhisorherowner,masterormistress,residingin
anyotherstateorcountrybutsuchowner,masterormistress,shallhavelikerightand
aidtodemand,claimandtakeawayhisslaveorservant,ashemighthavehad,incase
thisacthadnotbeenmade:andthatallnegroandmulattoslaves,nowownedand
heretoforeresidentinotherstates,whohaveabscondedthemselves,orbeen
clandestinelycarriedaway,orwhomaybeemployedabroadasseamen,andhavenot
abscondedorbeenbroughtbacktotheirowners,mastersormistressesbeforethe
passingofthisact,may,withinfiveyears,beregisteredaseffectuallyasisorderedby
thisactconcerningthosewhoarenotwithinthisstate,onproducingsuchslavebefore
anytwojusticesofthepeace,andsatisfyingthesaidjustices,bydueproof,ofhisformer
residence,absconding,runningawayorabsenceofsuchslavesasaforesaid,who
thereuponshalldirectandorderthesaidslavestobeenteredontherecordasaforesaid.
14

Andthejurorsfurtherfound,thatatasessionofthegeneralassemblyofthe
commonwealthofPennsylvania,holdenatthecityofPhiladelphia,onthe29thdayof
March1788,thefollowinglawwaspassedandenacted,'Anacttoexplainandamend
'anactforthegradualabolitionofslavery,"

15

1.Forpreventingmanyevilsandabusesarisingfromilldisposedpersonsavailing
themselvesofcertaindefectsintheactforthegradualabolitionofslavery,passedonthe
firstdayofMarch,intheyearofourLord1780,beitenacted:

16

2.TheexceptioncontainedinthetenthsectionoftheactofthefirstofMarch1780,
relativetodomesticslaves,attendinguponpersonspassingthroughorsojourningin
thisstate,andnotbecomingresidenttherein,shallnotbedeemedortakentoextendto
theslavesofsuchpersonsasareinhabitantsof,orresidentin,thisstate,orwhoshall
comehere,withanintentiontosettleandresidebutallandeveryslaveorslaveswho
shallbebroughtintothisstate,bypersonsinhabitingorresidingtherein,orintendingto
inhabitorresidetherein,shallbeimmediatelyconsidered,deemedandtakentobefree,
toallintentsandpurposes.

17

3.Nonegroormulattoslave,orservantfortermofyears(exceptasinthelast
exceptionofthetenthsectionofthesaidact,isexcepted),shallberemovedoutofthis
state,withthedesignandintentionthattheplaceofabodeorresidenceofsuchslaveor
servantshallbetherebyalteredorchanged,orwiththedesignandintentionthatsuch
slaveorservant,ifafemaleandpregnant,shallbedetainedandkeptoutofthisstatetill
herdeliveryofthechildofwhichsheisorshallbepregnant,orwiththedesignand
intentionthatsuchslaveorservantshallbebroughtagainintothisstate,afterthe
expirationofsixmonthsfromthetimeofsuchslaveorservanthavingbeenfirstbrought
intothisstate,withouthisorherconsent,ifoffullage,testifieduponaprivate
examination,beforetwojusticesofthepeaceofthecityorcountyinwhichheorshe
shallreside,orbeingundertheageoftwentyoneyears,withouthisorherconsent,
testifiedinmanneraforesaid,andalsowithouttheconsentofhisorherparents,ifany
suchtherebe,tobetestifiedinlikemanneraforesaid,whereofthesaidjustices,orone
ofthem,shallmakearecord,anddelivertothesaidslaveorservantacopythereof,
containingthename,age,conditionandtheplaceofabodeofsuchslaveorservant,the
reasonofsuchremoval,andtheplacetowhichheorsheisabouttogoandifany
personorpersonswhatsoevershallsellordisposeofanysuchslaveorservant,toany
personoutofthisstate,orshallsendorcarry,orcausetobesentorcarried,anysuch
slaveorservant,outofthisstate,foranyofthepurposesaforesaid,wherebysuchslave
orservantwouldlosethosebenefitsandprivilegeswhichbythelawsofthisstateare
securedtohimorher,andshallnothaveobtainedallsuchconsentasbythisactis
required,testifiedinthemannerbeforementioned,everysuchpersonandpersons,his
andtheiraidersandabettors,shallseverallyforfeitandpay,foreverysuchoffence,the
sumofseventyfivepounds,toberecoveredinanycourtofrecord,byanactionofdebt,
bill,plaintorinformation,atthesuitofanypersonwhowillsueforthesameone
moietythereof,whenrecovered,fortheuseoftheplaintiff,theothermoietyfortheuse
ofthepoorofthecity,townshiporplacefromwhichsuchslaveorservantshallbetaken

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

3/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

andremoved.
18

4.Allpersonswhonoware,orhereaftershallbe,possessedofanychildorchildren,
bornafterthefirstdayofMarch1780,whowould,bythesaidact,beliabletoservetill
theageoftwentyeightyears,shallonorbeforethefirstdayofApril1789,orwithinsix
monthsnextafterthebirthofanysuchchild,deliverorcausetobedelivered,inwriting,
totheclerkofthepeaceofthecounty,ortheclerkofthecourtofrecordofthecityof
Philadelphia,inwhichtheyshallrespectivelyinhabit,thename,sirname,and
occupationorprofessionofsuchpossessor,andofthecounty,township,districtor
wardinwhichtheyreside,andalsotheage(tothebestofhisorherknowledge),name
andsexofeverysuchchildorchildren,underthepainandpenaltyofforfeitingand
losingallrightandtitletoeverysuchchildandchildren,andofhim,herorthem
immediatelybecomingfreewhichsaidreturnoraccountinwritingshallbeverifiedby
theoathoraffirmationoftheparty,whichthesaidclerksareherebyrespectively
authorizedandrequiredtoadminister,andthesaidclerksshallmakeandpreserve
recordsthereof,copiesandextractsofwhichshallbegoodevidenceinallcourtsof
justice,whencertifiedundertheirhandsandsealsofofficeforwhichoathor
affirmation,andentryorextract,thesaidclerksshallberespectivlyentitledtoone
shillingandsixpence,andnomore,tobepaidbyhimorher,whoshallsoasaforesaid
makesuchentry,ordemandtheextractaforesaid.

19

Andwhereas,ithasbeenrepresentedtothishouse,thatvesselshavebeenfittedout
andequippedinthisport,fortheiniquitouspurposeofreceivingandtransportingthe
nativesofAfricatoplaceswheretheyareheldinbondage,anditisjustandproperto
discourage,asfaraspossible,suchproceedingsinfuture:

20

5.Ifanypersonorpersonsshallbuild,fit,equip,manorotherwiseprepareanysuch
shiporvessel,withinanyportofthisstate,orshallcauseanyshiporothervesseltosail
fromanyportofthisstate,forthepurposeofcarryingonatradeortrafficinslaves,to,
fromorbetweenEurope,Asia,AfricaorAmerica,oranyplaceorcountrieswhatsoever,
oroftransportingslavestoorfromoneportorplacetoanother,inanypartorpartsof
theworld,suchshiporvessel,hertackle,furniture,apparelandotherappurtenances,
shallbeforfeitedtothecommonwealth,andshallbeliabletobeseizedandprosecuted
byanyofficerofthecustoms,orotherperson,byinformationinrem,inthesupreme
court,orinthecountycourtofcommonpleasforthecountywhereinsuchseizureshall
bemade:whereupon,suchproceedingsshallbehad,bothuntoandafterjudgment,as
inandbytheimpostlawsofthiscommonwealthincaseofseizureisdirected.And
moreover,allandeverypersonandpersonssobuilding,fittingout,manning,equipping
orotherwisepreparingorsendingawayanyshiporvessel,knowingorintendingthat
thesameshallbeemployedinsuchtradeorbusiness,contrarytothetrueintentand
meaningofthisact,orinanywiseaidingorabettingtherein,shallseverallyforfeitand
paythesumofonethousandpounds,onemoietythereoftotheuseofthe
commonwealth,andtheothermoietythereoftotheuseofhimorherwhowillsuefor
thesame,byaction,debt,bill,plaintorinformation.

21

Andwhereas,thepracticeofseparating,whichistoooftenexercisedbythemasters
andmistressesofnegroandmulattoslaves,orservantsfortermofyears,inseparating
husbandsandwives,andparentsandchildren,requirestobechecked,sofarasthe
samemaybedonewithoutprejudicetosuchmastersormistresses:

22

6.Ifanyowerorpossessorofanynegro,mulattoslaveorslaves,orservantor
servantsfortermofyears,shall,fromandafterthefirstdayofJulynext,separateor
remove,orcausetobeseparatedorremoved,ahusbandfromhiswife,orwifefromher
husband,achildfromhisorherparents,oraparentfromachild,oranyoreitherofthe
descriptionsaforesaid,toagreaterdistancethantenmiles,withthedesignand
intentionofchangingthehabitationorplaceofabodeofsuchhusbandorwife,parent
orchild,unlesssuchchildshallbeabovetheageoffouryears,withouttheconsentof
suchslaveorservantforlifeoryearsshallhavebeenobtainedandtestifiedinthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

4/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

mannerhereinbeforedescribed,suchpersonorpersonsshallseverallyforfeitandpay
thesumoffiftypounds,withcostsofsuit,foreverysuchoffence,toberecoveredby
actionofdebt,bill,plaintorinformation,inthesupremecourtorinanycourtof
commonpleas,atthesuitofanypersonwhowillsueforthesameonemoietythereof,
whenrecovered,fortheuseoftheplaintiffs,theothermoietyfortheuseofthepoorof
thecity,township,orplacefromwhichsaidhusbandorwife,parentorchild,shallhave
beentakenandremoved.
23

Andthejurorsfurtherfound,thatatasessionofthegeneralassemblyofthe
commonwealthofPennsylvania,holdenatHarrisburg,onthe25thdayofMarch1826,
thefollowinglawwaspassed,'Anacttogiveeffecttotheprovisionsoftheconstitution
oftheUnitedStatesrelativetofugitivesfromlabor,fortheprotectionoffreepeopleof
color,andpreventkidnapping.'

24

1.Ifanypersonorpersonsshall,fromandafterthepassingofthisact,byforceand
violence,takeandcarryaway,orcausetobetakenorcarriedaway,andshall,byfraud
orfalsepretence,seduce,orcausetobeseduced,orshallattemptsototake,carryaway
orseduce,anynegroormulatto,fromanypartorpartsofthiscommonwealth,toany
otherplaceorplaceswhatsoever,outofthiscommonwealth,withadesignand
intentionofsellinganddisposingof,orofcausingtobesold,orofkeepingand
detaining,orofcausingtobekeptanddetained,suchnegroormulatto,asaslaveor
servantforlife,orforanytermwhatsoever,everysuchpersonorpersons,hisortheir
aidersorabettors,shallonconvictionthereof,inanycourtofthiscommonwealth
havingcompetentjurisdiction,bedeemedguiltyofafelony,andshallforfeitandpay,at
thediscretionofthecourtpassingthesentence,asumnotlessthanfivehundred,nor
morethanonethousanddollars,onehalfwhereofshallbepaidtothepersonorpersons
whoshallprosecuteforthesame,andtheotherhalftothiscommonwealthand
moreover,shallbesentencedtoundergoaservitudeforanytermortermsnotlessthan
sevenyears,norexceedingtwentyoneyears,andshallbeconfinedandkepttohard
labor,fedandclothedinthemannerasisdirectedbythepenallawsofthis
commonwealthforpersonsconvictedofrobbery.

25

2.Ifanypersonorpersonsshall,hereafter,knowinglysell,transferorassign,or
shall,knowingly,purchase,takeortransferanassignmentofanynegroormulatto,for
thepurposeoffraudulentlyremoving,exportingorcarryingsaidnegroormulattoout
ofthisstate,withthedesignorintent,byfraudorfalsepretences,ofmakinghimorher
aslaveorservantforlife,orforanytermwhatsoever,everypersonsooffendingshallbe
deemedguiltyofafelony,andonconvictionthereof,shallforfeitandpayafineofnot
lessthanfivehundreddollars,normorethantwothousanddollars,onehalfwhereof
shallbepaidtothepersonorpersonswhoshallprosecuteforthesame,andtheother
halftothecommonwealthandmoreover,shallbesentenced,atthediscretionofthe
court,toundergoaservitudeforanytermortimenotlessthansevenyears,nor
exceedingtwentyoneyears,andshallbeconfined,kepttohardlabor,fedandclothed
inthesamemannerasisdirectedbythepenallawsofthiscommonwealthforpersons
convictedofrobbery.

26

3.WhenapersonheldtolabororservitudeinanyoftheUnitedStates,orineither
oftheterritoriesthereof,underthelawsthereof,shallescapeintothiscommonwealth,
thepersontowhomsuchlabororserviceisdue,hisorherdulyauthorizedagentor
attorney,constitutedinwriting,isherebyauthorizedtoapplytoanyjudge,justiceofthe
peaceoralderman,who,onsuchapplication,supportedbytheoathoraffirmationof
suchclaimant,orauthorizedagentorattorneyasaforesaid,thatthesaidfugitivehath
escapedfromhisorherservice,orfromtheserviceofthepersonforwhomheisduly
constitutedagentorattorney,shallissuehiswarrant,underhishandandseal,and
directedtothesheriff,oranyconstableofthepropercityorcounty,authorizingand
empoweringsaidsherifforconstable,toarrestandseizethesaidfugitive,whoshallbe
namedinsaidwarrant,andtobringsaidfugitivebeforeajudgeofthepropercounty,
whichsaidwarrantshallbeintheformortothefollowingeffect:

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

5/70

7/31/2015

27

41U.S.539

'StateofPennsylvania,_____county,ss.

28

TheCommonwealthofPennsylvania,tothesherifforanyconstableof_____
county,greeting:Whereas,itappearsbytheoath,orsolemnaffirmation,of_____
_____,that__________,washeldtolabororserviceto__________,of_____
county,inthestateof_____,andthesaid__________hathescapedfromthelabor
andserviceofthesaid__________:Youarethereforecommanded,toarrestand
seizethebodyofthesaid__________,ifhebefoundinyourcounty,andbringhim
forthwithbeforethepersonissuingthewarrant,ifajudge(orifajusticeofthepeaceor
alderman)beforeajudgeofthecourtofcommonpleas,orofthedistrictcourt,asthe
casemaybe,ofyourpropercounty,orrecorderofacity,sothatthetruthofthematter
maybeinquiredinto,andthesaid__________bedealtwithastheconstitutionofthe
UnitedStates,andthelawsofthiscommonwealthdirect.Witnessoursaidjudge(or
alderman,orjustice,asthecasemaybe),atthis___dayof_____,intheyearofour
Lordonethousandeighthundredand_____.

29

Byvirtueofsuchwarrantthepersonnamedthereinmaybearrestedbytheproper
sherifforconstabletowhomthesameshallbedelivered,withinthepropercityor
county.

30

4.Nojudge,justiceofthepeaceoraldermanshallissueawarrantontheapplication
ofanyagentorattorney,asprovidedinthesaidthirdsection,unlessthesaidagentor
attorneyshall,inadditiontohisownoathoraffirmation,producetheaffidavitofthe
claimantofthefugitive,takenbeforeandcertifiedbyajusticeofthepeaceorother
magistrateauthorizedtoadministeroaths,inthestateorterritoryinwhichsuch
claimantshallreside,andaccompaniedbythecertificateoftheauthorityofsuchjustice
orothermagistrate,toadministeroaths,signedbytheclerkorprothonotary,and
authenticatedbythesealofacourtofrecord,insuchstateorterritorywhichaffidavit
shallstatethesaidclaimant'stitletotheserviceofsuchfugitive,andalsothename,age
anddescriptionofthepersonofsuchfugitive.

31

5.Itshallbethedutyofanyjudge,justiceofthepeaceoralderman,whenhegrants
orissuesanywarrantundertheprovisionsofthethirdsectionofthisact,tomakeafair
recordonhisdocketofthesame,inwhichheshallenterthenameandplaceof
residenceofthepersononwhoseoathoraffirmationthesaidwarrantmaybegranted
andalso,ifanaffidavitshallhavebeenproducedundertheprovisionsofthefourth
sectionofthisact,thenameandplaceofresidenceofthepersonmakingsuchaffidavit,
andtheageanddescriptionofthepersonoftheallegedfugitivecontainedinsuch
affidavit,andshall,withintendaysthereafter,fileacertifiedcopythereofintheofficeof
theclerkofthecourtofgeneralquartersessionsofthepeace,ormayor'scourtofthe
propercityorcountyandanyjudge,justiceofthepeaceoraldermanwhoshallrefuse
orneglecttocomplywiththeprovisionsofthissection,shallbedeemedguiltyofa
misdemeanorinoffice,andshall,onconvictionthereof,besentencedtopay,atthe
discretionofthecourt,anysumnotexceedingonethousanddollars,onehalftothe
partyprosecutingforthesame,andtheotherhalftothecommonwealth.Andany
sherifforconstable,receivingandexecutingthesaidwarrant,shall,wlthout
unnecessarydelay,carrythepersonarrestedbeforethejudge,accordingtotheexigency
ofthewarrant.Andanysherifforconstable,whoshallrefuseorwilfullyneglectsoto
do,shall,onconvictionthereof,besentencedtopay,atthediscretionofthecourt,any
sumnotexceedingfivehundreddollars,onehalftothepartyprosecutingforthesame,
andtheotherhalftothecommonwealth,orshallalsobesentencedtoimprisonment,at
hardlabor,foratimenotexceedingsixmonths,orboth.

32

6.Thesaidfugitivefromlabororservice,whensoarrested,shallbebroughtbeforea
judgeasaforesaid,anduponproof,tothesatisfactionofsuchjudge,thatthepersonso
seizedorarresteddoth,underthelawsofthestateorauthorityfromwhichsheorhefled
fromserviceorlabor,tothepersonclaiminghimorher,itshallbethedutyofsuch
judgetogiveacertificatethereoftosuchclaimant,hisorherdulyauthorizedagentor

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

6/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

attorney,whichshallbesufficientwarrantforremovingthesaidfugitivetothestateor
territoryfromwhichsheorhefled:Provided,thattheoathoftheownerorowners,or
otherpersoninterested,shallinnocasebereceivedinevidencebeforethejudge,onthe
hearingofthecase.
33

7.Whenthefugitiveshallbebroughtbeforethejudge,agreeablytotheprovisionsof
thisact,andeitherpartyallegeandprovetothesatisfactionofthesaidjudge,thatheor
sheisnotpreparedfortrial,andhavetestimonymaterialtothematterincontroversy,
thatcanbeobtainedinareasonabletime,itshallandmaybelawful,unlesssecurity,
satisfactorytothesaidjudge,begivenfortheappearanceofthesaidfugitive,onaday
certain,tocommitthesaidfugitivetothecommonjailforsafekeepingtheretobe
detainedattheexpenseoftheowner,agentorattorney,forsuchtimeasthejudgeshall
thinkreasonableandjust,andtoadaycertain,whenthesaidfugitiveshallbebrought
beforehimbyhabeascorpusinthecourthouseofthepropercounty,orintermtime,at
thechamberofthesaidjudge,forfinalhearingandadjudication:Provided,thatifthe
adjournmentofthehearingberequestedbytheclaimant,hisagentorattorney,such
adjournmentshallnotbegranted,unlessthesaidclaimant,hisagentorattorney,shall
givesecurity,satisfactorytothejudge,toappearandprosecutehisclaim,onthedayto
whichthehearingshallbeadjourned:Provided,thatonthehearinglastmentioned,if
thejudgecommittingthesaidfugitive,ortakingthesecurityasaforesaid,shouldbe
absent,sick,orotherwiseunabletoattend,itshallbethedutyofeitheroftheother
judges,onnoticegiven,toattendtothesaidhearing,andtodecidethereon.

34

8.Theofficerwhichmayorshallbeemployedintheexecutionofthedutiesofthis
actshallbeallowedthesamefeesforserviceofprocessthatsheriffswithinthis
commonwealtharenowallowedforservingprocessincriminalcases,andtwodollars
andfiftycentsperdayforeachandeverydaynecessarilyspentinperformingtheduties
enjoinedonthembythisactstobepaidbytheowner,agentorattorney,immediately
ontheperformanceofthedutiesaforesaid.

35

9.Noaldermanorjusticeofthepeaceofthiscommonwealthshallhavejurisdiction
ortakecognisanceofthecaseofanyfugitivefromlaborfromanyoftheUnitedStates
orterritories,underacertainactofcongress,passedonthetenthdayofFebruary1793,
entitled'anactrespectingfugitivesfromjustice,andpersonsescapingfromtheservice
oftheirmasters'norshallanyaldermanorjusticeofthepeaceofthiscommonwealth
issueorgrantanycertificateorwarrantofremovalofanysuchfugitivefromlaboras
aforesaid,exceptinthemannerandtotheeffectprovidedinthethirdsectionofthisact,
upontheapplication,affidavitortestimonyofanypersonorpersonswhatsoever,under
thesaidactofcongress,orunderanyotherlaw,authorityoractofthecongressofthe
UnitedStatesandifanyaldermanorjusticeofthepeaceofthiscommonwealthshall,
contrarytotheprovisionofthisact,takecognisanceorjurisdictionofthecaseofany
suchfugitiveasaforesaid,exceptinthemannerhereinbeforeprovided,orshallgrantor
issueanycertificateorwarrantofremovalasaforesaid,thenandineithercase,heshall
bedeemedguiltyofamisdemeanorinoffice,andshall,onconvictionthereof,be
sentencedtopay,atthediscretionofthecourt,anysumnotlessthanfivehundred
dollars,norexceedingonethousanddollars,onehalfthereof,tothepartyprosecuting
forthesame,andtheotherhalftotheuseofthecommonwealth.

36

10.Itshallbethedutyofthejudgeorrecorderofanycourtofrecordinthis
commonwealth,whenhegrantsorissuesanycertificateorwarrantofremovalofany
negroormulattoclaimedtobeafugitivefromlabortothestateorterritoryfromwhich
heorshefled,inpursuanceofanactofcongresspassedthe12thdayofFebruary1793,
entitled'anactrespectingfugitivesfromjusticeandpersonsescapingfromtheservice
oftheirmasters,'andofthisact,tomakeafairrecordofthesame,inwhichheshall
entertheage,name,sexandgeneraldescriptionofthepersonofthenegroormulatto
forwhomheshallgrantsuchcertificateorwarrantofremoval,togetherwiththe
evidenceandthenameoftheplacesofresidenceofthewitnesses,andtheparty
claimingsuchnegroormulatto,andshall,withintendaysthereafter,fileacertified

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

7/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

copythereofintheofficeoftheclerkofthecourtofgeneralquartersessionsofthe
peace,ormayor'scourtofthecityorcountyinwhichhemayreside.
37

11.Nothinginthisactcontainedshallbeconstruedasarepealoralterationofany
partofanactofassemblypassedthefirstdayofMarch,1780,entitled'anactforthe
gradualabolitionofslavery,'excepttheeleventhsectionofsaidact,whichishereby
repealedandsuppliednorofanypartofanactofassemblypassedonthe28thdayof
March1788,entitled'anacttoexplainandamendanactforthegradualabolitionof
slavery,'exceptthe7thsectionofthislastmentionedact,whichisherebysuppliedand
repealed.

38

Andthejurorsfurtherfound,thatthenegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,inthewithin
indictmentmentioned,cameintothestateofPennsylvaniafromthestateofMaryland,
sometimeintheyear1832thatatthattime,andforalongperiodbeforethattime,she
wasaslaveforlife,heldtolabor,andowingserviceorlabor,underandaccordingtothe
lawsofthesaidstateofMaryland,oneoftheUnitedStates,toacertainMargaret
Ashmore,acitizenofthestateofMaryland,residinginHarfordcountyandthatthe
saidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,escapedandfledfromthestateofMaryland,
withouttheknowledgeandconsentofthesaidMargaretAshmorethatinthemonthof
February1837,thewithinnameddefendant,EdwardPrigg,wasdulyandlegally
constitutedandappointedbythesaidMargaretAshmore,heragentorattorney,toseize
andarrestthesaidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,asafugitivefromlabor,andto
remove,takeandcarryherfromthisstateintothestateofMaryland,andtheredeliver
hertothesaidMargaretAshmorethatassuchagentorattorney,thesaidEdwardPrigg,
afterwards,andinthesamemonthofFebruary1837,beforeacertainThomas
Henderson,Esquire,thenbeingajusticeofthepeaceinandforthecountyofYork,in
thisstate,madeoaththatthesaidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,hadfledand
escapedfromthestateofMaryland,owingserviceorlaborforlife,underthelaws
thereofTothesaidMargaretAshmorethatthesaidThomasHenderson,sobeingsuch
justiceofthepeaceasaforesaid,thereuponissuedhiswarrant,directedtooneWilliam
McCleary,thenandtherebeingaregularlyappointedconstableinandforYorkcounty,
commandinghimtotakethesaidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,andherchildren,
andbringthembeforethesaidThomasHenderson,orsomeotherjusticeofthepeace
forsaidcountythatthesaidMcCleary,inobediencetosaidwarrant,didaccordingly
takeandapprehendthesaidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,andherchildren,inYork
countyaforesaid,anddidbringherandthembeforethesaidThomasHendersonthat
thesaidHendersonthereuponrefusedtotakefurthercognisanceofsaidcase,andthat
thesaidPriggafterwards,andwithoutcomplyingwiththeprovisionsofthesaidactof
thegeneralassemblyofthecommonwealthofPennsylvania,passedthe25thofMarch
1826,entitled'anacttogiveeffecttotheprovisionsoftheconstitutionoftheUnited
Statesrelativetofugitivesfromlabor,fortheprotectionoffreepeopleofcolor,andto
preventkidnapping,'didtake,removeandcarryawaythesaidnegrowoman,Margaret
Morgan,andherchildren,mentionedinsaidwarrant,outofthisstate,intothestateof
Maryland,anddidtheredeliverthesaidwomanandchildrenintothecustodyand
possessionofthesaidMargaretAshmore.Andfurthersay,thatoneofthesaidchildren
sotaken,removedandcarriedaway,wasborninthisstate,morethanoneyearafterthe
saidnegrowoman,MargaretMorgan,hadfledandescapedfromthestateofMaryland
asaforesaid.

39

Butwhetherornot,uponthewholematteraforesaid,bythejurorsaforesaidinform
aforesaidfound,thesaidEdwardPriggbeguiltyinmannerandformashestands
indicted,thejurorsaforesaidarealtogetherignorant,andtherefore,praytheadviceof
thecourtandif,uponthewholematteraforesaid,itshallseemtothesaidcourt,that
thesaidEdwardPriggisguilty,thenthejurorsaforesaid,upontheiroathsaforesaid,say
thatthesaidEdwardPriggisguiltyinmannerandformashestandsindicted.Butif,
uponthewholematteraforesaid,itshallseemtothesaidcourt,thatthesaidEdward
Priggisnotguilty,thenthejurorsaforesaid,upontheiroathsaforesaid,saythatthesaid

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

8/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

EdwardPriggisnotguiltyinmannerandformashestandsindicted.
40

Thisspecialverdictwas,underanagreementbetweenMessrs.MeredithandNelson,
counselforEdwardPrigg,andMr.Johnson,AttorneyGeneralofPennsylvania,taken
undertheprovisionofanactoftheassemblyofPennsylvania,passed22dofMay1839
andbyagreement,thecourtgavejudgmentagainstEdwardPrigg,onthefindingofthe
juryandtheindictment.Thedefendantprosecutedawritoferrortothesupremecourt
ofPennsylvania,toMayterm1840.Onthe23dMay1840,thefollowingerrorswere
assignedbeforethecourt,byMr.MeredithandMr.Nelson,whorepresentedthestateof
Maryland,aswellasthedefendant.Theplaintiffinerrorsuggeststothesupremecourt
here,thatthejudgmentrenderedinthecourtofoyerandterminerorYorkcountyin
thiscase,shouldbereversedforthereasonfollowing,viz:Thattheactofassemblyofthe
commonwealthofPennsylvania,setoutintherecordinthesaidcause,isrepugnantto
theprovisionsoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andisthereforevoid.The
supremecourtaffirmed,proforma,thejudgmentofthecourtofoyerandterminer
andthedefendant,EdwardPrigg,prosecutedthiswritoferror.

41

Thecasewasargued,fortheplaintiffinerror,byMeredithandNelson,under
authoritytoappearinthecaseforthestateofMarylandandbyJohnson,Attorney
GeneralofPennsylvania,andHambly,forthecommonwealthofPennsylvania.

42

Theargumentsofallthecounsel,withtheexceptionofthatofMr.Nelson(whichhas
notbeenreceived),havebeenbythem,respectively,furnishedtothereporter.

43

Thecounselfortheplaintiffinerrorcontended:ThatthelawofPennsylvania,on
whichtheindictmentofthedefendantfounded,wasunconstitutional:1.Because
congresshastheexclusivepoweroflegislationuponthesubjectmatterofthesaid
constitutionalprovision,whichpowerhasbeenexercisedbytheactofthe12thFebruary
1793.2.Thatifthispowerisnotexclusive,stilltheconcurrentpowerofthestate
legislaturesissuspended,bytheactualexerciseofthefederalpower.3.Thatifnot
suspended,stillthestatuteofPennsylvania,inallitsprovisionsapplicabletothiscase,is
indirectcollisionwiththeactofcongressitis,therefore,unconstitutionalandvoid.

44

Meredith,forthestateofMaryland,interposinginbehalfoftheplaintiffinerror,
advertedtothespecialactofthelegislatureofPennsylvania,ofthe22dofMay1839,as
theresultofanegotiationbetweenthatstateandMaryland,theobjectofwhichwas,to
settle,bytheauthoritativedecisionofthesupremecourtoftheUnion,thepowerof
statelegislation,overthatprovisionoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStateswhich
relatestofugitiveslaves.Hethenbrieflystatedthefactsoftheparticularcase,asfound
bythespecialverdictandreferringtotheprovisionsoftheactofcongressofthe12thof
February1793,respectingfugitivesfromjustice,andpersonsescapingfromtheservice
oftheirmasters,andtotheseveralsectionsofthePennsylvanialawofthe25thof
March1826,whichhavegivenrisetothecontroversybetweenthetwostates,he
remarked,thatthevalidityofthislawdependedentirelyupontheconstitutionalityof
theactofcongress.Ifthatactwasconstitutionallypassed,heargued,thatitwaswholly
immaterialtoinquire,whetheritwaspassedintheexerciseofanexclusiveorofa
concurrentpoweroflegislationbecause,ineithercase,theconclusionwouldbethe
same.ThePennsylvanialawmustbedeclaredinoperativeandvoid,andthejudgmentof
hercourts,whichhewasabouttoexamine,mustnecessarilybereversed.

45

Ifthisshouldappeartobeaproperviewofthequestionpresentedbytherecordifit
dependedsolelyupontheconstitutionalityoftheactofcongressthewholematter,as
hebelieved,wouldbefoundtoliewithinverynarrowlimits.But,undoubtedly,thecause
itself,lookingtotheconsequencesofitsdecisionbythetribunalheaddressed,wasone
ofdeepandprevadinginterest.Itinvolvedmattersofhighconcernment,notonlytothe
twosovereignstates,whichstoodbeforethecourtastheimmediatepartiestothe
controversybuttothoseotherstatesoftheUnion,which,withreferencetothe
questionsatissue,occupiedthesamerelativeposition.Indeed,itwould,perhaps,benot

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

9/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

toomuchtosay,thatthecasewasoneofvitalinteresttothepeaceandperpetuityofthe
Unionitself.Forhebelieved,thattotheinterferenceofstatelegislation,mightjustlybe
ascribedmuchofthatexasperationofpublicsentiment,whichunhappilyprevailed
uponasubjectthatseemedeverydaytoassumeamoremalignantandthreatening
aspect.Itwasfit,therefore,thatsuchacauseshouldreceivenotonlyacareful,buta
thoroughexamination,beforeitwasfinallypasseduponbytheconclusivejudgmentof
thecourt.
46

Thathemightrenderwhatassistancewasinhispowertothisend,heproposedto
considerthecase,withaviewofmaintainingthethreefollowingpropositions:1.That
congresshastheexclusivepoweroflegislationuponthesubjectmatterofthe
constitutionalprovisioninquestion.2.Thatifthepowerisnotexclusive,still,fromits
verynature,theconcurrentpowerofthestatelegislaturesissuspendedbytheactual
exerciseofthefederalpower.3.Thatifthepowerisnotsuspendedoverthewhole
subjectmatteroftheprovision,stillitcannotbeconstitutionallyexercised,soasto
conflictwithfederallegislationandconsequently,thatthelawofPennsylvania,sofar
asitwasappliedupontheindictmenttothecaseoftheplaintiffinerror,isvoidand
inoperativebecauseitsprovisionsareindirectcollisionwiththoseoftheactof
congress.

47

Beforeproceedingtodiscussthesepropositions,heobserved,thattherewasa
preliminaryinquiryonwhichitwouldbepropertobestowabriefattention.Andthat
was,whetherthisconstitutionalprovisionrequiredlegislationwhetherpropriovigore,
itwasnotsufficientofitself,andbyitself,toeffectuatetheobjectitcontemplated.He
didnot,itwastrue,anticipatesuchaconstructionfromthelearnedcounselforthestate
ofPennsylvaniafor,ifsuccessfullymaintained,itwouldbefataltotheircase.Because
itwasclear,beyondalldoubt,thatifthelegislationofcongressisinhibited,onthe
groundthattheconstitutionneitherintendsnorrequireslegislativeregulation,the
samereasonmustnecessarilyexcludethelegislationofthestatesandtherefore,in
referencetothepresentcase,iftheconstitutioneffectsitsownpurposes,byitsown
unassistedstrength,thelawofPennsylvaniawhichprofessesbyitstitle'togiveeffectto
theprovisionsoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,relativetofugitivesfromlabor,'is
atbestamereworkoflegislativesupererogation,whollyfutileandinoperative.Itwas
not,therefore,hesaid,initsdirectbearinguponthecase,thathedeemedtheinquiry
importantbutbecause,elsewhere,inlegislativeassemblies,aswellasinjudicial
forums,thisconstructionhadbeensogravelyinsistedonastodeserve,atleast,a
passingnotice.

48

Averybriefexaminationoftheprovisionintheconstitutionwould,hethought,make
itmanifest,thatitlookstosubsequentlegislativeenactments.Thefirstclauseprohibits
thestatesfrompassinganylaw,oradoptinganyregulation,bywhichfugitivesfrom
labormaybedischargedfromservice.Iftheprovisionhadstoppedthere,headmitted,
thatlegislationwouldhavebeenunnecessarybecauseastatelaw,inviolationofso
expressaprohibition,wouldbeipsofactovoidandthejudicialpower,extendingtoall
casesarisingundertheconstitution,wouldbeunquestionablycompetentsotodeclare
it.Butthenextclauseoftheprovisionisofadifferentcharacter.Itguarantiesaright
andenjoinsadutyitdeclares,thatthefugitiveshallbedeliveredup,onclaim,tothe
partytowhomhisserviceorlabormaybedue.Here,then,aretwoactstobedone.A
claimistobemadebutthemodeinwhichitistobemade,andtheformstobe
observedinmakingit,arenotprovidedfor.Again,adeliveryisrequiredbutfrom
whom,andinwhatmanner,andonwhatcondition,theconstitutiondoesnot
prescribe.Regulationsuponthesepointswereindispensabletoeffectuatetheobject,
andtheywerelefttolegislativeenactments.Andveryproperlyso,becauseitistheoffice
ofawrittenconstitutiontoestablishgeneralprinciplesonly,leavingthemtobecarried
outbyfuturelegislation.

49

Mr.Merediththenadvertedtothehistoryandoriginoftheactofcongress,ofthe12th
ofFebruary1793,asthestrongestillustrationofthenecessityofsuchlegislationand

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

10/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

forthispurposereferredtothefirstvolumeofStatePapers,titleMiscellaneous,page
38,etseq.Itappearedfromthesedocuments,thatintheyear1791,buttwoyearsafter
theorganizationofthegovernment,thegovernorofPennsylvania,undertheanalogous
provisionintheconstitutionrelativetofugitivesfromjustice,madeademanduponthe
governorofVirginiaforthesurrenderanddeliveryofthreepersons,whohadbeen
indictedinPennsylvaniaforkidnappinganegro,andcarryinghimintoVirginia.The
governorofVirginiahesitateduponthecoursetobepursued,andreferredthematterto
theattorneygeneralofthatstate,whoadvisedthatthedemandoughtnottobe
compliedwith.
50

Inanelaborateopinion,towhichthecourtwasreferred,hetookseveralobjections
andamongthem,theonemoststrenuouslyinsistedonwas,thattheconstitutionhad
providednomeans,andprescribednomethod,forcarryingtheprovisionintoeffect.
Andthatcongresshadnotsuppliedsuchmeansbyanylawuponthesubject.'If,'hesaid,
'thedeliveryandremovalinquestioncanbeeffected,itmustbeundertheauthority
onlyoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Bythat,thedeliveryisrequired,andthe
removalauthorizedbutthemannerinwhicheithershallbeeffectedisnotprescribed.'
Andagain,'thedemandcannotbecompliedwithbythegovernorofVirginia,without
someadditionalprovisionbylaw,toenablehimtodoso.'Thegovernoradoptedthis
viewofthesubject,andexpressedahope,incommunicatinghisrefusal,thatthecase
wouldfurnishaninducementtocongresstolegislateatonceupontheconstitutional
provision.Uponthisrefusal,thegovernorofPennsylvaniaaddressedacommunication
tothepresidentoftheUnitedStates,inwhichhesays,'Astheattorneygeneralof
Virginiahassuggestedanotherdifficultywithrespecttothemodeofarrestingpersons
asfugitivesfromjustice,Ihavethoughtthepresentaproperoccasiontobringthe
subjectintoyourviewthatbytheinterpositionofthefederallegislature,towhose
considerationyoumaybepleasedtosubmitit,suchregulationsmaybeestablished,as
willinfutureobviatealldoubtandembarrassmentuponaconstitutionalquestionso
delicateandimportant.'Thepresident,itappears,laidtheseproceedings,withthe
opinionoftheattorneygeneraloftheUnitedStates,beforecongressandtheresult
was,thatatthesamesession,theact,asitnowstandsuponthestatutebook,was
reportedbyacommitteeandwasfinallypassedwithoutopposition,onthe12thof
February1793.

51

Theorigin,then,ofthisactofcongress,sostronglyillustrativeofthedifficultiesand
embarrassmentswhichwouldcontinuallyhavearisen,ifthearticleoftheconstitution
referredtohadbeenlefttoexecuteitself,dispenseswiththenecessityofallfurther
argumentuponthispartofthesubject.Foritisscarcelynecessarytoremark,thatthe
samedifficultiesandembarrassmentswouldhaveariseninreferencetotheprovision
regardingfugitivesfromlabor,butfortheenactmentsofthelawof1793.Indeed,in
lookingtobothprovisions,itwouldbefound,thatthenecessityoflegislationis
obviouslymuchless,inthatwhichconcernsfugitivesfromjustice,thanintheonenow
moreimmediatelyunderconsideration.Theactofcongresshadneverbeenquestioned
uponthisground,tillthecaseofJackv.Martincamebeforethecourtoferrorsofthe
stateofNewYork.Andeveninthatcase,itwasamereintimationthrownoutbythe
chancellor,butneitherreasonedout,norreliedon.Ineveryothercase,ithasbeen
takenforgranted,thatlegislationwasnecessarytoeffect.uatetheobjectoftheframers
oftheconstitution.InWrightv.Deacon,5Serg.&Rawle63,ChiefJusticeTILGHMAN,
afterquotingtheprovision,says,'Hereistheprinciplethefugitiveistobedeliveredon
claimofhismaster.Butitrequiredalawtoregulatethemannerinwhichthisprinciple
shouldbereducedtopractice.Itwasnecessarytoestablishsomemodeinwhichthe
claimshouldbemade,andthefugitivebedeliveredup.'Soalso,inthecaseofthe
Commonwealthv.Griffith,2Pick.11,PARKER,ChiefJustice,says,'Theconstitution
doesnotprescribethemodeofreclaimingaslave,butleavesittobedeterminedby
congress.Itisveryclear,thatitwasnotintendedthatapplicationshouldbemadetothe
executiveauthorityofthestate.'

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

11/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

52

Itbeingthenindisputable,asthecounselthought,thattheconstitutionlooksto,and
requirestheaidoflegislationtoaccomplishitspurposeheproceededtoargue,thatthis
legislationwasintendedtobefederal,andexclusiveofstatelegislation.Why,heasked,
wastheprovisionintroducedintotheconstitution?Thecolonialhistoryofthecountry
wouldshow,thatatoneperiod,slaverywasrecognisedasalegalinstitutioninallthe
provincesandthatinallofthem,acustomaryorconventionallawprevailed,which
conferredupontheownerofafugitiveslavetherighttoreclaimhim,whereverhemight
befound.Beforethecloseoftherevolution,however,publicopinioninthenorthern
sectionofthecountryhadmateriallychanged,withregardtothepolicyandhumanityof
asystem,thathad,unfortunately,beenfasteneduponthecoloniesbythepowerofthe
mothercountry,withoutregardtotheirinterests,andindefinanceofrepeatedprotests.
In1780,Pennsylvaniapassedanactforthegradualabolitionofslavery.Inthesame
year,Massachusetts,byherDeclarationofRights,emancipatedherslaves.Andina
shorttimeafterwards,theseexampleswerefollowedbyall,ornearlyalloftheNew
EnglandStates.

53

Theinstitution,however,stillcontinuedtoexistinthesouth.Theclamateofthat
region,andtheproductsofitssoil,peculiarlyadaptedtothisspeciesoflabor,had
increasedtheslavepopulationtosogreatanumber,that,atthecloseoftherevolution,
thesystemhadsointerwineditselfwiththevitalinterestsofprivateproperty,andwith
themaintenanceofthepublicsafety,astorendereveryproject,evenofgradual
abolition,unsafeandimpracticable.Duringtheconfederation,thesouthernstateshad
sustainedgreatinconveniencesandloss,bythechangethathadbeeneffectedbythe
abolitionlawsofthenorthernstates.Theconventionalorcustomarylawwasnolonger
observed.Therewasnoprovisionuponthesubjectinthearticlesofconfederation.In
manyofthenorthernstates,noaidwhatsoeverwouldbeallowedtotheownersof
fugitivesslavesandsometimes,indeed,theymetwithopenresistance.3Story'sCom.
Const.677.'Atpresent,'saidMr.Madison,intheVirginiaconvention,2Elliot'sDeb.
335,'ifanyslaveelopestoanyofthosestateswhereslavesarefree,hebecomes
emancipatedbytheirlawsforthelawsofthestatesareuncharitabletooneanotherin
thisrespect.'AndintheNorthCarolinaconvention,Mr.Iredellobserved,that,'insome
ofthenorthernstatestheyhaveemancipatedtheirslavesifanyofourslavesgothere,
theywould,bythepresentlaws,beentitledtotheirfreedom,sothattheirmasterscould
notgetthemagain.'

54

Itwasduringthisconflictoflaw,ofopinionsandofinterestsbetweenthenorthern
andsouthernstates,thattheconstitutionembracingtheprovisioninquestionwas
adopted.Thatprovision,itiswellknown,wastheresultofmutualconcessionsin
referencetothewholesubjectofslavery.Ontheonehand,thesouthagreedtoconfer
uponcongressthepowertoprohibittheimportationofslavesaftertheyear1808on
theother,thenorthagreedtorecogniseandprotecttheexistinginstitutionsofthe
southandforthatverypurpose,theclauseinquestionwasengrafteduponthe
constitution.Thehistoryofthetimesproves,thatthesouthregardedandrelieduponit,
asanamplesecuritytotheownersofslaveproperty.IntheVirginiaconvention,in
ordernosatisfythemindsofthepeople,thatpropertyofthisdescriptionwas
abundantlyprotected,GovernorRandolphheldthislanguage:'Wereitrighttomention
whatpassedinconventionontheoccasion,Imighttellyou,thatthesouthernstates
evenSouthCarolinaherselfconceivedthispropertytobesecuredbythesewords.'
Such,undoubtedly,wastheconfidenceofthewholesouth,intheintentionofthe
framersoftheconstitution.Suchwastheirintentionandifso,itwouldseemtofollow
asanecessaryconsequence,thattheymeanttocommitalllegislativepoweroverthe
subjectexclusivelytocongress.Theprovisionwasmanifestlyintendedtorestoretothe
souththerightswhichthecustomarylawhadformerlyextendedtothem,incommon
withtheothercolonies.Thoserightshadbeendisregardedbymanyofthestates.And
theapprehensionmusthaveforceditselfuponeverysouthernmindintheconvention,
thatiftheprovisionwerelefttobecarriedoutbystatelegislation,itmustprovebuta
precariousandinadequateprotection.Theprovision,itistrue,yieldedtherightofthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

12/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

ownertoreclaimthefugitive,inwhateverstatehemighthavesoughtrefugebutifthe
powertoregulatethemodeinwhichthisprovisionwastobecarriedintopracticaleffect
ifthepowerofenforcingitsexecutionwerelefttothestates,itcouldnotbuthave
beenforeseen,thatitswholepurposemightbedefeated.Thatthestatesmighteither
legislateornotintheonecase,leavingtheownerwithoutlegalmeanstovindicatehis
rightsintheother,embarrassingtheprosecutionofthem,soastodelayordefeatthem.
Inaword,toborrowthelanguageofChiefJusticeNELSON,whosewholeargument
uponthissubject,inthecaseofJackv.Martin,12Wend.311,isentitledtothemost
attentiveconsiderationofthecourt,'theideathattheframersoftheconstitution
intendedtoleavethelegislationofthissubjecttothestates,whentheprovisionitself
obviouslysprungoutoftheirfearsofpartialandunjustlegislationbythestates,in
respecttoit,cannotbeadmitted.'Theconfidenceofthesouth,couldonlyhavereposed
itselfincongress,'wheretherightsandinterestsofthedifferentsectionsofthecountry,
liabletobeinfluencedbylocalandpeculiarcauses,wouldberegulatedwithan
independentandimpartialregardtoall.'
55

Ifsuchwastheintentionoftheframersoftheconstitution,thenextinquiryis,
whetheritcanbeeffectuatedbytheexpressorimpliedpowersgrantedinthat
instrument.Congresshaslegislateduponthesubject.Buthaditaconstitutional
authoritytodoso?Isthepowerthusexerciseddirectlyorimpliedlygiven?In
conductingthisinquiry,itisproper,inthefirstplace,tolooktothecollateralsupports
onwhichthisactofcongressrestsforitsvalidity.Itwaspassedonlyfouryearsafterthe
adoptionoftheconstitution.Inthatcongress,weremanyoftheleadingandmost
distinguishedmenoftheconvention.Theactwasnotpassedhastilyforitwasreported
in1791,andfinallyactedonin1793.Itwasnotpassedwithoutfullconsiderationfor
theVirginiacase,andthedifferentopinions,lookingtofederalorstatelegislationupon
akindredsubject,werecommunicatedtocongressin1791.Here,them,isa
contemporaneousexpositionoftheconstitutionalprovision,intheactitself,whichhas
beenalwaysregardedbythiscourtasofveryhighauthority.Apracticalexposition,
which,inthelanguageofadistinguishedcommentator,approachesnearesttoajudicial
exposition.1Story'sCom.Const.392.Itis,indeed,theverycaseheputs,havingallthe
incidentsofsuchanexposition.Fortheauthorityofcongresstopassthislawwas
determinedaftersolemnconsideration,prorenata,uponadoubtraiseduponalis
mota,inthefaceofthenationwithaviewtopresentaction,andinthemidstof
jealousinterests.Tothissourceofcollateralinterpretation,ithasbeenalreadysaid,this
courtisinthehabitoflookingwithgreatrespect.Amongothercases,thoseofMartinv.
Hunter'sLessee,1Wheat.351,andCohensv.StateofVirginia,6Ibid.418,maybe
referredtoforthepurposeofshowingthatthecourthasresortedtocontemporary
constructiontopracticalexpositionsofconstitutionalpowersincasesofmuchmore
doubtanddifficultythanthepresent.

56

Butfurther,fromtheperiodofitsenactment,tillveryrecently,thisactofcongress
hasbeenacquiescedinpracticallyappliedinallthestates,andregardedascontaining
judiciousandsalutaryregulationsinreferencetoboththesubjectstowhichitrelates.
Oughtaconstruction,timehonoredasthisis,tobelightlydisturbed?Thiscourthas
alreadyansweredthequestion.Ithasheldapracticeandacquiescenceforamuch
shorterperiod,asfixingtheconstructionoftheconstitutiononaquestionofatleast
quiteasmuchdoubt.InthecaseofStuartv.Laird,1Cranch309,whichinvolvedthe
constitutionalityoftheprovisioninthejudiciaryactof1789,givingtothejudgesofthe
supremecourtcircuitcourtpowers,thecourtheldthislanguage:'Tothisobjection,
whichisofrecentdate,itissufficienttoobserve,thatpracticeandacquiescenceunder
itforaperiodofseveralyears,commencingwiththeorganizationofthejudicialsystem,
affordsanirresistibleanswer,andhas,indeed,fixedtheconstruction.Itisa
contemporaryinterpretationofthemostforciblenature.Thispracticalexpositionistoo
strongandobstinatetobeshakenorcontrolled.Ofcourse,thequestionisatrest,and
oughtnotnowtobedisturbed.'

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

13/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

57

Butinadditiontocontemporaneousexposition,andlongacquiescence,wehavethe
judicialdecisionsofthethreegreatnonslaveholdingstatesMassachusetts,NewYork
andPennsylvaniainwhichtheconstitutionalityofthisactofcongresswaschallenged
andsustained.Commonwealthv.Griffith,2Pick.11Wrightv.Deacon,5Serg.&Rawle
63Jackv.Martin,12Wend.312.So,too,ineverycasebeforethecircuitcourtofthe
UnitedStates,theprovisionsofthisactofcongresshavebeenjudiciallydealtwith,
withoutaquestionastoitsconstitutionality.Itissubmitted,therefore,thataveryclear
caseofconstructionoughttobemadeout,toshakeeventhecollateralsupportson
whichthislawrests.

58

Butifthequestioncanstillbeconsideredanopenone,thereisnodifficultyin
showingthatthepoweroflegislationinreferencetothissubjectisgrantedbythe
constitutiontocongress.Itwouldbestrange,ifitwerenotsostrange,ifuponasubject
ofsuchintenseandgeneralinterest,towhichthemindoftheconventionhadbeenso
directlycalled,theyhadlefttheirworkunfinishedtheirpurposeunaccomplished.It
hasbeensaid,however,andmayagainbesaid,thatthelegislativepowerofthefederal
governmentisalimitedonethattheconstitutionenumeratesthecasesinwhichitmay
beexercised,butthatthisisnotamongthenumber.Thatbesidestheseenumerated
cases,ageneralpowerisgiventocongresstopassalllawsnecessaryandpropertocarry
intoexecutionallpowersgrantedbytheconstitutiontothegovernment,oranyofits
departmentsorofficersbutthatthereisnopowersograntedinreferencetothis
provision.Isthisso?Theconstitutiondeclares,thatslavesescapingfromserviceshall
bedeliveredup,onclaim,tothepersontowhomsuchserviceshallbedue.Whatisthe
meaningofthesewords'onclaim?'Theylooktoaproceedingofajudicialcharacterto
anassertionoftherightofproperty,tobemadebeforeatribunalcompetenttojudge
anddecideandtoexecutethatdecision,byadeliveryoftheproperty,iftheclaimbe
established.Isnotthis,then,apartofthejudicialpower,whichextendstoallcasesat
lawandinequity,arisingundertheconstitution,lawsandtreatiesoftheUnitedStates?
Isnoteverysuchclaimalegalclaim?andwhenasserted,isitnotacaseatlawarising
undertheconstitution?If,then,thejudicialpowerextendstocasesfallingwithinthis
provisionoftheconstitution,congresshadanunquestionablerighttovestit.Itwasa
dutytovestitbecausethiscourthasdecidedthatthelanguageoftheconstitutionin
regardtotheimpartmentofthejudicialpowerisimperativeuponcongress.Martinv.
Hunter,1Wheat.304,316.

59

Thejudiciaryactof1789doesnotcoverthewholejudicialpowerunderthe
constitution.Subsequentlegislationhassuppliedmanyomissionsinthatact,ofwhich
theactof1793isaninstance,vestinginthecircuitanddistrictcourtsthatportionofthe
judicialpowerwhichisembracedbythesecondandthirdsectionsofthefourtharticle
oftheconstitution.

60

Itistrue,thattheactdoesnotprescribeajudicialproceedingaccordingtotheforms
ofthecommonlaw.ButinthesamecaseofMartinv.Hunter,thiscourthassaid,thatin
vestingthejudicialpower,congressmayparcelitoutinanymodeandforminwhichit
iscapableofbeingexercised.Theactcontemplatesasummaryproceeding,butstillofa
judicialcharacter.Itprovidesforthepreliminaryexaminationofafact,forthepurpose
ofauthorizingadeliveryandremovaltothejurisdictionmostproperforthefinal
adjudicationofthatfacttothestateonthelawsofwhichtheclaimtoservicedepends.
Butthisexaminationisjudicialinitscharacter.Theparties(claimantandalleged
fugitive),arebroughtwithinthejurisdictionthecaseistobeheardanddecidedupon
proofthecertificateisnottobegranted,unlessthejudgeshallbesatisfied,upon
evidence,thatthepartyisafugitiveowingservicetotheclaimant.Heacts,therefore,in
ajudicialcharacter,andexercisesjudicialfunctions.

61

If,then,congresspossessesthislegislativepower,whichhasbeenthusexercised,the
natureofthatpowerrequiresthatitshouldbeexclusive.Itcanonlybeefficaciousand
adequatetoitsobject,bybeingexclusive.Andifexclusive,eitherexpressly,orby
undeniableimplication,thesettledprincipleis,thatthestatesareasabsolutely

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

14/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

prohibitedfromlegislationasiftheywereexpresslyforbiddentolegislate.Sturgesv.
Crowninshield,4Wheat.122.Whatisthenatureofthepowerinthiscase?Whatisthe
objectofthisconstitutionalprovision?Itis,torestoretotheslaveholdingstates,
substantially,therightwhichtheconventionallawofthecoloniesgavethem.Itisto
conferuponthemanauthoritytoreclaimandremovetheirfugitiveslaves,withtheleast
possibleinconvenience,expenseanddelay.Tobeeffectualtothisend,itisobvious,that
themodeofproceedingoughttobeuniform.Andinordertoitsbeinguniform,the
powertoprescribethatmodeshouldbeexclusivelyvestedinonelegislativebody.If
therebeaconcurrentpoweroflegislationinthestates,witharighttoexercisethat
power,thenitfollows,thatthefugitivecouldonlybereclaimedaccordingtotheforms
ofstatelaws,irrespectiveoftheregulationsprescribedbycongress.Theconstitutional
guaranteewouldthusbecomeasoundingphrase,signifyingnothing.Statelegislation,
uponsuchasubject,wouldbecomethesportofprejudice.Differenttribunals,formsof
proceeding,andmodesofproof,wouldbeestablishedinthedifferentstates.Andthe
pursuingownerwouldfinditutterlyimpracticable,ignorantoftheparticularstateinto
whichthefugitivehadescaped,tomeettherequirementsofthelocallaw.Astillfurther
difficultywouldbeinseparablefromtheexistenceofaconcurrentpower.Statelaws
havenoobligatoryforcebeyondstatelimits.Acertificateofremovalwouldcarryno
authoritybeyondthoselimitsandconsequently,itwouldbenecessaryfortheownerto
makeanewclaim,offernewproofs,andobtainanewcertificateineverystatethrough
whichhemightbecompelledtopasstothestateofhisownresidence.Thenatureofthe
power,therefore,andtheeffectofitsactualexercisebythestates,raiseanimplication
sufficientlystrongtorenderitexclusive.
62

Butadmitittobeconcurrenttheprincipleistoofirmlyestablished,toadmitof
argument,thatinacaseofthiskind,wherethereisbutonesubjectmatterof
legislation,theconcurrentpowerofthestatesiswhollysuspendedbytheactionofthe
federalpower.ThedoctrineinHoustonv.Moore,5Wheat.1,isthis,thatwhereonce
congresshasexerciseditspoweronagivensubject,thestatepoweroverthesame
subject,whichhasbeforebeenconcurrent,is,bythatexercise,absolutelyprohibited.In
otherwords,wherevercongressexercisesaconcurrentpower,itismadeineffectan
exclusivepower,overtheparticularsubjectmatterofthepower.Thereare,itistrue,
casesofconcurrentpowersonwhichbothfederalandstatelegislationmayactatthe
sametimeandwherethelatterisnotsuspendedbytheactionoftheformer.Thus,the
exerciseofthetaxingpowerbycongressdoesnotsuspendtheconcurrentpowerofthe
states.Because,althoughthesamepower,itisexercisedondifferentobjects,orfor
differentpurposes.Butwherethepoweractsonthesamesubjectmatter,toaccomplish
thesameend,asinthiscase,thestatepowerisnecessarilysuspended.

63

Butiftheprinciplethusadvertedtowerenotapplicabletothiscase,thereisanother
whichwouldbeconclusive,andthatis,thatintheexerciseofconcurrentpowers,if
therebeaconflictbetweenfederalandstatelegislation,thelattermustyieldtothe
constitutionalsupremacyoftheformer.Itremains,then,onlytoshow,thatsucha
conflictexistsinthepresentcaseandaverycursoryexaminationandcomparisonof
thetwolawswillbeabundantlysufficientforthepurpose.Thus,theactofcongress
authorizestheclaimanttoarrestthefugitive,withoutawarrant.ThePennsylvanialaw
peremptorilyrequiresone.Theactofcongressadmitstheoathoftheownerorhis
agent,asproofoftheclaim.ThePennsylvanialawexcludesboth,andrequiresthe
testimonyofindifferentwitnesses.Theactofcongressprotectstheclaimantfromall
unnecessarydelayandexpense.ThePennsylvanialawauthorizesdelayuponthe
suggestionofthefugitiveandburdenstheclaimantwiththeincidentalcosts.Theactof
congressimposesapenaltyforobstructingorhinderingtheclaimantintheprosecution
andenforcementofhisrights.ThePennsylvanialawgiveshimnoredress.Inaword,
theregulationswhichthetwolawsprescribe,areinallessentialrespectsvariantfrom
eachother.Theobjectofbothmaybethesame,butthemeansofattainingitareentirely
different.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

15/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

64

Inconclusion,then,ofthewholematter.Theindictmentchargestheoffenceof
kidnapping,underthisstatelaw.Thespecialverdictexpresslyfinds,thatthefugitivewas
aslaveforlife,owingserviceandlaboraccordingtothelawsofMaryland.Thejudgment
ofthecourtwasagainstthepartythusindicted.Itfollows,thatinthejudgmentofthe
court,theoffenceofkidnapping,inPennsylvania,mayconsistinseizingandcarrying
outofthatstate,anacknowledgedslave,iftheprovisionsofthestatelawforhisarrest
andremovalarenotcompliedwith.Thespecialverdictfindsthatfact,andthejudgment
ofthecourtisfoundedonit.Theoffencechargedisnotthatthefugitivewasremoved
fromthestateofPennsylvania,withoutcomplyingwiththeprovisionsoftheactof
congress.Supposingthattobeanoffencepunishablebystateauthoritywhichitclearly
isnotitisnotanoffenceprovidedforbythislawnor,accordingtothetenthsection,
wouldanexactcompliancewiththeactofcongresshavebeenanyprotectiontothe
partyaccused.Thespecialverdictexpresslyfinds,thattheslavewascarriedoutofthe
state,withoutcomplyingwiththerequirementsofthislawofPennsylvania.Thatisthe
gravamenofthecharge.Andconsequently,ifthestateofPennsylvaniahasno
constitutionalpowertolegislateatalluponthesubject,thepowerbeingexclusivelyin
congressor,ifhavingoriginallyaconcurrentpower,ithasbeensuspendedbyitsactual
exercisebycongressorifthisstatelegislationisfoundtobeinconflictwiththefederal
legislationuponthesamesubjectmatterifeitherofthesepropositionshasbeen
successfullymaintained,thisjudgmentofconvictionoughttobereversed.

65

Hambly,forthedefendantinerror.Thefinaldecisionofagreatconstitutional
questionshouldatalltimesberegardedasasubjectforgraveconsiderationand
reflectioninasmuchasitmayaffectthehappinessandprosperity,thelivesandliberties
ofawholenation.Amongthepeopleofthisfreecountry,thereisnothingwhichshould
beguardedwithmorewatchfuljealousy,thanthecharteroftheirlibertieswhichbeing
thefundamentallawoftheland,initsjudicialconstruction,everyoneisimmediately
interested,fromthehighestdignitarytothemeanestsubjectofthecommonwealth.Any
irreverentialtouchgiventothisarkofpublicsafetyshouldberebuked,andevery
violencechastiseditssanctityshouldbenolessthanthatofthedomesticaltarits
guardiansshouldbeArguseyedandasthepriceofitspurchasewasblood,itsprivileges
andimmunitiesshouldbemaintained,evenifthispricemustbepaidagain.

66

Inallthesolemnconstitutionalquestionswhichhavebeenadjudicatedbeforethis,
thehighesttribunalintheland,noonehasarisenofmorecommandingimport,of
widerscopeinitsinfluence,oronwhichhungmightierresultsforgoodorilltothis
nation,thanthatwhichisnowpresentedtothecourtforconsideration.Anall
absorbingsubjectisincidentallyinvolvedinitasubjectwhichis,evennow,heaving
thepoliticaltidesofthecountry,whichhascausedenthusiasmtothrowherlighted
torchintothetemplesofreligion,andthehallsofscienceandlearning,whilstthe
forumofjustice,andthevillagebarroomhaveequallyresoundedwiththediscussion.
Itsinfluenceshavebeencalculatedbypoliticaleconomistsitsconsequencesand
determinationsbypoliticalprophetsuntilall,fromthestatesmaninthehallof
legislationtothefarmerathisfireside,arefoundarrayedononesideortheotherofthis
greatquestion,sothat,whilstithasbecome'soreasagangrene'inoneregion,itisthe
footballoftheenthusiastinanother.

67

Prigghavingbeenconvictedinthestatecourtsofacrimewhichthestatutesof
Pennsylvaniadesignateas'kidnapping,'thestateofMaryland,ofwhichheisacitizen,
nowraisestheobjectionthatthelawsofourstateareunconstitutionalandtotestthis
question,wearethisdayhere.Onthe25thofMarch1826,thegeneralassemblyof
Pennsylvaniapassedanact,thefirstsectionofwhichrendersitafelonytoseduceor
carryawayanynegroormulattofromthestateofPennsylvania,tomakethemslaves.
Mr.Hamblycited210oftheactof1826.Alltheprovisionsofthisactofthegeneral
assemblyareallegedtobeunconstitutionalandtheplaintiffinerrorsays,arein
contraventionoftheactofcongressandtheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Thethird
paragraphofthesecondsectionofarticle4thoftheconstitution,declares,'thatno

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

16/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

personheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthelawsthereof,escapinginto
another,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationtherein,bedischargedfromsuch
serviceorlabor,butshallbedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartytowhomsuchserviceor
labormaybedue.'Underthissection,somecontend,thattheownerofaslavehasa
right,withoutreferencetothemunicipallawsofthestateorterritorywherebehappens
tobe,toseizeandcarryawayanyallegedslave.Thatnolegislationisnecessary,eitherby
congressorthestatesthattheclauseisperfectinitself,andtotallyindependentand
thattheword'claim'meansdemandandsurrender,withoutinquiryorinvestigation!
Thatiflegislationbenecessary,congresshasexclusivelythatpower,hasalreadyacted,
exercisingitspoweroverthewholematter,andtherefore,allstatelegislationisvalid.
68

Theactofcongresswaspassed12thofFebruary1793andauthorizesthearrestofa
fugitivefromlabor,andtakinghimbeforeajudgeofthecircuitordistrictcourtsofthe
UnitedStates,orbeforeanymagistrateofacityortowncorporate,andupon
satisfactoryproof,thejudgeormagistrateshallgiveacertificatewhichshallbesufficient
warrantfortheremovalofthefugitive.Thesecondsectionfixedaforfeitureof$500on
anypersonwhoshallobstruct,hinder,rescueorharborsuchfugitive,&c.Inthe
argumentofthismatter,itisasserted,thatnolegislationisneededthatthe
constitutionalprovisionisampleandthatunderthephrase'shallbesurrendered,on
claim,'everythingwhichlegislationcangive,isalreadysecuredandthatunderthis
clause,apoweriscontained,invirtueofwhich,anyonemaystepintoacrowdandseize
andcarryoffanallegedslave,'justashewouldastrayhorse,'oranyotherarticleof
personalproperty.Ifthisconclusionbecorrect,itissurelyastrangedeductionfromthe
languageusedinthatclause,andindirectoppositiontowhatwouldseemtobe
impliedlyitsmeaning.Ifsuchbethetruemeaningof'claim,'whydoesthatclausesay,
thatnostate,by'anylaworregulationtherein,'shalldischargefromservice?Whyspeak
of'laworregulation,'ifnonebeallowed?Whyalludetothatwhichisforbiddenand
unlawful?Whyspeakofstatelawsorregulations,ifthestatesdarenotpassany?And
whynotatonceusethelanguagewhichobviouslypresenteditself,andsay,that
'escapingintoanotherstate,'shallnotdischargefromserviceorlabor,withoutaddinga
wordabout'lawsorregulations?'Theconclusionisunsound,andaltogether
unwarranted.Thelanguageoftheconstitutionnotonlypresupposeslegislation,but
thatthislegislationnotonlyistobe,ormaybe,butwillbe,bythestates.Itwasjustas
muchassayingtothestates:Youmaypasslawsuponthesubjectyoumaymake
regulationsyoumayprescribethetimeandmannerofseizure,theauthoritiesbefore
whomthepartiesshallcomeforadjudicationbutyoushallnotdischargeabonafide
fugitivefromlaborfromthatservicewhichheowesunderthelawsofthestatefrom
whencehefled.Yourauthoritiesshallsay,whether,underthelawsofthatstate,heowes
service,andifhedo,youshallhandhimover.

69

Thisconstructionislikewisecontradictedbythefact,that,notonlythestates,but
congress,legislateduponthesubject,notlongaftertheformationoftheconstitution
congressasearlyas1793.Itis,therefore,manifestlyanargumentwhichraisesastrong
presumptionagainstthepositioncontendedforthat,attheearlyday,whentheframers
ofthatinstrumentwerealmostallinfullpubliclifewhenthedebatesatitsformation
anduponitsadoptionwerestillfreshinthememoryofthewholecountrycongress
shouldhavelegislateduponthisverypoint.Hadthepublicmenofthedayforgottenthe
meaningofthisphrase?Couldtheyforgetthat'claim'meantperemptorysurrender
thatthiswasthemeaningintendedintheuseofthatwordbytheframersofthe
constitution,andshouldgotoworktolegislate,wherenotonlynolegislationwas
necessary,butnotatallallowable?Suchsuppositionwillnotbeindulgedamoment.

70

Butagain,iftheyhadintendedthatneitherthestatesnorcongressshouldlegislate
uponthissubject,isitnotaltogethercertain,thattheywouldnothaveusedtheterm
'claim,'butwouldhaveselectedotherlanguagebetterfittedtocarrydefinitelythe
meaningwhichtheyintendedtoattach?Whatisthemeaningof'claim?''Achallengeof
ownership,'saysPlowden.Achallengeofinterestinathingwhichanotherhathin

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

17/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

possession,oratleastoutofthepossessionoftheclaimant.'Claim'impliesthattheright
isindisputeorindoubt.'Claim'maybemadebytwoormoreatthesametime.'Claim'
hasatechnicallegalmeaningandthosewhodrewthisinstrument,beingeminent
lawyersandwellversedintheuseoflanguage,maypossiblyhavedesignedtopointthe
meaningofthephrase,andforthatreasonusedthatword.Thisimpression,too,is
greatlystrengthenedbytherecollection,thatintheprecedingclauserespecting
fugitivesfromjustice,amuchstrongerwordisused.'Shallbedeliveredupondemand,'
isthelanguageusedinreferencetocriminalsbutfugitivesfromlaboraretobe
deliveredup'onclaim.'Whatnowisthedifferencebetweenthesetwoterms?Why,
evidently,'demand'isperemptory.Itwillnotadmitofdelayitinsistsuponimmediate
obedience.'Claim'supposesdebate,litigationthedecisionofaright.Howisit,when
oneseekssatisfactionforanoffence?I'demand'satisfaction!Irequireitimmediately!
Youshallgiveitme,orIwillforceitfromyou!Hisantagonistseesbyhislanguageheis
inearnest,andhemustreply.Butifheshouldsay,I'claim'satisfaction,debatesprings
up,negotiationensues,andtheoffencemostlikelytakesanothershape.Thisword
'demand,'infact,thrustitselfupontheattentionoftheframersoftheconstitution.It
wasusedintheprecedingparagraph,inreferencetocriminalsfromjustice,andis
eminentlybetterfittedtoexpressunconditionalsurrenderthan'claim'is.
71

Butbesidethis,iftheframersofthispaperhaddesignedsuchapurposeasthat
imputedtothem,wouldtheynothaveomittedfromthisclausethewords'in
consequenceofanylaworregulationtherein'andtheclausewouldthenhavestoodin
anobviousshapeandeveryonewouldhaveunderstood,thatanyfugitivefromlabor,
escapingintoanotherstate,shouldnottherebybedischargedfromservice,&c.This
putsthematter,itisconsidered,inaveryclearandstronglightandexceedingly
adversetotheconstructionthatneithertheUnionnorthestatescanlegislateuponthis
subject.Anotherreasonwhichmightherebenoticedis,thatnoone,eitherinthe
debatesupontheformationoftheconstitution,oratitsadoptionbythestates,ever
assertedthattobethemeaningofthisclause.Mr.Hamblyherereferredtothedebates
intheVirginiaconvention.

72

Anothermostvalidandsubstantialreasonagainstthisconstructionis,thatitwould
beaviolationoftheveryspiritoftheinstrument.If,underthisterm'claim,'thestretch
ofpowerissoverygreat,thatamanfromaneighboringstatecanventureinto
PennsylvaniaorMaryland,anduponhissimpleallegation,seize,andwithoutreference
tostateauthorities,carryoffanyonewhomhemaychoosetosingleoutashisfugitive
fromlabor,itisamostunheardofviolationofthetruespiritandmeaningofthewhole
ofthatinstrument.Thesamepowerthatcan,uponsimpleallegation,seizeandcarryoff
aslave,can,ontheallegationofservicedue,seizeandcarryoffafreeman.Thereisno
power,ifneithercongressnorthestatescanlegislate,todisputethequestionwiththe
seizingparty.Innonslaveholdingstatesthepresumptionis,thateverymanisa
freeman,untilthecontrarybeproved.Itislikeeveryotherlegalpresumption,infavor
oftheright.Everymanispresumedtobeinnocent,untilprovedguilty.Everydefendant
againstwhomanactionofdebtisbrought,ispresumednottoowe,untilthedebtbe
proved.Now,inaslaveholdingstate,coloralwaysraisesapresumptionofslavery,
whichisdirectlycontrarytothepresumptioninafreeornonslaveholdingstateforin
thelatter,primafacie,everymanisafreeman.If,then,underthismostmonstrous
assumptionofpower,afreemanmaybeseized,whereisourboastedfreedom?What
saysthefourtharticleoftheamendmentstotheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates?'The
rightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papersandeffects,against
unreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated.'Art.5'Nopersonshallbe
deprivedoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.'

73

Butherewearemetwiththeremark,that'slavesarenopartiestotheconstitution'
that'we,thepeople,'doesnotembracethem.Thisisadmitted,butwearenotarguing
thewantofpowerto'claim'andtakeasalve,buttoclaimandtakeafreeman!Admitthe
fact,thatheisasalve,andyouadmitawaythewholequestion.Pennsylvaniasays:

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

18/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

Insteadofpreventingyoufromtakingyourslaves,weareanxiousthatyoushouldhave
themtheyareapopulationwedonotcovet,andallourlegislationtendstowardgiving
youeveryfacilitytogetthembutwedoclaimtherightoflegislatinguponthissubjectso
astobringyouunderlegalrestraint,whichwillpreventyoufromtakingafreeman.If
onecanarrestandcarryawayafreeman,'withoutdueprocessoflaw'iftheirpersons
arenotinviolateyourconstitutionisawaxentablet,awritinginthesandsandinstead
ofbeing,asissupposed,thefreestcountryonearth,thisisthevilestdespotismwhich
canbeimagined!Isitpossible,thisclausecanhavesuchameaning?Canitbe,thata
powersopotentofmischiefasthis,couldfindnooneofallthosewhohadlaiditinthe
indictmentagainstthekingofGreatBritain,asoneoftheverychiefestofhiscrimes,
'thathehadtransportedourcitizensbeyondseasfortrial,'whosejealousywouldnotbe
arousedwhosefearswouldnotbeexcited,atagraspofpowersomightyasisclaimed
forthisclause?Thinkyounot,thatsomeoneofthoseardent,untiring,vigilant
guardiansofliberty,wouldhaveraisedawarningvoiceagainstthisdanger?Andthat,
too,whenonlyeighteenmonthsaftertheformationofthischarter,althoughtheyhad
alreadyinthebodyoftheinstrumentcarefullyguardedthewritofhabeascorpus,and
providedforthetrialofallcrimesbyjury,andinthestatewherecommitted,yet,asif
theirjealousyhadbeenexcitedtofourfoldvigilance,intheiramendmentsprovidedfor
thepersonalsecurityofthesubjectfrom'unreasonableseizure,'andthatnooneshould
be'deprivedofliberty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.'
74

Suppose(bynomeansanimpossiblecase),amantobeseizedinthestreetsof
Philadelphia,simultaneouslybyacitizenofSouthCarolinaandacitizenofVirginia,
eachclaiminghimastheirslaveundertheconstructioncontendedfor,eachwouldbe
entitledtocarryhimoff,uponmereallegation!Heofferssatisfactoryevidencetoshow
thatheisentirelyfreebutthestateauthoritiescannotinterfere,becausethestates
cannotlegislateandgivethempowerandcongresscannotlegislate,andifitdid,could
notgivestateofficersjudicialpower.Martinv.Hunter'sLessee,1Wheat.304.Whatis
tobedone?allowthesepartiestowrangleitoutinthestreets,tosettlethequestionwith
dirkandbowieknife,orexecutethejudgmentofSolomon?No!theanswerwillbe,
handthemovertothedistrictcourt,andthereletthemsettletherighttoproperty.Yes!
butthereyoumeetanunexpecteddifficulty.Thedistrictcourtcantrytherightof
propertyasbetweentheclaimants,butnottherightoflibertyasbetweenthemandthe
arrestedfreemantherefore,itfollows,thatbecausethepartyoutofpossessionofthe
allegedslavecannotprovehisrighttotakehim,thepartyinpossessionretainshim,and
carriesafreemanintoslavery.Possessionofaslave,intheabsenceofproof,issufficient
evidenceoftitle.2Marsh.609.Butinexercisingthepowerofclaim,andofexcluding
thearrestedpartyfromtestingthequestionofslaveorfree,doyounotviolatethefirst
clauseof2,art.4?'Thecitizensofeachstateshallbeentitledtoallprivilegesand
immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralstates.'

75

Insomestates,theysellout,forjailfees,thepersonalservicesofcertainprisoners.
Now,supposesuchanone,notanegro,tobeseizedinPennsylvania,asanalleged
fugitivefromlabor(andundoubtedlyunderthisclausehemaybeseized),butthetruth
comesout,thatthepartyseizedisnotandneverwasaprisoner,orsoldouttoservice.
Underthisconstruction,youcannottrythequestionandafreecitizengoespromptly
andwithoutredressintoslavery!Aye!butletthatbetried,saytheadvocatesofthis
doctrine,inthestatetowhichhegoes.Therearetwoanswerstothisremark:first,itis
indirectviolationofthespiritofthatprovisionintheconstitutionwhichrequirestrials
totakeplaceinthestatewheretheinfractionoflawoccurredandsecondly,what
changeoffairtrialwouldanyman,undersuchcircumstances,haveinthestatetowhich
heistaken,whereallthepresumptionsareagainsthim,wherethewholepublicopinion
isagainsthim,whereheisentirelyseparatedfromhiswitnesses,whilstthewholeonus
probandiisthownuponhim.Betterathousandslavesescape,thanthatonefreeman
shouldbethuscarriedintoremedilessslavery!

76

Itistrue,thatChancellorWALWORTH,inthecaseofJackv.Martin,in14Wend.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

19/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

507,says,thattherightofrecaptionexistedatcommonlaw,and'isguarantiedbythe
constitution.'Now,withthegreatestdeferencefortheopinionofthelearnedjudge,we
arenotconvincedthattherightofrecaptionofpersonseverexistedhere,orifitdid
exist,itistakenawaybytheamendmenttotheconstitution.Theopenavowedgroundis
taken,thatinafreestateeverymanisprimafacieafreemanwhoisatlarge.Ifso,he
comesunderthatclasscalled'people'andtherightof'thepeople'tobesecureintheir
personsagainstunreasonableseizuresisguarantiedbytheconstitution.Aye!butheisa
slave,saytheopponentsofthisdoctrine.Butthatisnotadmitted.Theveryquestionat
issueis,slaveorfree.Now,solongasheisnotprovedaslave,heispresumedfreeand
therefore,ifyouseizehim,itisaviolationofthisconstitutionalprivilege.
77

But,itissaid,ifthisbenotthetrueconstructionofthisclause,andlegislationbe
necessary,thattherightappertainsalonetocongressandthattheactof1793coversthe
ground,andleavesnoroomfortheactionofstatelegislation.Thatnopowertolegislate
uponthissubjectisexpresslygranted'interms'tocongress,mustbeatonceconceded.
Itmustlikewisebeasreadilyconceded,thatitisnot'prohibited'tothestates.Then,if
congresspossessesthispower,itmustbe,invirtueofaconcurrentauthorityofacting
uponthesubjectmatterorbecausethisisafacultywhichisnecessarytotheexerciseof
somepoweralreadygranted.Thatitisnotthelatter,ismanifestforthemostlaborious
investigation,andthemostcarefulsearch,aidedbythemostcriticalpowersofmind,
canshownosingleprovisionoftheinstrumenttotheexerciseofwhichthislegislative
powerwouldbenecessary.

78

Therearetwokindsofconcurrentpowersembracedbytheconstitution:1.Those
whichbothbodiesmaylawfullylegislateuponand2.Thosewhichthestatesmay
legislateuponuntilcongressactswhenthelatter,beingthesupremepower,excludes
theformer.Asaninstanceoftheformer,theregulationofthemilitiamaybecited.
Congresscan'organize,arm,disciplineandgovern,'whilsttothestatesisreservedthe
rightofappointingofficersandtheauthorityoftraining.Art.1,8,cl.16Houstonv.
Moore,5Wheat.24.Anillustrationofthelatterclassmaybefoundinthepowerto
establishbankruptlawsonwhich,ithasbeendecidedbythiscourt,thatthestates
mightlegislateuntilcongressdid,whentheactsoftheformerwouldceaseandexpire.
Sturgesv.Crowninshield,4Wheat.193.

79

Inorder,therefore,toascertainwhetherthispoweroflegislationbeconcurrentor
not,wemustinquire:1st.Whetheritwerepossessedbythestates,previoustothe
formationoftheconstitution,andappertainedtosovereignty.2d.Whethergrantedin
expresstermstotheUnion,orprohibitedtothestates.3d.Whetheritbeanexertionof
sovereignpowerbyoperatingbeyondthestateterritoryor,4th.Asnecessarily
originatingintheUnion,sothatnoexerciseofitbythestatescantakeplace,without
clear,openandundisguisedconflictwiththeconstitution.

80

Now,letustestthisquestionbytheserules.Itismanifest,thatslavesandslaverywere
thesubjectsoflegislativepowerbythestates,beforetheUnion.Afterthedeclarationof
independence,in1776,eachstate,atleastbeforetheconfederation,wasasovereign
independentbody.Eachhadtherighttoenactlawswhichnootherpowercouldrevise
eachcouldmakewasorconcludepeace,withoutreferencetotheothereachcouldraise
armiesormaintainanavy,withoutconsultingtheothersand,infine,possessedevery
facultyofsovereignpower,aseffectuallyandentirelyaseitherFranceorEnglandor
anyofthekingdomsoftheoldworld,andequallyasuntrammelled.Then,thisbeingthe
case,theunionwasformed,bytakingawayfromtheindividualstatesportionsof
power,andvestingtheminonecentralbody,knownas'theUnion,'intheformationof
whichwereadmittedmaxims:1st.Thatitpossessednothingbyimplication,exceptwhat
wasabsolutelynecessarytoitsexistence:and2d.Thatpowersnotdelegatedtothe
Union,norprohibitedtothestatesinexpressterms,werereserved.Art.9and10of
Amendments.SouthCarolina,asearlyas1695,passedlawsuponthesubjectofslaves
andslavery,andsodowntothepresenttime.Soalso,Connecticutin1711,and
Marylandin1715.These,then,aresufficient,asinstancesoftheexerciseofthispower

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

20/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

bythestates,longbeforetheconstitutionwasformedandthisprovesthefirstposition,
thatitwaspossessedbythestates,previoustotheformationoftheconstitution.And
itwillnotbecontroverted,thatthepowerisnot'expressly'grantedtotheUnion,nor
prohibitedtothestates.Thirdly,theexerciseofthispowerbythestatesismerelya
matterofpoliceandinternalregulationandtherefore,doesnotoperatebeyondthe
stateterritory:andlastly,thepowerdoesnotoriginateintheUnionthatis,therightof
legislationdoesnotgrowoutoftheUnionthepoweritself,thesubjectmatter,isnot
thebirthoftheUnionnorisitsexercisea'clear,openundisguisedconflictwiththe
constitution,'astheexerciseofextraterritorialpowerwouldbe.
81

Itisinferred,then,fromallthis,thatthispowerisnotaconcurrentonethatforwant
ofexpressreservationofsuchright,ithasnotthefeatureswhichenableittobe
exercisedatthesametimebybothparties,asisthecasewiththemilitialaws.Norcan
theactionofcongressabsorbitanddrivethestatesfromit,asisthecasewiththe
bankruptlaws.Itisapowerwhichexists,andcanonlyexist,inthestates.Norisitany
answertoallthis,tosay,thatavarietyoflawsandregulationswillbepassedbydifferent
statesthatthelegislationwillbeincongruousanddissimilar.Wemusttakethe
constitutionaswefindit!Ourdutyistoconstrue,nottolegislate!Andwearetoldby
goodauthority,thatintheconstructionofconstitutions,theargumentumab
inconvenientiwillnotanswerwedarenotuseit.Theitascriptaruleisenoughforus.If
theconstitutionalprovisionbedefective,thereisaconstitutionalmodetoamendit:let
usthenratherapplytothat,thanviolentlywresttheinstrumentbyconstruction.

82

Itisurged,however,thatthepassageoftheactofcongressof1793affordsavery
strongargumentinfavorofcongressionalactionuponthissubjectthatthefactofits
passageatsoearlyadayevincestheunderstandingofthatclauseoftheconstitutionto
havebeen,amongsttheframersofit,thatcongressalonehadtherighttolegislateand
hence,byimplication,asitwere,theywouldconvinceus,thatitwasoneofthose
concurrentpowerswhichtheactionofthehighestlegislativebodyabsorbsandtakes
awayfromthestates.Thisargument,ifitproveanything,willprovetoomuch.

83

Theactofcongressauthorizesthearrestofthefugitive,andrequireshimtobetaken
beforeanyjudgeofthedistrictorcircuitcourt,orbeforeanymagistrateofacounty,city
ortowncorporate.Now,itisaprincipleperfectlysettledbyjudicialdecision,that
congresscannotcommunicatetheexerciseofjudicialpowertoanypersonwhodoes
notholdthecommissionofthegeneralgovernment.Martinv.Hunter'sLessee,1
Wheat.330.'CongresscannotvestanyportionofthejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStates
exceptincourtsordainedandestablishedbyitself.'Const.3,art.2:'Thepresident
shallcommissionallofficers.'Now,ifnomancanbeanofficerofthisgovernment,
withoutbearingthecommissionofthepresident,certainly,no'magistrateofacounty,
cityortowncorporate'canbeajudicialofficerofthegeneralgovernment,andso
cannottakeauthorityundertheact.Thisprincipleisnecessarilyderivedfromart.3,1,
whichprovides,'thatthejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesshallbevestedinone
supremecourt,andinsuchinferiorcourtsascongressshall,fromtimetotime,ordain
andestablish'andofcourse,thepersonsholdingthispowermustbecommissionedby
thepowerwhichestablishesthecourts.Thisdoctrinehaslongbeeheldbyboththe
supremeandstatecourts.UnitedStatesv.Lathrop,17Johns.4Elyv.Peck,7Conn.
239.Theformerwasacaseinwhichanactionofdebtwasbroughtforapenalty,under
theactof1813,forsellingspirituousliquors,andgavethestatecourtsjurisdiction.The
lastcasewasanactionagainstadesertingmariner,inwhichthestatecourthad
jurisdictiongivenitbyanactofcongressbutthejudgesinbothcasesdeclined
exercisingit.1Kent'sCom.4023.This,then,beingthecase,thattheactofcongressof
1793gaveto'magistratesofacounty'anauthoritywhichitcouldnotgive,the
conclusionisirresistible,thattheydidnotatthatdayunderstand,inthelegislativehall,
theconstructionoftheconstitution,aswellaswedonow,afteranintervalofhalfa
centuryandtherefore,theargumentabovecitedisofnoavail,inasmuchasitexplodes
itself.Besideswhich,wemightadd,thatthestateshaveclaimedthepowerjustasopenly

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

21/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

andavowedlyascongresshasdone.
84

Itissupposed,however,thattheweightofjudicialauthorityfromthestatecourts,is
infavor,verydecidedly,oftheexerciseofthispowerbythenationallegislature.Letus,
therefore,examine.In5Serg.&Rawle62,iscontainedthecaseofWrightv.Deacon.
Thiswasawritdehominereplegiando.Thecasehadalreadybeentriedonhabeas
corpus,andadjudicatedagainsttheparty,anduponthatpointdecidedwhilstitwas
takenforgranted,thattheconstitutionandactofcongressgavewarrantforhis
removal.Thequestionwasnotagitatedastotheconstitutionalityofthelawofcongress,
orthatofPennsylvaniaandthecase,therefore,givesnoauthorityforthisconstruction.
Commonwealthv.Griffith,2Pick.11,wasanindictmentforanassultandbatteryupon
anegro,andthedefencemadewas,thathewasaslave,andhadfledfromservitude.The
courtsay,'Thisbringsthecasetoasinglepoint,viz.,whetherthestatuteoftheUnited
Statesisconstitutionalornot.Theconstitution,saythey,doesnotprescribethemode
ofreclaimingaslave,butleavesittobedeterminedbycongress.'Hereistakenfor
granted,thatwhichisfarfromappearing.Oneleapreachestheconclusionwithout
showinghowcongressattainsthispower,whetherexpressly,byimplication,orhow.In
fact,oneofthejudgesdissents,sayingthathethoughtthefugitiveshouldbeseizedin
conformitytostatelaws.Further,theunconstitutionalityofthelawwasnotattackedon
thegroundthatcongresshadnorighttolegislateatallbutmerelybecauseinconflict
withotherpartsoftheinstrument.Thiscase,therefore,itisrespectfullyconceived,
provesnothingfortheplaintiffinerror.

85

In12Wend.314,isfoundthecaseofJackv.Martin.Thiswasawritdehomine
replegiandoandJudgeNELSON,inthecourtbelow,decided,thatthelegislativepower
wasconcurrent,andtherefore,theactionofcongressexcludedthestatesfrom
legislating,andthattheobjectbeingpalpablei.e.,tosecuretheslavesofthesouthit
shouldhaveaconstructionthatwouldoperatemosteffectuallytoattaintheend.We
contend,thatwearegivingthatconstructiontothisclausemostlikelytoproducethe
desiredend.Ifexcitedargumentandaninterestedwithdrawalofthewholesubject
matterfromthehandsofthestatescouldbeeffectedbythesouth,willitnotproduce
constrictionandcollisionwiththefreestates?Whichismostlikelytokeepthepeace?A
toneofconfidenceandconciliation,orofdefianceandtheattemptedexerciseofillegal
power?Wemustnegotiateandlegislateuponthisandeveryothersubjectwiththe
calumetofpeace,ratherthanthetomahawkwiththeconciliatoryspiritofabandof
brothers,insteadoftheanimosityofdeadlyfoes.ThecaseofJackwastakenupbefore
thecourtoferrorsandappeals,andthedecisionbelowsustainednotthequestionof
constitutionality,butthequestionoffugitiveornot,becauseJackhadadmittedhewasa
slavebyhispleas.Butthequestionofconstitutionalitywasdebated,andinmyjudgment
notasinglesolidreasonwasgivenforthatconstruction,butonthecontrary,
ChancellorWALWORTHsays,'Ihavelookedinvainamongthedelegatedpowersof
congressforauthoritytolegislateuponthesubject,'andconcludesthatstatelegislation
isampleforthepurpose.

86

Now,then,uponrecapitulatingthesecases,whathavewe?1.Wehaveonecasewhere
theconstitutionalityofthelawistakenforgranted,byChiefJusticeTILGHMAN.2.We
haveargumentofJudgeNELSONandSenatorBISHOP,infavorofit,andthecasein
Pickering:and3.WehavethedecisiveopinionofChancellorWALWORTH,andthe
dissentingjudgeinthecaseinPickering.For,neitherinExparteSimmons,triedby
JudgeWASHINGTON,andreportedin4W.C.C.396,norinthecaseofJohnsonv.
Tompkins,Bald.571,wasthequestionofconstitutionalityatallmootedorspokenof,
butbothjudgesspeakinthesamebreathofstatelawsandlawsofcongresswithout
onceimpugningtherightofeitherpartytolegislate,orforonemomentintimatinga
doubtastotheconstitutionalrightofeitherpartytopassthem.

87

Itmay,however,becontended,thatthisauthoritytolegislateisgiventocongressby
the18thclauseof8,art.1,oftheconstitution:'Andtomakealllawswhichshallbe
necessaryandproperforcarryingintoexecutiontheforegoingpowersandallother

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

22/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

powersvestedbythisconstitutioninthegovernmentoftheUnitedStates,orinany
departmentorofficerthereof,'JudgeSTORYsays,inhisCommentary,1238:'The
plainimportofthisclauseis,thatcongressshallhavealltheincidentalandinstrumental
powersnecessaryandpropertocarryintoexecutionalltheexpresspowers.Itneither
enlargesanypowerspecificallygranted,norisitagrantofanynewpowertocongress.'
Thiscase,then,isnotembracedbythefirstpartofthesection,becauseitisnotoneof
the'foregoing'enumeratedpowers.Norisitincludedundertheotherterm,'allother
powersvested,'becausethereisnopowervested,forthelearnedcommentatorjust
alludedto,saysitmeansexpresspowers.
88

Speakingoftheconstitution,wearetoldinMartinv.Hunter'sLessee,1Wheat.326,
thegovernmentoftheUnitedStatescanclaimnopowerswhicharenotgrantedtoitby
theconstitution,andthepowersactuallygrantedmustbesuchasareexpresslygivenor
givenbynecessaryimplication.Ontheotherhand,thisinstrumentistohavea
reasonableconstruction,accordingtotheimportofitsterms.Thewordsaretobetaken
intheirnaturalandobvioussensenotinasenseunreasonablyrestrictedorenlarged.
Certainly,then,thisphrase,'powersvested,'meansexpresspowersanyothermodeof
constructionwoulddoviolencetothewholeinstrument,andoverturnawholeseriesof
decisions.If,then,itmeansexpresspower,thereisnonesuchinthiscaseand
therefore,underthisclause,congresscannotexercisetheauthorityclaimed.1Kent's
Com.38890.'Thecorrectprincipleis,thatwheneverthetermsinwhichthepowerwas
grantedtocongress,orthenatureofthepowerrequiredthatitshouldbeexclusively
exercisedbycongress,thesubjectwasascompletelytakenawayfromthestate
legislatureasiftheyhadbeenexpresslyforbiddentoactonit.'Butisthatthecasehere?
thepowerisnotgrantedintermsatall,andthenatureofthepowerissuch,thatthe
statescanaseasilyandusefullyexerciseitascongress.Thetruthis,thepowerisoneof
policeandinternalregulation,asmuchasferries,turnpikesandhealthlawsandin
Gibbonsv.Ogden,9Wheat.203,wearetold,that'nodirectpowerisgrantedoverthese
objectstocongress,andconsequently,theyremainsubjecttostatelegislation.Ifthe
legislativepoweroftheUnioncanreachthem,itmustbefornationalpurposes.'How
canlegislationrespectingslavesbecomenationalwhenonlyapartofthestateshold
them?Suchlegislationcannotassumeanationalaspect,orattaina'nationalpurpose.'

89

If,then,thispowerbenotexpresslyincongress,norconcurrently,nornecessarily
appurtenanttoanyotherpower,whatisthemeaningofthisclause?'Nopersonheldto
serviceorlaborinanystate,underthelawsthereof,escapingintoanother,shall,in
consequenceofanylaworregulationtherein,bedischargedfromsuchservice,butshall
bedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartytowhomsuchserviceorlaborisdue.'Itsimply
meansthisnothingmorenorless:Youmaylegislateyoumayregulatebutthisone
pointaloneyoushallnottouch:Youshallnotdischargethefugitivefromservice,ifhe
wereaslavebythelawofthestatefromwhencehefled.

90

Theresultis,thatnopowerbeinggiventocongresstolegislate,itisreservedtothe
states,underthe10tharticleoftheamendments.'Thepowersnotdelegatedtothe
UnitedStatesbytheconstitution,norprohibitedbyittothestates,arereserved.
Federalist,No.32.Thestategovernmentsclearlyretainalltherightsofsovereignty
whichtheyhadbeforetheadoptionoftheconstitution,andwhichwerenotbythat
constitutionexclusivelydelegatedtotheUnion.1Wheat.325.Suppose,art.4,1,is
readthus:'Fullfaithandcreditshallbegiven,ineachstate,tothepublicacts,records
andjudicialproceedingsofeveryotherstate'andthenstopped.Isisnotapparent,that
thestatescouldbylawregulatethekindandquantumofproof,themannerinwhich
theircourtsshouldreceiveitandifitwasthoughttheycouldnot,whyinexpressterms
reservetocongress'therighttoprescribethemannerinwhichtheyshallbeproved,and
theeffectthereof.'Underart.1,4,cl.1,thetimes,placesandmannerofholding
electionsforsenatorsandrepresentativesshallbeprescribedbythestatelegislatures
buttheframersoftheconstitutioncautiouslyadd,thatcongressmaymakeoraltersuch
regulation,exceptastoplace.Art.1,8,cl.5,thepowertocoinmoney,oneofthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

23/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

highestattributesofsovereignpower,isexpresslygiventocongressandyet,in10,cl.
1.ofart.1,thestatesarecautiouslyandexpresslyprohibitedfromcoiningmoney.This
hasalwaysbeenthehighestmarkofsoeverignpower.
91

Itis,however,supposedbysome,thatbecausecongresshaslegislatedonthe
surrenderofcriminals,thattherefore,thereisstrongergroundforclaimingtherightof
legislatinghere.Mr.HamblycitedtheMadisonPapers,andDebatesinConvention,that
thismatterwasexpectedtobelefttostatelegislationandthatthesouthwasnotunited
itselfuponthesubject.MadisonPapers,p.1447.Asif,however,toremovealldoubt
uponthissubject,wehave,intheconstitutionitself,anopenadmissionthatthewhole
subjectofslavesandslaverywasleftinthehandsofthestates.Art.1,9:'Themigration
orimportationofsuchpersonsasanyofthestatesnowexistingshallthinkproperto
admit,shallnotbeprohibitedbycongresspriorto1808.'Now,whatisthemeaningof
this?Why,thatcongressshallleavetheslavetrade,andallitsoperations,tostate
legislationentirely,withtheexception,thatafter1808,theymaystopit,iftheychoose
butiftheydonotchoose,itwillalwaysremaininthehandsofthestates,untiltheydo
seefittocloseit.This,tomymind,withanyotherconsideration,issufficiently
convincingthateverybodyatthatdayrightlyunderstoodthiswholemattertobethe
subjectofstatelegislation.

92

Theuseoftheterms'legally'and'justly,'intheformationoftheconstitution,shows
thattherightwastobeascertainedbycompetentauthority,nottakenforgrantedand
thatlegislativepowersomewherewastoexerciseitselfuponthematter,andbynone,
moreprobably,thanthesamepowerwhichthenhaditincontrol,thestate
legislatures.

93

Itnowonlyremainstoexaminetwoargumentsurgedonbehalfoftheplaintiffin
error.Itisalleged,thatthejudiciaryactof1789vestsinthecourtsoftheUnitedStates
thewholejudicialpowerofthegovernmentandthatthisbeingjudicialpower,whichis
soughttobeattachedtothegeneralgovernment,itisimpliedlyembracedbythatact.
Onewordwillbeasufficientanswertothatargument.Thepowerasked,orrather
claimed,isnotjudicial,butlegislativeandtherefore,canbynopossibilitybeclaimed
by,throughorunderthejudiciaryact.Anotherargumentis,thatlegislativeconstruction
has,withthiscourt,almosttheauthorityofjudicialdecision.Andbecausecongresshas,
initsreportsuponslavery,admittedorassertedthisright,theirclaim,therefore,should
beregardedalmostasajudicialconstruction.Itisanswered,thatiftherebeanyone
thinginthiscountryentirelyloose,uncertainandvascillating,itislegislationand
wheneverthejudicialexpositionofourhighestcourtsbecomessowaveringand
uncertainastobearcomparisonwithourlegislation,weshalltrulybethepityand
contemptofallcivilizednations.

94

Ithasbeenshown:1.That'claim'doesnotmeanperemptorydemandand
unconditionalsurrender.2.Thatlegislationiscontemplatedbythelanguageofthe
clauseandthatbothcongressandthestateshavelegislated.3.Thatthisconstruction
wasneverassertedbytheframersoftheconstitution.4.Thatitwouldviolateitsspirit.
5.Thatthepowerofrecaptionofpersonsneverexisted,orifitdid,isrestrainedbythe
amendments.6.Thatthispowerisneitherexpresslygrantedtocongressnorprohibited
tothestatesnorisitnecessarytotheexerciseofanygrantedpower,norimpliedly
reserved.7.Thatthestatespossessedthispowerbeforetheconstitutionwasformed.8.
Thatitisamereregulationofpolice,anddoesnotsupposetheexerciseofnational
powerand,9.Thattheconstitution,inart.1,9,gives,orratherleavesthewhole
subjectinthehandsofthestates,whereitoriginallyfoundit.

95

Johnson,AttorneyGeneralofPennsylvania,stated,thatheappearedbeforethecourt
inobediencetothedirectionsoftheactofassembly,passedin1839,towhichreference
hadbeenmade,tomaintaintheconstitutionalauthorityofPennsylvaniatoenactthe
severallawssetoutinthepaperbookinthehandsofthecourtandconstitutingthe
groundworkoftheindictmentandproceedingsinthepresentcase.Hesaid,he

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

24/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

occupiedapositionofgreatdelicacyandembarrassmenthestoodbeforethecourtnot
onlyasthecounsel,butastheofficialrepresentativeoftheCommonwealthof
Pennsylvaniaandwas,assuch,boundbyanoathassolemnasthattakenbytheir
honors,tosupporttheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Itwasmadehisdutyto
vindicatetherightofPennsylvaniatoadoptthelawsinquestionagainsttheallegationof
thelearnedgentleman,whosoablyrepresentedtheinterestsofMaryland,thatthey
conflictedwiththeconstitutionandlawsofthegeneralgovernment.Inperformingthis
duty,hefelttheresponsibilitytobealmostasbindingasifhewerepronouncinga
judicialdecision,toadvancenodoctrinesthatwere,inhisjudgment,incompatiblewith
thetrueconstructionofthefederalconstitution.
96

Itwasgratifyingtohim,tobeabletoassurethecourt,thatthisofficialdutyandhis
ownconscientiousconvictionsofright,asacitizenoftheUnion,wereinperfect
harmonyonthissubjectheshouldnothestiatetospeakinearnest,forhespokewith
sincerity.HedesiredtoplacePennsylvaniarectusincurioe,onherproperfooting,
beforethecourt.Shecametherevoluntarily.Shewasnotdraggedsullenlytothathigh
bar,denyingthejurisdictionofthecourtanddisclaimingitsauthority.Thisproceeding
wasoneofamity,ofconcord,onthepartofPennsylvaniaandofMaryland,whichwere,
asthelearnedcounselhadtoldthecourt,therealandsubstantialparties.Theycame
intothatcourttotryagreatquestionofconstitutionallaw,toterminatedisputesand
contentionswhichwerearising,andhadforyearsarisen,alongtheborderlinebetween
them,onthissubjectoftheescapeanddeliveryupoffugitiveslaves.Neitherparty
soughtthedefeatorhumiliationoftheother.Itwasforthetriumphoflaw,they
presentedthemselvesbeforethecourt.Theywereengaged,underanimperativesense
ofduty,intheworkofpeaceandhehopedhewouldbepardoned,ifheadded,of
patriotismalso.

97

Thedifficultieswhichresultedinthepresentcasehadbeenpreviouslyfelt,andmade
thesubjectofnegotiationbetweenthesestates.Anditwasacuriousfact,thatthisvery
actof25thMarch1826,theunconstitutionalityofwhichisallegedinthiscase,wasthe
jointfruitofsuchnegotiation.Itwaspassed,ashebelieved,attheinstanceandwiththe
entireapprovalofcommissionersappointedbytheconstitutedauthoritiesofthestate
ofMaryland,towaituponthelegislatureofPennsylvaniatoobtainthepassageofsome
lawofthekind.Atthetimeofitspassage,itwasloudlycondemnedbythatportionof
thecitizensofPennsylvaniawhofavoredtheabolitionofslavery.Andnow,asingular
changeofplacesisexhibitedthestateofMarylandrepudiateswhatshethen
sanctionedandtheadversariesofslaverysustain,thoughnotverycordially,whatthey
thencondemned.Oneofthesepartiesthinksthisactof1826istooindulgenttoslave
holderstheother,thatitdeprivesthemoftheirjustrights.Theconsiderateand
enlightenedcitizensofPennsylvania,withfew,ifany,exceptions,were,hebelieved,of
theopinionthatthislawwaspreciselywhatitshouldbealikewarrantedbythefederal
constitution,andcarefultoprotecttherightsofall.Assuch,itwouldbehisduty,asit
washispleasure,tomaintainitagainsteveryassaultuponitsconstitutionality,letit
proceedfromwhateversourceitmay.

98

Bytheactof1780,Pennsylvaniabeganthegreatworkofphilanthropyinregardtoher
slaves.Shehaspursuedthepolicythereindicated,untilslavery,withonlyhereandthere
atimestrickenrelicofformerpolicy,hasvanishedfromthesoil.Shedidnottrenchon
therightsofotherstates.Shedidnotimpugntheprinciples,ortheconductoftheir
citizensdeeplyassheabhorredslaveryherself.Sheperformedherownduty,andleftto
othersthegloryortheshameofperformingorofneglectingtheirs.Inthisactof1780,
thereisasavingoftherightsofslaveholdersinotherstates.So,intheactof1826.Its
verytitlespeaksitsobject.Itis'anacttogiveeffecttotheprovisionoftheconstitution
oftheUnitedStates,relativetofugitivesfromlabor,fortheprotectionoffreepeopleof
color,andtopreventkidnapping.'Thusisthisveryunconstitutionalactfoundtobean
acttogiveeffecttotheconstitution.ThehistoryofthelegislationofPennsylvaniaon
thissubjectwillprove,thatthoughshehasbeeneverfoundinthevanguardofthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

25/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

friendsoflibertyandhumanity,sheneverhasforgottenwhatisduetohersisterstates
sheneverhaswaveredinherloyaltytotheconstitutionoftheUnionandcomewhat
may,sheneverwilldepartfromthiscourse.
99

ThatPennsylvaniahadtheright,then,toenactthelawinquestion,shesolemnly
averstohavebeenaccordedtoherbythestateofMarylandlandherself.Shewillnot
consenttosurrenderit,untilthiscourt,byitsdecision,stripsherofthatvaluedattribute
ofsovereignty.Nonewilldeny,thatthemainquestionsinvolvedinthiscaseare
delicate,insomerespectsintricate,andinanypointofview,importanttoallsectionsof
theUnion.Substantiallytheyarethese:1.Isthepowerofprescribingthemodeof
deliveringupfugitivesfromserviceorlabor,underthe2dsectionofthe4tharticleof
theconstitution,exclusivelyvestedinthegeneralgovernment?2.Ifitisnot,isit
concurrentlyvestedinthestateandgeneralgovernments,tobeexercisedonparticular
terms?orisitsolelyvestedinthestategovernments?3.Havethestatestherightto
inflictpenalties,asincasesofcrimes,uponthosewhoseizeandremovefugitiveslaves
outoftheirterritories,withoutpursuingthemodeprescribed,eitherbytheactof
congressof1793,orbytheactspassedonthesamesubject,bythestatesthemselves?
Thelastofthesethreequestionsisthemostmaterialinthepresentcase:perhaps,itis
theonlyrealquestioninthiscase,uponwhichthecourtisimperativelycalleduponto
pronounceitsjudgment.

100

Itistobeextremelyregretted,thatwehavenojudicialguidestoaidusinthe
argumentofthiscause,whichareofhigherauthoritythanthemereopinionsof
individualjudges,whohave,incidentally,oftenhastily,expressedthem.Thecases,such
astheyare,unfortunately,arefew,conflictingandcontradictory.Theyhave,itistrue,
alloccurredinstateswhereslaveryhasbeenabolished,forsuchquestionsmustrarely,
indeed,happen,instateswhereslaveryexists.Itisobviouslytheinterestofallpartiesin
suchstates,todeterminethequestioninoneway.Withoutpretendingtotroublethe
courtwithadetailedandcriticalexaminationofthefollowingcases,hewouldreferto
themasexhibitingamoststrikingillustrationofthe'uncertaintyofthelaw.'Deacon's
Case,5Serg.&Rawle62Johnsonv.Tompkins,Bald.571Commonwealthv.
Holloway,2Serg.&Rawle306s.c.3Ibid.4Commonwealthv.Griffths,2Pick.18
Jackv.Martin,12Wend.322s.c.14Ibid.510.InthecasesintheNewYorkand
Massachusettsreports,thecourtsweredividedinopinion.Inthecasesinthe
Pennsylvaniareports,thequestiondidnotproperlyarise,andthecourt,without
examination,declareditsopinionontheconstitutionalityoftheactofcongressof1793.
Thissubjecthasbeenincidentallynoticedinafewotherinstances,butnotinsucha
mannerastobedeemedessential.

101

Thequestionsarethusperfectlyopenandfreefromallembarrassmentonthescore
ofauthority.Decisionsofthiscourtonotherprovisionsoftheconstitutionwillsupply
uswithusefulanalogiesbutwearethrownbackontheelementaryprinciplesofthe
constitutionitself,forthefoundationofthepresentargument.Letusthenrecurto
theseprinciples,asthesourceofthepowerweareinquestof,andtraceituptoits
fountainhead.

102

Thetimescallforafullandfrankexpositionofthissubjectandherejoicedthatithad
beenpresented,atthisjuncture,beforethistribunal,andinthefriendlyspiritthat
actuatedthepartiesnowatthebar.Hebeggedleavetomakeonefurtherpreliminary
suggestion,beforeheopenedtheconstitution.Itwasthis:thatthestateandnational
governmentsweretoooftenviewedashostileandrepugnanttoeachotherintheir
relations.Powersgrantedtoone,wereregardedasifwithdrawnfromtheotherandit
seemedtobetheeffortofsomewhowerecalledupontojudgebetweenthem,totreat
themasiftheymutuallyapproachedeachotherasbelligerents,withswordsdrawn.This
wasnothisopinion,norwoulditbehiscourse.Hethought,withthefathersofthe
republic,thatbothwereessentialtoeachotherbothformedoneconsistent,
harmonious,beautifulsystemofgovernmentcompletewhenunitedimperfectwhen
divided:combined,strongerthanlinksofirondissevered,weakerthanaropeofsand.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

26/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

Itwouldbehispurpose,therefore,tocontendforsuchaconstructionofthefederal
constitutionaswouldplacethestateandnationalgovernmentsonthissolidand
impregnablebasis.
103

I.Inregardtothefirstquestionhehadsuggested,hewouldproceedtoreadand
commentonthesecondsectionofthefourtharticleoftheconstitution,whichwasin
thesewords,'nopersonheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthelawsthereof,
escapingintoanother,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationtherein,be
dischargedfromsuchserviceorlabor,butshallbedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartyto
whomsuchserviceorlabormaybedue.'Thisprovisioncertainlygivesnoauthorityto
thegeneralgovernment,intermsnone,evenbyimplication.Itsimplyenjoinsaduty
onthestates,andprohibitsthemfrompassinglawsorregulationsliberatingfugitive
slaves.Itrecognisesthegeneralrighttolegislateonthissubject,foritrestrictsits
exerciseinaparticularmanner.Iftheycouldnotlegislateatall,itwasfutileandabsurd,
tosaytheyshouldnotpasslawsofaparticulardescription.Butitenjoinsthatthe
fugitivesshallbe'deliveredup,''onclaim.'Thisdutyismadeincumbentonthestates,
withoutprescribingtheexactmodeofitsperformance.Theagencyofthegeneral
governmentisinnowiseconcernedorinvokedtheobligationisonthestates,andfor
thestatestheirpowerisleftperfectlyfreeanduntrammeled,withthissinglerestriction
thattheycannotdischargethefugitivesfromtheclaimoftheirmastersorowners.The
authorityvestedinthestates,isinthenatureofanegativepregnantitdeniesand
admitsdeniestheparticularpowerofliberatingfugitives,andadmitsthegeneral
powertoprescribehowtheyshallbedeliveredup.Shouldthestatestranscendtheir
authority,byenactinglawsimpairingtherightoftheslaveholder,theremedyisby
judicialinstrumentality.Itishere:thiscourtwillpronouncetheactsunconstitutional
andvoid.Butthispowerofthegeneralgovernmentispreventivenotactiveitissolely
therighttorestrain,nottherighttocompel.Therearevariousrestrictiveclausesinthe
federalconstitutionbutnooneeversupposed,thataprohibitionoflegislationuponthe
statesgavethepositiverighttocongresstolegislatemuchlesscanitbepretended,that
aprohibitionofaparticularspeciesoflegislationdivestedthestatesofallgeneral
authorityonthesubject,andtransferredtherighttothenationalgovernment.This
constructionofthepowersofthegeneralgovernmentwouldannihilatethestate
sovereigntiesatablow.Seeonthissubjectofthegeneralpowersofthegeneral
government,thelettersoftheFederalist,Nos.41,42and43butespecially42.Inthis
letter,thesubjectofthe4tharticleoftheconstitutionisdistinctlyandelaborately
considered.Everyline,andeveryword,isnoticedbutthisveryidenticalprovision,in
regardtofugitiveslaves,isentirelyomitted.Hadit,atthatday,beensupposedtohave
conferredanypoweronthegeneralgovernment,coulditthushavebeenpassedsilently
by?Doesthetremendouspowerarrogatedforthenationalgovernment,inthiscase,
lurkinthisprovision,withouthavingbeendiscoveredbythekeeneyesofHamilton,
MadisonorJay?TheselettersoftheFederalist,werewrittenbeforetheadoptionofthe
constitution.Theywerereadbyalmosteveryone.Thecommentswereidentifiedwith
theletteroftheconstitutionitself.Theyhavebeenalwaystreatedasacontemporary
exposition,bythefirstjudicialintellectsoftheage,sanctionedbypopularadoptionand
hefeltpersuadedthecourtwouldpause,beforeitconstruedintotheconstitution,
powerswhichthesegreatmenneverdreamedofascribingtothegeneralgovernment.

104

Thereasonforintroducingthisprovisionintotheconstitution,isitselfthebest
exponentofitsmeaning.Priortotheadoptionoftheconstitution,slavery,absolutely,
orinamodifiedform,existedinallthestates,exceptperhapsinMassachusetts.The
rightofthemastertopursueandrecapturefugitiveslavesthenexistedbymutual
comity.Few,ifany,feenegroescouldbefound.Thepresumptionwas,thatallnegroes
wereslaves.Nogeneralregulationwasnecessaryforitwastheinterestofallthestates,
tocountenanceandaidthemasterintherecaptureofhisrunawayslave.Butsymptoms
ofrepugnancytoslaverybegantobemanifestedinPennsylvaniaandotherstatesand
thesouthernstateswereapprehensivethatitmight,atsomefutureday,interferewith
therecoveryoftheirproperty.Theydesiredaguaranteefromthegeneralgovernment

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

27/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

notthatthatgovernmentshouldprovidefortheredeliveryoftheirfugitiveslaves,but
thattheconstitutionoftheUnionshouldprohibitthestatesfrompassinglawsdeclaring
themtobefree.Theprovisionoftheconstitutionunderconsiderationfurnishesthis
guaranteeitneverwasintendedformore.See2Elliot'sDebates,335,336Mr.
Madison'sandGovernorRandolph'sspeechesintheVirginiaconvention.Hadthe
southernstatesdemandedmorethanthissimpleguaranteehadtheyrequiredthatthe
rightofthestatestoprescribethemodeofsurrenderingupfugitiveslavesshouldbe
yieldedtocongressexclusivelyweknownotbutitmighthavejeopardedtheformation
oftheUnionitself.Itiswellknown,theword'slave'isnotfoundintheconstitution.
Thatitwasexcludedonaccountofthescruplesofcertainofthenorthernmembersof
theconventionandhadthesemembersbeentold,thattheyweredeprivingthestates
theyrepresentedofthepowerofdirectingthemodeinwhichfugitiveslavesweretobe
redeliveredtotheirmasters,whocandoubt,thattheywouldhaverejectedwith
indignation,anyinstrumentofgovernment,containingsuchasurrenderofstate
sovereigntyasthis?
105

Theconstitutiondoesnotaimatanyabridgmentofthestatesovereigntiesonthis
subject,exceptinthesinglepointofprohibitingthemfromsettingfugitiveslavesat
liberty.Inallotheressentialparticulars,itwiselyleavesthemtotheexerciseoftheir
ownjudgment.Differentrulesonthissubjectwouldnaturallybeestablishedin
differentstates.Lessstrictnessofproofoftherightofthemasterwouldbesatisfactory
inaslavestate,thanwouldbesoinafreestate.Somerespectisduetothecommon
feelings,orevenprejudicesofacommunity,intheenforcementofclaimsdeemed
odiousinprincipletoanyconsiderablenumberofthepeople.Ifevencompatiblewith
justice,theyshouldnotbepressedinamannertooutrageorwouldthesympathiesof
thoseonwhomthedemandismade.Toabhorslavery,inprinciple,isnogreatoffence,
inacountrywherelibertyistheboastandthebirthrightofeverycreaturewearingthe
imageofhisMaker.Thestatesarethebestjudgesofthatmodeofdeliveringupfugitive
slaves,whichwillbemostacceptabletotheircitizens.Itisevident,thatnogenerallaw
cansuitthespiritofthepeopleinallandtheonlyrationalmodeofprovidingforthe
evil,isthatprovidedbytheframersoftheconstitutionbycommittingittothewisdom
andpatriotismofthestatesthemselves.Thetendencyofthiscourseofreasoningis,not
onlytoprovethatthegeneralgovernmenthasnotexclusive,butthatithasno
jurisdictionoverthissubjectwhatever.Toremoveallpossibilityofdifficulty,however,
hewouldproceedtoconsiderthenatureofitsexclusivepowers,withsomeminuteness,
butgreatbrevity.

106

Oneveryprincipleofrationalconstruction,recognisedbycommonsenseandby
judicialdecisions,exclusiveauthorityonanygivensubjectwasvestedinthenational
governmentinonlythreecases.1.Whenthepowerisexpresslygranted.2.Whenthe
powerisvestedinthegeneralgovernment,andprohibitedtothestates.3.Whenthe
exerciseofapowerbythestateswouldbecontradictoryandrepugnanttotheexercise
ofarightfulpowerbythegeneralgovernment.SeetheFederalist,No.32Sturgesv.
Crowninshield,4Wheat.122Gibbonsv.Ogden,9Wheat.1.

107

Underwhichoftheseclassesofexclusivepowers,cansuchpowerbeinferredinthis
case?Notunderthefirst,for,ashasbeenalreadyshown,nosuchpowerisgiven.Not
underthesecond,fornopowerisvestedinthegeneralgovernment,norprohibitedto
thestates,inthesectionnowbeforethecourt,whichhasbeenviolated.Notunderthe
third,forthegeneralgovernmentneitherpossesses,norhasexercisedanypower,to
whichtheexerciseofthepowerofenactingthelawinquestionbyPennsylvania,is
eithercontradictoryorrepugnant.Thesupposedincompatibility,arisingfromthe
natureofthepowertobeexerted,cannotrenderitexclusiveinthenational
governmentfortheveryfoundationoftheargumentiswanting,theexistenceofthe
poweratall.

108

II.Takingit,then,asestablishedbytheargument,thatexclusiveauthoritytolegislate
onthissubjectisnotvestedinthegeneralgovernment,isitvestedintherespective

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

28/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

statesconcurrently,andcooperativelywithit,orsolelyandindependentlyofall
controlonthepartofcongress?Anteriortotheadoptionoftheconstitution,thepower
ofprescribingthemodeofsurrenderingupfugitiveslaves,clearlybelongedtothestates
alone.Itisnottakenawaybythatinstrumentitisnotinconsistentwithanyofthe
powersvestedincongressorthegeneralgovernmentitisoneofthemostnecessary
attributesofsovereigntyrecognisedandsanctionedbyeveryprincipleofnationallaw.
Itbelongstothemstill.Norightfulpowerexiststodivestit.Theconstitutionforbidsit
andtheconstitutiononlycanstripthemofthispower.See4Wheat.1225Ibid.12
Dall.294:3Ibid.3862Wheat.2593W.C.C.316,322.Thetentharticleofthe
amendmentsoftheconstitutionsettlesthispartofthecasebeyondallcavilor
controversy.Thereletitrest.Whatevermaybethepowerexercisedbycongress,the
statesatleastcannotbedeprivedofthepowerthatbelongstothemunderthe
constitution.
109

Theactofcongressofthe12thFebruary1793,onthissubject,issupposedtobea
constitutionalexerciseofpower.Passedsorecentlyaftertheadoptionofthe
constitution,andbymenintimatelyassociatedwiththatevent,ithashardlyeverbeen
subjectedtothetestofexaminationithasbeentakenforgranted,andactedupon
withoutquestion.Butevengreatnamescannotsanctifywrongtimecannotsupplythe
wantofconstitutionalauthority.Wemustexaminethatactofcongressnow,asitwould
havebeenexaminedifithadcomebeforethiscourtthedayafteritwasenacted.He
wouldnotspeakirreverentlyofthecongressof1793buthewouldtakeoccasiontosay,
thehistoryofthisfamouslawexhibitedsomecuriousreminiscences.Itsorigin,inafew
words,wasthis.Intheyear1791,thegovernorofPennsylvaniamadeademandonthe
governorofVirginia,forthesurrenderofthreepersonschargedwithkidnappingafree
negro.Aftertakingtheadviceoftheattorneygeneralofthatstate,thegovernorrefused
tocomply,ontheground,thatalthoughtheconstitutionmadeitobligatoryonhimto
surrenderupfugitivesfromjustice,yetastherewasnoactofcongressdirectingthe
modeinwhichitshouldbedone,hecouldnotandwouldnotyieldtothedemand.The
governorofPennsylvaniasubmittedthequestiontoPresidentWashington,who,after
consultingtheattorneygeneraloftheUnitedStates,broughtthewholemattertothe
noticeofcongress.See1AmericanStatePaper,Miscellaneous,389.Thatbodyreferred
thesubjecttoacommitteeabillwasreported,substantiallytheactof1793.Itlayupon
thetableforaconsiderableperiod,andfinallypassedandbecamealawonthe12th
February1793.Itistobeobserved,thattheonlyquestionsubmitted,wastheone
touchingfugitivesfromjusticenotfugitiveslaves.Thetwosubjectswere
comprehendedbycongressinonebill,andthenorthernstateswereconstrainedto
agreetotheprovisionrelativetofugitiveslaves,forthepurposeofprocuringthepassage
ofalawprovidingforthecaseoffugitivesfromjustice.

110

Thescienceoflegislativelogrolling,whichhasbeendeemedofquitemodernorigin,
appearsnottohavebeenunknowntothecongressof1793.Thereisnoquestionabout
thepowerofcongresstolegislateonthequestionoffugitivesfromjustice.Thedemand
istobemadebytheexecutiveauthority,ona'chargemade'againstaperson,oftreason,
felony,&c.,whoshallflee,&c.Thefirstsectionofthefourtharticleoftheconstitution
expresslyconfersoncongressthepowerofprescribingthemannerinwhich'records
andjudicialproceedingsshallbeproved,andtheeffectthereof.'Theright,therefore,to
legislateonthissubjectisclear.Butthereisnottheremotestconnectionbetweenthis
matterandthatoffugitiveslaves.Theonehassolereferencetocrimesperpetrated
againstthepublicpeaceandpublicsafetytheothertotherecaptureorreclamationof
privateproperty:yetcongressclassedthemtogether,andmadetheprovisionforone
dependonasimilarprovisionfortheother.

111

Whatarethefeaturesofthisactofcongress,which,asiscontended,waspassedin
pursuanceoftheconstitutionalauthorityofthegeneralgovernmentandwhich
terminatedforever,ifsuchrighteverexisted,theconcurrentpowerofthestatesto
legislateonthesamesubject?Itempowersstatejudges,magistrates,&c.,totake

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

29/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

cognisanceofthecasesoffugitiveslaves,togetherwithjudgesholdingtheir
appoinmentsunderthenationalgovernment.Sofarasitattemptstovestthisorany
jurisdictioninstateofficers,itisunconstitutionalandvoid.Thesolemndecisionofthis
courthasbrandedsuchattemptwithcondemnation.SeeMartinv.Hunter'sLessee,1
Wheat.3043Story'sCom.Const.114,115,386,603Serg.Const.Law386,398.
112

Thatact,then,isvoid,sofarasrelatestoallinstrumentalityforitsexecution,butby
thejudgesofthecourtsoftheUnitedStates.Theauthorityofitsframers,as
constitutionallawyers,isthusexplodedandtheirboastedwork,likeallthingshuman,
ischaracterizedbyfrailtyanderror.Ifitevenberegardedasconformabletothe
constitution,itsexecutionisrenderedalmostimpracticablebythewantofadequate
agents.InalargestatelikePennsylvania,withbuttwodistrictjudgesresidingthree
hundredmilesapart,howisthedifficultyofobtainingcertificatesofremovalforfugitive
slavestobeobviated?Ifthestateauthoritiescannotbecalledupontofurnishaid,what
arethelimitstotheobstaclesthatenvironthemasters?Averybriefseasonoftrialwill
makethemknown.Hewouldsuggesttothecourt,whetherthisactofcongresswasnot
operativeonlyinthedistrictofColumbia,theterritories,andwherevercongresshad
exclusiverightoflegislation.Tothisextent,hedidnotintendtoquestionitsvalidity.

113

Itwasafairandreasonablepresumptionfromtheprovisionoftheactofcongress
itself,authorizingtheinterpositionofstateofficers,thatcongress,awareofitsinherent
defectofjurisdiction,contemplatedthecooperativeorconcurrentaidofstate
legislation,tocarrytheprovisionsofthislawintoeffect.Ifnot,whyimposeonthestate
magistratesdutieswhichtheycouldnotperform?Wouldacertificateofremoval,given
underthisvoidauthority,authorizethemastertoremovehisslave?Clearlynot!Nor
woulditaffordhimanyprotectionagainsttherescueorescapeofhisslave.Toseekthe
aidofsuchofficialauthoritywouldbealikedangerousandidle.Itwouldleadto
incessantbroilsanddisturbancesofthepublicpeaceandtotheinevitableescapeofthe
fugitivefromhismaster.Inthisstateofthecase,thelegislatureofPennsylvania
deemingtheactofcongress,pursuanttothefederalconstitution,stepsforthtoaidthe
pursuersoffugitiveslaves.Theactofassemblyofthatstateofthe25thofMarch1826,
waspassedinthemannerhehadalreadystated,toconferauthorityonherown
magistratesandjudges,whichtheconstitutionhaddeniedundertheactofcongress.

114

It,inthefirstplace,describestheoffencechargedagainstthedefendantinthiscase,
andthenproceedstofindthemodeinwhichthestatemagistratesandjudgesshalltake
cognisanceofthecasesoffugitiveslaves.Itdoesnotchangethemodeofmakingproof
onthepartoftheclaimants,northemodeofgrantingcertificatesofremovalitsimply
deprivessubordinatemagistratesofthepowerofgrantingsuchcertificates,butit
directstheirinterferencetoprocurethearrestofthefugitive,andenjoinsontheseveral
judgesthedutyofhearingtheproofandgrantingthepropercertificatesfortheremoval
ofthefugitive,oncertaintermsthereinprescribed.Itdoesnottouchtheactof
congress.Itrecognisesitsauthority,andleavesitasitstoodbefore.Proceedingsunder
thisactofassemblyarepurelyvoluntary.Claimantsmayresorttoitforaid,orpursue
thedirectionsoftheactofcongress.Ifitsprovisionsareonerous,discardthem:take
shelterunderthenationallaw.Butitisanadditionalremedyprovidedforthebenefitof
theslaveholders.Itgivesthemashortcuttojustice,andwhatcausehavetheyto
complain,ifitleavestheothercourseequallyfreefortheiradoption?Indetermining
whichremedytoinvoke,theslaveownerwillbegovernedbycircumstances,distance,
place,characterofneighborhood,clearnessofhisownproof,&c.,andwillactaccording
tothepreponderanceofadvantages.Notoneparticleofinconveniencecanhesuffer
underthisactofPennsylvania,whilehehasthechanceofmanifoldbenefits.

115

TheactsofcongressandofPennsylvaniaformtogetheranharmonioussystem,
neitherjarringnorconflictinginanypartofitsoperation.Itiscarefuloftherightsof
theslaveholder,andisadaptedtothefeelings,sympathiesandsovereignpowerofthe
states.Ifthepowertopasslawsonthesubjectofdeliveringupfugitiveslavesbe
concurrent,thestatescannotcontroltheactsofcongress,andcannot,therefore,

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

30/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

impairtherightsoftheowners.Ifthepowerbesolelyvestedinthestates,theycannot
impairthisrightunderthefederalconstitution.Ineithercase,theslaveholdersmaybid
defiancetohostilestatelegislation.Themodeofrecapturingorseizingtheirpropertyby
thesouthernslaveholders,underthelaws,bothofcongressandofthelegislatureof
Pennsylvania,isasummaryone,inderogationofthecommonlawandmightbe
confinedtoastrictandrigidadherencetotheboundarieslaiddownonthesubject,in
eitherofthem,totheexclusionoftheotherundertheconstitutionbutwhenthefree
statesthemselves,whomightrequirethisconstruction,choosevoluntarilytosurrender
it,andtreatitasaremedialpower,tobeenlarged,bybothstateandnationallegislation,
forthebenefitoftheslaveholders,itisanextraordinaryspectacletoseethosemost
deeplyinterestedarrayedamongtheadversariesofthisliberalpolicy.Itappearedtohim
oneofthemostunaccountabledelusionsthateverseizedthehumanmind.Hewould
leavetofuturetimes,asamatterofwonder,thetaskofdiscoveringwhyhislearnedand
zealousfriendsontheotherside,andhimself,hadnotchangedplacesinthisargument.
Experiencewilldemonstratewhoadvocatesthetrueinterest,notofthenorthonly,but
ofthesouth,andofallsectionsoftheUnion.Hedidnotforaninstantquestion
motives,hespokeofresultsalone.Tothesehewouldappeal,forajudgmentthatmight
abidethetestoftime,withallitsattendanttrainofcircumstances,fraughtwithgoodor
illtoourcountry.
116

Supposingthepowertopasslawsonthesubjectoffugitiveslavestobeconcurrent,
thelearnedcounselontheothersidecontended,thatithadbeenexercisedbycongress
thatthewholegroundoflegislationwasprovidedforthattherightofthestateswas
therebysuperseded,andthattheactofassemblyofPennsylvaniawasabsolutelyvoid.
Toallthesepositions,hewouldanswer,inadditiontowhathadalreadybeenadvanced,
thatcongresshadnotcoveredthewholegroundthatithadexpresslyintendedto
employtheagencyofstatemagistrates,whichcouldnotbedonewithoutstate
legislationandthatthestates,iftheyhadarighttoauthorizetheactionoftheirofficers,
coulddosoonsuchtermsastheypleased,iftheydidnotcontradicttheactofcongress.
Therewasnosuchcontradictionorrepugnancyinthiscase,andofcourse,the
argumentraisedonthatpresumptiontotallyfailed.

117

Hecouldnot,onthisbranchofthecase,fortifyhisargumentwithstrongerreasonor
authoritythanbyquotingthewordsofMr.JusticeSTORY,inthecaseofHoustonv.
Moore.Onthisbasis,hedidnotfeartoletitrest.'Theconstitution,containingagrant
ofpowersinmanyinstancessimilartothosealreadyexistinginthestategovernments,
andsomeofthesebeingofvitalimportancealsotostateauthorityandstatelegislation,
itisnottobeadmitted,thatameregrantofsuchpowersinaffirmativetermsto
congress,does,perse,transferanexclusivesovereigntyonsuchsubjectstothelatter.
Onthecontrary,areasonableinterpretationofthatinstrumentnecessarilyleadstothe
conclusion,thatthepowerssograntedareneverexclusiveofsimilarpowersexistingin
thestates,unlesswheretheconstitutionhasexpressly,interms,givenanexclusive
powertocongress,ortheexerciseofalikepowerisprohibitedtothestates,orthereisa
directrepugnancyorincompatibilityintheexerciseofitbythestates.'Andalso,'inall
othercasesnotfallingwithintheclassesalreadymentioned,itseemsunquestionable,
thatthestatesretainconcurrentauthoritywithcongress,notonlyontheletterand
spiritoftheeleventhamendmentoftheconstitution,butuponthesoundestprinciples
ofgeneralreasoning.'

118

III.Thevitalquestioninthiscauseseemedtohimtobethis:whetherthestateof
Pennsylvaniacouldnotpunishtheforcibleremovalofanegro,inthemannerandfor
thepurposessetforthinthisspecialverdict,asacriminaloffence,whensuchremoval
wasmadeintotaldisregardoftheactofcongress,andofherownactof1826.Heneed
hardlyremindthecourt,thattheprovisionsofthefederalconstitutionunder
consideration,prescribedthatfugitiveslavesweretobe'deliveredup,''onclaim.'Both
theactsofcongressandthelegislatureofPennsylvaniadirectedthemodetobepursued
inmakingclaimanddelivery.Itisobvious,thattheconstitutioncontemplatedtwoacts

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

31/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

theclaimbythemaster,andthedeliveryinpursuanceofit,bythestatewherethe
fugitivewasfound.Oneprecededtheotherandneithercouldbeavailabletorestorethe
slavetohismaster,alone.Undertheactofcongress,hemight'seize'theslave,butcould
notremovehim,withoutthecertificateofthejudgeormagistrate.Undertheactof
1826,themagistratemayissuehiswarranttoapprehendthefugitivebutthejudge
alonecangrantthecertificate.Underneithercanthemasterremovetheslave,without
thiscertificate.Itishisonlylegalwarrantofremoval,anditisasufficientwarrant
throughoutthewholeUnion.Aforcibleremovalisnowhereauthorizedor
countenancedonthecontrary,itcanonlybearemovalunderthelaw,andaccording
tothelaw.Themaster,undertheactofcongress,may'seize'hisslave,butonlyforthe
purposeoftakinghimbeforeajudge.Heisprotectedinmakingsuchseizurebutthe
momentheabusesthisright,andindefianceoflaw,undertakestoremovehisslave,
withoutacertificate,heforfeitstheprotectionofthelaw,andbecomesamenableto
suchpunishmentasthestatesmayprescribe.
119

Theactofcongresspunishesthosewhointerferewiththerightsoftheslaveholder
butissilentastotherightsofnegroeswrongfullyseized,andofthestateswhose
territoryisenteredbypersons,underpretextofright,toviolatethelawsandcarry
forciblyawaythosewhoarelivingundertheirprotection.Thesecasesareclearlyleftto
theguardianshipofthestatesthemselves.Thetentharticleoftheamendmentstothe
constitutionsecuresthisrightandselfrespect,ifnotselfprotection,demandsits
exercise.Ithasalreadybeendecided,bythiscourt,thatpersonswhoviolateordisregard
theprovisionsofanactofcongressmaybemadeamenabletostatelaw.Houstonv.
Moore,5Wheat.12Hamilton'sWorks347.Thisis,notontheprinciple,thattoviolate
anactofcongressisacrimeagainstthestatebutthattheoffencedenouncedbythe
lawsofthestateisnotprotectedbythenationalauthority,andhencemaybepunished
asacrime.

120

Prigg,thedefendantinthiscase,firstsoughttheaidofthestatelaw,toseizehisslave,
andthen,incontemptofbothitsmandatesandthoseoftheactofcongress,removed
thefugitive,withoutmakingclaim,obtainingcertificate,ordoinganythingtoprocure
thewarrantofthelaw.Thiswasawantoninsulttothedignityofthestateof
Pennsylvaniaandtendeddirectlytoproduceriots,disturbancesandillbloodbetween
hercitizensandthoseofthestateofMaryland.Woulditnotbemonstrous,tohold,that
anactwhichleadstosuchresults,whichoffendssodeeplythehonestprejudicesoflarge
portionsofthecitizensofastate,isnot,ormaynotbepunishedas,acrimeagainsther
sovereigntyandherlaws?Ifsuchpowerdonotbelongtothestates,itisdifficultto
conceive,howanyportionoftheirpolicearrangementsmaynotatanytimebe
annulledandabrogatedbythegeneralgovernment.Amoreabsoluteannihilationofthe
statesovereigntiesthanthiswouldbe,isnotwithinthestretchofhumanpower.

121

Itisafamiliarprincipletothecourt,thatonthegroundofrepugnancytothe
constitution,statelawsmaybevoidinpart,andvalidfortheresidue.Thesequestions
areextremelydelicateandthiscourtwilldeclarelawsvoidforthisreason,onlyina
clearcase.Fletcherv.Peck,6Cranch87.Ifpossible,thecourtwillreconcilethemwith
theconstitutionandsofarasdependsontheirpolicyorjustice,leavethattothe
judgmentofthepeoplewhoenactandmustobeythem.Dismissingfromconsideration,
forthepurposesofthisargument,therightofthestatestopasslawsonthesubjectof
thedeliveryupoffugitiveslaves,inwhatrespectdoestheactof1826,sofarasrelatesto
thepunishmentofthosewhoareguiltyofkidnapping,conflictwiththeconstitutionof
theUnitedStates,orwithanyactofcongress?Hethought,hemightchallengethe
utmostingenuitytopointoutsuchconflict.Itwasclearlytheexerciseofareserved
power.Itonlypunishedthosewhosetalllawsonthissubjectatnaught,andbytheir
examples,didmoretoendangertherightsoftheslaveholdersintherecoveryoftheir
fugitives,thanallthestatelawseveradoptedhaddone,orcoulddo.Suchrashand
indiscreeteffortstoregainfugitiveslaves,asthisdefendantmade,havedonemuchto
formentthespiritofoppositiontoslaveryinthenorthandifpersistedin,willawakena

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

32/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

feelingnoteasilysubduedorcontrolled.Didthechivalrousandconsiderateslave
ownersofthesouthcomethemselvesinpursuitoftheirfugitiveslaves,theseinstances
ofoutragewouldseldom,ifever,happenbuttheagentsoftenemployedbythem,areof
themostdebasedcharacter,andbeingalikeignorantandregardlessoflawand
courtesy,excite,bytheirconduct,thedeepestemotionsofindignationandabhorrence.
Itisagainstsuchoffenders,thatthepenalenactmentinquestionischieflyaimed.Canit
bepossible,thatthiscourtwillstrikedownthearmofstateauthority,thusupliftedto
maintainpeace,orderandtherespectfulobservanceofthelaw?
122

Thefactthatthenegrothusforciblyandillegallyremovedisaslave,iswholly
immaterial.Itisadmittedbytheotherside,thatlegislationundertheconstitutionis
necessarytocarrytheprovisiononthissubjectoffugitiveslavesintoeffect.Ifso,the
rightofremovalcannotexistindependentofsuchlegislation.Althoughtheslavemaybe
so,infact,yethemustbeidentifiedandcertifiedbythelawtobesuch,toauthorizehis
removal.Untilthisisdone,nopresumptionofslaveryarises.True,itwillarise,if'seized'
on'claim,'andtakenbeforeajudge,butnot,ifremovedwithoutthisjudicialsanction.
Hereisthetruepointofthecase.Thelawprotectstheowneroragent,untilheproceeds
toremovetheslaveindefianceofitsprohibition.Theinstanthedoesthis,thecrimeis
committedthepenaltyisincurredtheviolatedlawdemandsitsvictim.The
constitutionevidentlycontemplatestheactofthelaw,andnottheactoftheparty,in
therecoveryoffugitiveslavesandhewho,withastronghand,usurpstheprerogativeof
thelaw,andtramplesonitsmandates,hasnorighttocomplainofthepunishmentit
inflicts.

123

Thespecialverdictinthiscasedistinctlyadmits,thattheactofthedefendantis
neithersanctionednorprotectedbyeithertheactofcongressorthelegislatureof
Pennsylvania.Itwas,therefore,clear,ashebelieved,whatevermightbetheopinionof
thecourtuponthebroadquestionofthepowerofthestatestopasslawsdirectingthe
modeofdeliveringupfugitiveslaves,thattheactofPennsylvania,sofarasitaffected
thiscase,orwasinvolvedinitsdetermination,wasnotrepugnanttotheconstitution,
andthataccordinglythejudgmentofthesupremecourtofthatstatemustbeaffirmed.

124

Inconclusion,saidMr.Johnson,thecourtwillallowmetosay,thatIhavearguedthis
caseonthepresumptionthatmanygreatrulesofconstitutionalinterpretationhave
beensettledbyitsdecisionsandthatIhaveadoptedandappliedthemsofarasthey
appearedapplicable,withoutconsumingthetimeorabusingthepatienceofthecourt,
byelaborateinquiriesintotheirjusticeortheirauthority.Ihavenotdeemedit
respectful,toaddressthiscourtasifIweredeliveringacourseofelementarylecturesin
alawacademy.Iknowmyownduty,andthecharacterofthiscourt,toowell,toengage
insuchanundertaking.Ifeelpersuadedthatmydeficiencieswillbefarmorethan
suppliedbythelearningandexperienceofyourhonors.Ihavesoughttoconfinemy
argumentstrictlytothecasebeforeyou,andIhope,withinthisscope,nopointsof
essentialinteresthaveescapedmyattention.

125

Itrust,Ishallbepardoned,ifIagainreiteratemyconviction,thattheconstructionof
theconstitutionforwhichIhavecontended,isthetrue,rationalandjustone.Whatever
maybetheopinionofothers,itcannotandwillnotbeplausiblyalleged,thatthis
constructionviolatesanyofitsprovisions,orendangersanypowervestedineitherthe
nationalorstategovernments.Itoffendsnoprejudicesittrenchesonnorightitsets
noexampletobehereafterpleadedinjustificationofmeasureswhichtendtoaugment
thepowerofthegeneralgovernment,andtostripthestatesoftheirproudestattributes
ofsovereignty.Itbindseachinitspropersphereitinvestsbothwithallrequisiteand
properauthoritytoperformthefunctionsforwhichtheyweredesigned,anditdivests
thisobligationtodeliverupfugitiveslaves,which,tothesensitive,isharshandodious,
ofalmosteveryfeatureofpainfulrepugnancetothefeelings.

126

Butletthepicturebereversed:Denytherightofthestatestolegislateonthissubject,
forthepreservationoftheirownpeaceandtheprotectionoftheirownsoilfrominsult

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

33/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

andaggressionaggregateexclusivepowerforthegeneralgovernmenttoorderand
directhow,andbywhom,allegedfugitiveslavesaretoberestoredtotheirmastersor
hiredpursurers,andyouarouseaspiritofdiscordandresistance,thatwillneither
shrinknorslumber,tilltheobligationitselfbecancelled,ortheUnionwhichcreatesit
bedissolved.Idonotsaythisinmenace:GodforbidIshould!butinexpostulating
warning,tothosewho,bydemandingtoomuch,maysacrificeeventhattowhichthey
arejustlyentitled.
127

Thevarious,diversifiedandalmostantagonistinterestsofdifferentsectionsofour
Union,rendergovernmenthereataskofnosmallcaution,forbearanceand
responsibility.Timeandexperiencehaveemphaticallytaughtus,thatthereisbutone
modeinwhichtheseinterestscanbeeffectuallyguardedandpromotedandthatis,bya
strict,steadyandundeviatingadherencetothespiritandletterofthenational
constitution.Theeventsofeveryday,andeveryyear,investtheconstitutionwith
additionalclaimstoourveneration.Itsadvantagesseemtomultiplywithour
necessities,andtospringoutofthem.Itwouldnotbedifficult,inthecourseofour
history,topointoutparticularinstances,inwhichdifferentquartersoftheUnion,
influencedbyadverseinterests,havesoughttoapplyopposingconstructionstothe
sameprovisions,onassumedgeneral,strictorlatitudinarianprinciplesandyet,ina
verybriefperiodoftime,constructionsofotherprovisionshavecompelledthese
sectionalpartiestochangetheirrespectiveground,andtorepudiatewhattheyhad
beforeadopted.Theseconsiderationsrebukethespiritofselfconfidenceandofself
interest,andadmonishus,thatintheend,thatconstructionistheonlysound,rational
andsafeone,whichencroachesonnopeculiarinterest,andwhichsustainsallalike,
withevenhandedjustice.Letthesouthandthenorthremember,thathewholivesby
theswordtoday,maydiebytheswordtomorrow.Then,indeed,maywereadthe
constitutioninthebenignspiritofthegoldenrule,todo'untoothers,aswewouldthat
theyshoulddountous.'

128

Theframersofourgloriousconstitution,appeartohavebeenlittlelessthaninspired.
Theynotonlyguardedthelibertiesoftheirownage,buttheylookedintofuturity,and
providedforthelibertiesofagestofollowthemconstitutionalindemnitieswhichmust
thenhavebeenestablished,orneverestablishedatall.Thedaytointrenchpolitical
freedomwithinawrittenconstitution,wasthedaywhenthefreshrecollectionofthe
revolutionarycontestnotonlytaughtitsvalue,butthedutyofplacingitbeyondthe
reachofinvasionandourfathers,consciousofthistruth,performedthedutydevolved
onthem,inamannerworthyofitsinestimableimportance.Themostskepticalmust
tracethefingerofGodinthisworkandacknowledgethathehassanctifieditinthe
councilsofhisProvidence.Itisadaptedtoourconditionineverystageofournational
advancement.FromtheAtlantictothePacificoceans,andfromthelakestotheborders
ofMexico,ithasstretchedforthitscherishingarmoverourpeople,anddiffusedits
blessingsonallalike.Ithas'grownwithourgrowth,andstrengthenedwithour
strength'itwastheswaddingclothesofournationalinfancyitisthecoatofmailthat
envelopesthegiantlimbsofournationalmanhood.Changedasisourcondition,
modifiedasmayseemourgovernmentinvariousmattersofpolicytheconstitutionof
ourfathersisstill,solidandentire,theconstitutionoftheirdescendants.Ifwewould
preserveit,ifwewouldperpetuateitsbenefits,wemust,initsinterpretation,adhere
withinflexibletenacitytothatspiritofgenerousandenlightenedconcessioninwhichit
haditsorigin,whichnowandforevermustbeitsbreathoflife.Itisequallyendangered
bystrainingitsjustpowerstoofar,asbycripplingtheiroperation,andshrivellingupthe
vigorousenergieswhichalonemakeitaformofgovernmentcapableorworthyof
popularconfidenceandsupport.Toclaimforit,whatiswithheldexclusiveauthorityto
legislateonthedelicatesubjectofdirectingthedeliveryupoffugitiveslaves,tothe
entireexclusionofstateinterposition,seemstometherankestusurpation.Inresisting
thisdoctrine,Iverilybelieve,Istandheremoreasthetruefriendofthesouth,than
thosewhohonestly,buterroneously,urgeituponthecourt.Inthename,then,of
Pennsylvania,inthenameofallthestatesinthenameoftheUnionitselfIprotest

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

34/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

againstthisdangerousencroachmentonstatesovereigntyandstateindependence.The
longandimpatientstruggleonthisquestion,Itrustisnearlyover.Thedecisionofthis
courtwillputitatrest.
129

130

Pennsylvaniawillbethefirsttoacquiesceinwhateverdecisionmaybepronounced
anddeeplyandanxiouslyasshedesirestoseealltherightsguarantiedtoherbythe
nationalconstitutionsteadfastlymaintained,shesubmits,withaconfidencethatknows
nofear,theserights,whichareequallydeartoeverysisterstateastheyaretoher,tothe
judgmentofthishighandenlightenedtribunal.
STORY,Justice,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt.

131

ThisisawritoferrortothesupremecourtofPennsylvania,broughtunderthe25th
sectionofthejudiciaryactof1789,ch.20,forthepurposeofrevisingthejudgmentof
thatcourt,inacaseinvolvingtheconstructionoftheconstitutionandlawsofthe
UnitedStates.Thefactsarebrieflythese:

132

TheplaintiffinerrorwasindictedinthecourtofoyerandterminerforYorkcounty,
forhaving,withforceandviolence,takenandcarriedawayfromthatcounty,tothe
stateofMaryland,acertainnegrowoman,namedMargaretMorgan,withadesignand
intentionofsellinganddisposingof,andkeepingher,asaslaveorservantforlife,
contrarytoastatuteofPennsylvania,passedonthe26thofMarch1826.Thatstatute,in
thefirstsection,insubstance,provides,thatifanypersonorpersonsshall,fromand
afterthepassingoftheact,byforceandviolence,takeandcarryaway,orcausetobe
takenandcarriedaway,andshall,byfraudorfalsepretence,seduce,orcausetobe
seduced,orshallattempttotake,carryawayorseduce,anynegroormulatto,fromany
partofthatcommonwealth,withadesignandintentionofsellinganddisposingof,or
causingtobesold,orofkeepinganddetaining,orofcausingtobekeptanddetained,
suchnegroormulatto,asaslaveorservantforlife,orforanytermwhatsoeverevery
suchpersonorpersons,hisortheiraidersorabettors,shall,onconvictionthereof,be
deemedguiltyoffelony,andshallforfeitandpayasumnotlessthanfivehundred,nor
morethanonethousanddollarsandmoreover,shallbesentencedtoundergoservitude
foranytermortermsofyears,notlessthansevenyearsnorexceedingtwentyone
yearsandshallbeconfinedandkepttohardlabor,&c.Therearemanyotherprovisions
inthestatute,whichisrecitedatlargeintherecord,buttowhichitisinourview
unnecessarytoadvertuponthepresentoccasion.

133

Theplaintiffinerrorpleadednotguiltytotheindictmentandatthetrial,thejury
foundaspecialverdict,which,insubstance,states,thatthenegrowoman,Margaret
Morgan,wasaslaveforlife,andheldtolaborandserviceunderandaccordingtothe
lawsofMaryland,toacertainMargaretAshmore,acitizenofMarylandthattheslave
escapedandfledfromMaryland,intoPennsylvania,in1832thattheplaintiffinerror,
beinglegallyconstitutedtheagentandattorneyofthesaidMargaretAshmore,in1837,
causedthesaidnegrowomantobetakenandapprehendedasafugitivefromlabor,bya
stateconstable,underawarrantfromaPennsylvaniamagistratethatthesaidnegro
womanwasthereuponbroughtbeforethesaidmagistrate,whorefusedtotakefurther
cognisanceofthecaseandthereupon,theplaintiffinerrordidremove,takeandcarry
awaythesaidnegrowomanandherchildren,outofPennsylvania,intoMaryland,and
diddeliverthesaidnegrowomanandherchildrenintothecustodyandpossessionof
thesaidMargaretAshmore.Thespecialverdictfurtherfinds,thatoneofthechildren
wasborninPennsylvania,morethanayearafterthesaidnegrowomanhadfledand
escapedfromMaryland.Uponthisspecialverdict,thecourtofoyerandterminerof
Yorkcountyadjudgedthattheplaintiffinerrorwasguiltyoftheoffencechargedinthe
indictment.Awritoferrorwasbroughtfromthatjudgmenttothesupremecourtof
Pennsylvania,wherethejudgmentwas,proforma,affirmed.Fromthislatter
judgment,thepresentwritoferrorhasbeenbroughttothiscourt.

134

Beforeproceedingtodiscusstheveryimportantandinterestingquestionsinvolvedin

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

35/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

thisrecord,itisfittosay,thatthecausehasbeenconducedinthecourtbelow,andhas
beenbroughtherebythecooperationandsanction,bothofthestateofMaryland,and
thestateofPennsylvania,inthemostfriendlyandcourteousspirit,withaviewtohave
thosequestionsfinallydisposedofbytheadjudicationofthiscourtsothatthe
agitationsonthissubject,inbothstates,whichhavehadatendencytointerruptthe
harmonybetweenthem,maysubside,andtheconflictofopinionbeputatrest.It
shouldalsobeadded,thatthestatuteofPennsylvaniaof1826,was(ashasbeen
suggestedatthebar)passedwithaviewofmeetingthesupposedwishesofMarylandon
thesubjectoffugitiveslavesandthat,althoughithasfailedtoproducethegoodeffects
intendedinitspracticalconstruction,theresultwasunforeseenandundesigned.
135

Thequestionarisinginthecase,astotheconstitutionalityofthestatuteof
Pennsylvania,hasbeenmostelaboratelyarguedatthebar.Thecounselfortheplaintiff
inerrorhavecontended,thatthestatuteofPennsylvaniaisunconstitutionalfirst,
becausecongresshastheexclusivepoweroflegislationuponthesubjectmatter,under
theconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andundertheactofthe12thofFebruary1793,ch.
51,whichwaspassedinpursuancethereofsecondly,thatifthispowerisnotexclusive
incongress,stilltheconcurrentpowerofthestatelegislaturesissuspendedbythe
actualexerciseofthepowerofcongressandthirdly,thatifnotsuspended,stillthe
statuteofPennsylvania,inallitsprovisionsapplicabletothiscase,isindirectcollision
withtheactofcongress,andtherefore,isunconstitutionalandvoid.Thecounselfor
Pennsylvaniamaintainthenegativeofallthosepoints.

136

Fewquestionswhichhaveevercomebeforethiscourtinvolvemoredelicateand
importantconsiderationsandfewuponwhichthepublicatlargemaybepresumedto
feelamoreprofoundandpervadinginterest.Wehaveaccordinglygiventhemourmost
deliberateexaminationandithasbecomemydutytostatetheresulttowhichwehave
arrived,andthereasoningbywhichitissupported.

137

Before,however,weproceedtothepointsmoreimmediatelybeforeus,itmaybe
well,inordertoclearthecaseofdifficulty,tosay,thatintheexpositionofthispartof
theconstitution,weshalllimitourselvestothoseconsiderationswhichappropriately
andexclusivelybelongtoit,withoutlayingdownanyrulesofinterpretationofamore
generalnature.Itwill,indeed,probably,befound,whenwelooktothecharacterofthe
constitutionitself,theobjectswhichitseekstoattain,thepowerswhichitconfers,the
dutieswhichitenjoins,andtherightswhichitsecures,aswellastheknownhistorical
fact,thatmanyofitsprovisionsweremattersofcompromiseofopposinginterestsand
opinions,thatnouniformruleofinterpretationcanbeappliedtoit,whichmaynot
allow,evenifitdoesnotpositivelydemand,manymodifications,initsactual
applicationtoparticularclauses.And,perhaps,thesafestruleofinterpretation,afterall,
willbefoundtobetolooktothenatureandobjectsoftheparticularpowers,dutiesand
rights,withallthelightsandaidsofcontemporaryhistoryandtogivetothewordsof
eachjustsuchoperationandforce,consistentwiththeirlegitimatemeaning,asmay
fairlysecureandattaintheendsproposed.

138

Therearetwoclausesintheconstitutionuponthesubjectoffugitives,whichstandsin
juxtapositionwitheachother,andhavebeenthoughtmutuallytoillustrateeachother.
Theyarebothcontainedinthesecondsectionofthefourtharticle,andareinthe
followingwords:'Apersonchargedinanystatewithtreason,felonyorothercrime,
whoshallfleefromjustice,andbefoundinanotherstate,shall,ondemandofthe
executiveauthorityofthestatefromwhichhefled,bedeliveredup,toberemovedtothe
statehavingjurisdictionofthecrime.''Nopersonheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,
underthelawsthereof,escapingintoanother,shall,inconsequenceofanylawor
regulationtherein,bedischargedfromsuchserviceorlaborbutshallbedeliveredup,
onclaimofthepartytowhomsuchserviceorlabormaybedue.'

139

Thelastclauseisthat,thetrueinterpretationwhereofisdirectlyinjudgmentbefore
us.Historically,itiswellknown,thattheobjectofthisclausewastosecuretothe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

36/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

citizensoftheslaveholdingstatesthecompleterightandtitleofownershipintheir
slaves,asproperty,ineverystateintheUnionintowhichtheymightescapefromthe
statewheretheywereheldinservitude.Thefullrecognitionofthisrightandtitlewas
indispensabletothesecurityofthisspeciesofpropertyinalltheslaveholdingstates
and,indeed,wassovitaltothepreservationoftheirdomesticinterestsandinstitutions,
thatitcannotbedoubted,thatitconstitutedafundamentalarticle,withoutthe
adoptionofwhichtheUnioncouldnothavebeenformed.Itstruedesignwas,toguard
againstthedoctrinesandprinciplesprevalentinthenonslaveholdingstates,by
preventingthemfromintermeddlingwith,orobstructing,orabolishingtherightsofthe
ownersofslaves.
140

Bythegenerallawofnations,nonationisboundtorecognisethestateofslavery,as
toforeignslavesfoundwithinitsterritorialdominions,whenitisinoppositiontoits
ownpolicyandinstitutions,infavorofthesubjectsofothernationswhereslaveryis
recognised.Ifitdoesit,itisasamatterofcomity,andnotasamatterofinternational
right.Thestateofslaveryisdeemedtobeameremunicipalregulation,foundedupon
andlimitedtotherangeoftheterritoriallaws.ThiswasfullyrecognisedinSomerset's
Case,Lofft1s.c.11StateTrials,byHarg.340s.c.20How.StateTrial79which
decidedbeforetheAmericanrevolution.Itismanifest,fromthisconsideration,thatif
theconstitutionhadnotcontainedthisclause,everynonslaveholdingstateinthe
Unionwouldhavebeenatlibertytohavebeenatlibertytohavedeclaredfreeall
runawayslavescomingwithinitslimits,andtohavegiventhementireimmunityand
protectionagainsttheclaimsoftheirmastersacoursewhichwouldhavecreatedthe
mostbitteranimosities,andengenderedperpetualstrifebetweenthedifferentstates.
Theclausewas,therefore,ofthelastimportancetothesafetyandsecurityofthe
southernstates,andcouldnothavebeensurrenderedbythem,withoutendagering
theirwholepropertyinslaves.Theclausewasaccordinglyadoptedintotheconstitution,
bytheunanimousconsentoftheframersofitaproofatonceofitsintrinsicand
practicalnecessity.

141

How,then,arewetointerpretthelanguageoftheclause?Thetrueansweris,insuch
amanneras,consistentlywiththewords,shallfullyandcompletelyeffectuatethe
wholeobjectsofit.If,byonemodeofinterpretation,therightmustbecomeshadowy
andunsubstantial,andwithoutanyremedialpoweradequatetotheend,andbyanother
mode,itwillattainitsjustendandsecureitsmanifestpurpose,itwouldseem,upon
principlesofreasoning,absolutelyirresistible,thatthelatteroughttoprevail.Nocourt
ofjusticecanbeauthorizedsotoconstrueanyclauseoftheconstitutionastodefeatits
obviousends,whenanotherconstruction,equallyaccordantwiththewordsandsense
thereof,willenforceandprotectthem.

142

Theclausemanifestlycontemplatestheexistenceofapositive,unqualifiedrighton
thepartoftheowneroftheslave,whichnostatelaworregulationcaninanyway
qualify,regulate,controlorrestrain.Theslaveisnottobedischargedfromserviceor
labor,inconsequenceofanystatelaworregulation.Now,certainly,withoutindulging
inanynicetyofcriticismuponwords,itmayfairlyandreasonablybesaid,thatanystate
laworstateregulation,whichinterrupts,limits,delaysorpostponestherightofthe
ownertotheimmediatepossessionoftheslave,andtheimmediatecommandofhis
serviceandlabor,operates,protanto,adischargeoftheslavetherefrom.Thequestion
canneverbe,howmuchtheslaveisdischargedfrombutwhetherheisdischargedfrom
any,bythenaturalornecessaryoperationofstatelawsorstateregulations.The
questionisnotoneofquantityordegree,butofwithholdingorcontrollingtheincidents
ofapositiveandabsoluteright.

143

Wehavesaid,thattheclausecontainsapositiveandunqualifiedrecognitionofthe
rightoftheownerintheslave,unaffectedbyanystatelaworlegislationwhatsoever,
becausethereisnoqualificationorrestrictionofittobefoundthereinandwehaveno
righttoinsertany,whichisnotexpressed,andcannotbefairlyimplied.Especially,are
weestoppedfromsodoing,whentheclauseputstherighttotheserviceorlaborupon

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

37/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

thesameground,andtothesameextent,ineveryotherstateasinthestatefromwhich
theslaveescaped,andinwhichhewasheldtotheserviceorlabor.Ifthisbeso,thenall
theincidentstothatrightattachalso.Theownermust,therefore,havetherighttoseize
andrepossesstheslave,whichthelocallawsofhisownstateconferuponhim,as
propertyandweallknowthatthisrightofseizureandrecaptionisuniversally
acknowledgedinalltheslaveholdingstates.Indeed,thisisnomorethanamere
affirmanceoftheprinciplesofthecommonlawapplicabletothisverysubject.Mr.
JusticeBlackstone(3Bl.Com.4)laysitdownasunquestionabledoctrine.'Recaptionor
reprisal(sayshe)isanotherspeciesofremedybythemereactofthepartyinjured.This
happens,whenanyonehathdeprivedanotherofhispropertyingoodsorchattels
personal,orwrongfullydetainsone'swife,childorservantinwhichcase,theownerof
thegoods,andthehusband,parentormaster,maylawfullyclaimandretakethem,
whereverhehappenstofindthem,soitbenotinariotousmanner,orattendedwitha
breachofthepeace.'Uponthisground,wehavenottheslightesthesitationinholding,
thatunderandinvirtueoftheconstitution,theownerofaslaveisclothedwithentire
authority,ineverystateintheUnion,toseizeandrecapturehisslave,wheneverhecan
doit,withoutanybreachofthepeaceoranyillegalviolence.Inthissense,andtothis
extent,thisclauseoftheconstitutionmayproperlybesaidtoexecuteitself,andto
requirenoaidfromlegislation,stateornational.
144

Buttheclauseoftheconstitutiondoesnotstopherenor,indeed,consistentlywithits
professedobjects,coulditdoso.Manycasesmustarise,inwhich,iftheremedyofthe
ownerwereconfinedtothemererightofseizureandrecaption,hewouldbeutterly
withoutanyadequateredress.Hemaynotbeabletolayhishandsupontheslave.He
maynotbeabletoenforcehisrightsagainstpersons,whoeithersecreteorconceal,or
withholdtheslave.Hemayberestrictedbylocallegislation,astothemodeofproofsof
hisownershipastothecourtsinwhichheshallsue,andastotheactionswhichhemay
bringortheprocessbemayusetocompelthedeliveryoftheslave.Nay!thelocal
legislationmaybeutterlyinadequatetofurnishtheappropriateredress,byauthorizing
noprocessinrem,ornospecificmodeofrepossessingtheslave,leavingtheowner,at
best,notthatrightwhichtheconstitutiondesignedtosecure,aspecificdeliveryand
repossessionoftheslave,butamereremedyindamagesandthat,perhaps,against
personsutterlyinsolventorworthless.Thestatelegislationmaybeentirelysilentonthe
wholesubject,anditsordinaryremedialprocessframedwithdifferentviewsand
objectsandthismaybeinnocentlyaswellasdesignedlydone,sinceeverystateis
perfectlycompetent,andhastheexclusiveright,toprescribetheremediesinitsown
judicialtribunals,tolimitthetimeaswellasthemodeofredress,andtodeny
jurisdictionovercases,whichitsownpolicyanditsowninstitutionseitherprohibitor
discountenance.If,therefore,theclauseoftheconstitutionhadstoppedatthemere
recognitionoftheright,withoutprovidingorcontemplatinganymeansbywhichit
mightbeestablishedandenforced,incaseswhereitdidnotexecuteitself,itisplain,
thatitwouldhavebeen,inagreatvarietyofcases,adelusiveandemptyannunciation.If
itdidnotcontemplateanyaction,eitherthroughstateornationallegislation,as
auxiliariestoitsmoreperfectenforcementintheformofremedy,orofprotection,
then,astherewouldbenodutyoneithertoaidtheright,itwouldbelefttothemere
comityofthestates,toactastheyshouldplease,andwoulddependforitssecurityupon
thechangingcourseofpublicopinion,themutationsofpublicpolicy,andthegeneral
adaptationsofremediesforpurposesstrictlyaccordingtothelexfori.

145

Andthisleadsustotheconsiderationoftheotherpartoftheclause,whichimpliesat
onceaguaranteeandduty.Itsays,'buthe(theslave)shallbedeliveredup,onclaimof
thepartytowhomsuchserviceorlabormaybedue.'Now,wethinkitexceedingly
difficult,ifnotimpracticable,toreadthislanguage,andnottofeel,thatitcontemplated
somefurtherremedialredressthanthatwhichmightbeadministeredatthehandsof
theownerhimself.Aclaimistobemade!Whatisaclaim?Itis,inajustjurisdicalsense,
ademandofsomematter,asofright,madebyonepersonuponanother,todoorto
forbeartodosomeactorthingasamatterofduty.Amorelimited,butatthesametime,

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

38/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

anequallyexpressive,definitionwasgivenbyLordDYER,ascitedinStowelv.Zouch,1
Plowd.359anditisequallyapplicabletothepresentcase:that'aclaimisachallengeby
amanoftheproprietyorownershipofathing,whichhehasnotinpossession,but
whichiswrongfullydetainedfromhim.'Theslaveistobedeliveredupontheclaim.By
whomtobedeliveredup?Inwhatmodetobedeliveredup?How,ifarefusaltakes
place,istherightofdeliverytobeenforced?Uponwhatproofs?Whatshallbethe
evidenceofarightfulrecaptionordelivery?Whenandunderwhatcircumstancesshall
thepossessionoftheowner,afteritisobtained,beconclusiveofhisright,soasto
precludeanyfurtherinquiryorexaminationintoitbylocaltribunalsorotherwise,while
theslave,inpossessionoftheowner,isintransitutothestatefromwhichhefled?
Theseandmanyotherquestionswillreadilyoccurupontheslightestattentiontothe
clauseanditisobvious,thattheycanreceivebutonesatisfactoryanswer.Theyrequire
theaidoflegislation,toprotecttheright,toenforcethedelivery,andtosecurethe
subsequentpossessionoftheslave.If,indeed,theconstitutionguarantiestheright,and
ifitrequiresthedeliveryupontheclaimoftheowner(ascannotwellbedoubted),the
naturalinferencecertainlyis,thatthenationalgovernmentisclothedwiththe
appropriateauthorityandfunctionstoenforceit.Thefundamentalprinciple,applicable
toallcasesofthissort,wouldseemtobe,thatwheretheendisrequired,themeansare
givenandwherethedutyisenjoined,theabilitytoperformitiscontemplatedtoexist,
onthepartofthefunctionariestowhomitisintrusted.Theclauseisfoundinthe
nationalconstitution,andnotinthatofanystate.Itdoesnotpointoutanystate
functionaries,oranystateaction,tocarryitsprovisionsintoeffect.Thestatescannot,
therefore,becompelledtoenforcethemanditmightwellbedeemedan
unconstitutionalexerciseofthepowerofinterpretation,toinsist,thatthestatesare
boundtoprovidemeanstocarryintoeffectthedutiesofthenationalgovernment,
nowheredelegatedorintrustedtothembytheconstitution.Onthecontrary,the
natural,ifnotthenecessary,conclusionis,thatthenationalgovernment,inthe
absenceofallpositiveprovisionstothecontrary,isbound,throughitsownproper
departments,legislative,judicialorexecutive,asthecasemayrequire,tocarryinto
effectalltherightsanddutiesimposeduponitbytheconstitution.TheremarkofMr.
Madison,intheFederalist(No.43),wouldseeminsuchcasestoapplywithpeculiar
force.'Aright(sayshe)impliesaremedyandwhereelsewouldtheremedybe
deposited,thanwhereitisdepositedbytheconstitution?'meaning,asthecontext
shows,inthegovernmentoftheUnitedStates.
146

Itisplain,then,thatwhereaclaimismadebytheowner,outofpossession,forthe
deliveryofaslave,itmustbemade,ifatall,againstsomeotherpersonandinasmuchas
therightisarightofproperty,capableofbeingrecognisedandassertedbyproceedings
beforeacourtofjustice,betweenpartiesadversetoeachother,itconstitutes,inthe
strictestsense,acontroversybetweentheparties,andacase'arisingunderthe
constitution'oftheUnitedStates,withintheexpressdelegationofjudicialpowergiven
bythatinstrument.Congress,then,maycallthatpowerintoactivity,forthevery
purposeofgivingeffecttothatrightandifso,thenitmayprescribethemodeand
extentinwhichitshallbeapplied,andhow,andunderwhatcircumstances,the
proceedingsshallaffordacompleteprotectionandguaranteetotheright.

147

Congresshastakenthisveryviewofthepoweranddutyofthenationalgovernment.
Asearlyastheyear1791,theattentionofcongresswasdrawntoit(asweshallhereafter
morefullysee),inconsequenceofsomepracticaldifficultiesarisingundertheother
clause,respectingfugitivesfromjusticeescapingintootherstates.Theresultoftheir
deliberationswasthepassageoftheactofthe12thofFebruary1793,ch.51,which,after
having,inthefirstandsecondsections,providedbythecaseoffugitivesfromjustice,by
ademandtobemadeofthedelivery,throughtheexecutiveauthorityofthestatewhere
theyarefound,proceeds,inthethirdsection,toprovide,thatwhenapersonheldto
labororserviceinanyoftheUnitedStates,shallescapeintoanyotherofthestatesor
territories,thepersontowhomsuchlabororservicemaybedue,hisagentorattorney,
isherebyempoweredtoseizeorarrestsuchfugitivefromlabor,andtakehimorher

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

39/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

beforeanyjudgeofthecircuitordistrictcourtsoftheUnitedStates,residingorbeing
withinthestate,orbeforeanymagistrateofacounty,cityortowncorporate,wherein
suchseizureorarrestshallbemadeanduponproof,tothesatisfactionofsuchjudgeor
magistrate,eitherbyoralevidenceoraffidavit,&c.,thatthepersonsoseizedorarrested,
deth,underthelawsofthestateorterritoryfromwhichheorshefled,oweserviceor
labortothepersonclaiminghimorher,itshallbethedutyofsuchjudgeormagistrate,
togiveacertificatethereoftosuchclaimant,hisagentorattorney,whichshallbe
sufficientwarrantforremovingthesaidfugitivefromlabor,tothestateorterritory
fromwhichheorshefled.Thefourthsectionprovidesapenaltyagainstanyperson,
whoshallknowinglyandwillinglyobstructorhindersuchclaimant,hisagentor
attorney,insoseizingorarrestingsuchfugitivefromlabor,orrescuesuchfugitivefrom
theclaimant,orhisagentorattorney,whensoarrested,orwhoshallharbororconceal
suchfugitive,afternoticethatheissuchanditalsosavestothepersonclaimingsuch
labororservice,hisrightofactionfororonaccountofsuchinjuries.
148

Inageneralsense,thisactmaybetrulysaidtocoverthewholegroundofthe
constitution,bothastofugitivesfromjustice,andfugitiveslavesthatis,itcoversboth
thesubjects,initsenactmentsnotbecauseitexhauststheremedieswhichmaybe
appliedbycongresstoenforcetherights,iftheprovisionsoftheactshallinpracticebe
foundnottoattaintheobjectoftheconstitutionbutbecauseitpointsoutfullyallthe
modesofattainingthoseobjects,whichcongress,intheirdiscretion,haveasyet
deemedexpedientorpropertomeettheexigenciesoftheconstitution.Ifthisbeso,
thenitwouldseem,uponjustprinciplesofconstruction,thatthelegislationof
congress,ifconstitutional,mustsupersedeallstatelegislationuponthesamesubject
andbynecessaryimplicationprohibitit.For,ifcongresshaveaconstitutionalpowerto
regulateaparticularsubject,andtheydoactuallyregulateitinagivenmanner,andina
certainform,itcannotbe,thatthestatelegislatureshavearighttointerfere,andasit
were,bywayofcomplimenttothelegislationofcongress,toprescribeadditional
regulations,andwhattheymaydeemauxiliaryprovisionsforthesamepurpose.Insuch
acase,thelegislationofcongress,inwhatitdoesprescribe,manifestlyindicates,thatit
doesnotintendthatthereshallbeanyfurtherlegislationtoactuponthesubjectmatter.
Itssilenceastowhatitdoesnotdo,isasexpressiveofwhatitsintentionis,asthedirect
provisionsmadebyit.Thisdoctrinewasfullyrecognisedbythiscourt,inthecaseof
Houstonv.Moore,5Wheat.1,212whereitwasexpresslyheld,thatwherecongress
haveexercisedapoweroveraparticularsubjectgiventhembytheconstitution,itisnot
competentforstatelegislationtoaddtotheprovisionsofcongressuponthatsubject
forthatthewillofcongressuponthewholesubjectisasclearlyestablishedbywhatit
hasnotdeclared,asbywhatithasexpressed.

149

Butithasbeenargued,thattheactofcongressisunconstitutional,becauseitdoesnot
fallwithinthescopeofanyoftheenumeratedpowersoflegislationconfidedtothat
bodyandtherefore,itisvoid.Strippedofitsartificialandtechnicalstructure,the
argumentcomestothis,thatalthoughrightsareexclusivelysecuredby,ordutiesare
exclusivelyimposedupon,thenationalgovernment,yet,unlessthepowertoenforce
theserightsortoexecutetheseduties,canbefoundamongtheexpresspowersof
legislationenumeratedintheconstitution,theyremainwithoutanymeansofgiving
themeffectbyanyactofcongressandtheymustoperatesolelypropriovigore,
howeverdefectivemaybetheiroperationnay!evenalthough,inapracticalsense,they
maybecomeanullity,fromthewantofaproperremedytoenforcethem,ortoprovide
againsttheirviolation.Ifthisbethetrueinterpretationoftheconstitution,itmust,ina
greatmeasure,failtoattainmanyofitsavowedandpositiveobjects,asasecurityof
rights,andarecognitionofduties.Suchalimitedconstructionoftheconstitutionhas
neveryetbeenadoptedascorrect,eitherintheoryorpractice.Noonehasever
supposed,thatcongresscould,constitutionally,byitslegislation,exercisepowers,or
enactlaws,beyondthepowersdelegatedtoitbytheconstitution.Butithas,onvarious
occasions,exercisedpowerswhichwerenecessaryandproperasmeanstocarryinto
effectrightsexpresslygiven,anddutiesexpresslyenjoinedthereby.Theendbeing

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

40/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

required,ithasbeendeemedajustandnecessaryimplication,thatthemeansto
accomplishitaregivenalsoor,inotherwords,thatthepowerflowsasanecessary
meanstoaccomplishtheend.
150

Thus,forexample,althoughtheconstitutionhasdeclared,thatrepresentativesshall
beapportionedamongthestatesaccordingtotheirrespectivefederalnumbersandfor
thispurpose,ithasexpresslyauthorizedcongress,bylaw,toprovideforanenumeration
ofthepopulationeverytenyearsyetthepowertoapportionrepresentatives,afterthis
enumerationismade,isnowherefoundamongtheexpresspowersgiventocongress,
butithasalwaysbeenactedupon,asirresistiblyflowingfromthedutypositively
enjoinedbytheconstitution.TreatiesmadebetweentheUnitedStatesandforeign
powers,oftencontainspecialprovisions,whichdonotexecutethemselves,butrequire
theinterpositionofcongresstocarrythemintoeffect,andcongresshasconstantly,in
suchcases,legislatedonthesubjectyet,althoughthepowerisgiventotheexecutive,
withtheconsentofthesenate,tomaketreaties,thepowerisnowhereinpositiveterms
conferreduponcongresstomakelawstocarrythestipulationsoftreatiesintoeffectit
hasbeensupposedtoresultfromthedutyofthenationalgovernmenttofulfilallthe
obligationsoftreaties.Thesenatorsandrepresentativesincongressare,inallcases,
excepttreason,felonyandbreachofthepeace,exemptedfromarrest,duringtheir
attendanceatthesessionsthereof,andingoingtoandreturningfromthesame.May
notcongressenforcethisright,byauthorizingawritofhabeascorpus,tofreethem
fromanillegalarrest,inviolationofthisclauseoftheconstitution?Ifitmaynot,then
thespecificremedytoenforceitmustexclusivelydependuponthelocallegislationof
thestatesandmaybegrantedorrefused,accordingtotheirownvaryingpolicyor
pleasure.Theconstitutionalsodeclares,thattheprivilegeofthewritofhabeascorpus
shallnotbesuspended,unless,whenincasesofrebellionorinvasion,thepublicsafety
mayrequireit.Noexpresspowerisgiventocongresstosecurethisinvaluablerightin
thenonenumeratedcases,ortosuspendthewritincasesofrebellionorinvasion.And
yetitwouldbedifficulttosay,sincethisgreatwritoflibertyisusuallyprovidedforby
theordinaryfunctionsoflegislation,andcanbeeffectuallyprovidedforonlyinthis
way,thatitoughtnottobedeemed,bynecessaryimplication,withinthescopeofthe
legislativepowerofcongress.Thesecasesareputmerelybywayofillustration,toshow,
thattheruleofinterpretation,insisteduponattheargument,isquitetoonarrowto
providefortheordinaryexigenciesofthenationalgovernment,incaseswhererights
areintendedtobeabsolutelysecured,anddutiesarepositivelyenjoinedbythe
constitution.

151

Theveryactof1793,nowunderconsideration,affordsthemostconclusiveproof,
thatcongresshasacteduponaverydifferentruleofinterpretation,andhassupposed,
thattherightaswellasthedutyoflegislationonthesubjectoffugitivesfromjustice,and
fugitiveslaves,waswithinthescopeoftheconstitutionalauthorityconferredonthe
nationallegislature.Inrespecttofugitivesfromjustice,theconstitution,althoughit
expresslyprovides,thatthedemandshallbemadebytheexecutiveauthorityofthestate
fromwhichthefugitivehasfled,issilentastothepartyuponwhomthedemandistobe
made,andastothemodeinwhichitshallbemade.Thisverysilenceoccasioned
embarrassmentsinenforcingtherightandduty,atanearlyperiodaftertheadoptionof
theconstitutionandproducedahesitationonthepartoftheexecutiveauthorityof
Virginiatodeliverupafugitivefromjustice,uponthedemandoftheexecutiveof
Pennsylvania,intheyear1791andaswehistoricallyknowfromthemessageof
PresidentWashington,andthepublicdocumentsofthatperiod,itwastheimmediate
causeofthepassingoftheactof1793,whichdesignatedtheperson(thestateexecutive)
uponwhomthedemandshouldbemade,andthemodeandproofsuponandinwhichit
shouldbemade.Fromthattimedowntothepresenthour,notadoubthasbeen
breathedupontheconstitutionalityofthispartoftheactandeveryexecutiveinthe
Unionhasconstantlyacteduponandadmitteditsvalidity.Yettherightandthedutyare
dependent,astotheirmodeofexecution,solelyontheactofcongressandbutforthat,
theywouldremainanominalrightandpassiveduty,theexecutionofwhichbeing

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

41/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

intrustedtoandrequiredofnooneinparticular,allpersonsmightbeatlibertyto
disregardit.Thisveryacquiescence,undersuchcircumstances,ofthehigheststate
functionaries,isamostdecisiveproofoftheuniversalityoftheopinion,thattheactis
foundedinajustconstructionoftheconstitution,independentofthevastinfluence,
whichitoughttohaveasacontemporaneousexpositionoftheprovisions,bythosewho
wereitsimmediateframers,orintimatelyconnectedwithitsadoption.
152

Thesameuniformityofacquiescenceinthevalidityoftheactof1793,upontheother
partofthesubjectmatter,thatoffugitiveslaves,hasprevaliedthroughoutthewhole
Union,untilacomparativelyrecentperiod.Nay!beingfromitsnatureandcharacter
morereadilysusceptibleofbeingbroughtintocontroversyincourtsofjustice,thanthe
former,andofenlistinginoppositiontoit,thefeelings,anditmaybe,theprejudices,of
someportionsofthenonslaveholdingstates,ithasnaturallybeenbroughtunder
adjudicationinseveralstatesintheUnion,andparticularlyinMassachusetts,NewYork
andPennsylvaniaandonalltheseoccasionsitsvalidityhasbeenaffirmed.Thecases
citedatthebar,ofWrightv.Deacon,5Serg.&Rawle62Glenv.Hodges,9Johns.67
Jackv.Martin,12Wend.311s.c.12Ibid.507andCommonwealthv.Griffin,2Pick.
11,aredirectlyinpoint.SofarasthejudgesofthecourtsoftheUnitedStateshavebeen
calledupontoenforceit,andtograntthecertificaterequiredbyit,itisbelieved,thatit
hasbeenuniformlyrecognisedasabindingandvalidlaw,andasimposinga
constitutionalduty.Undersuchcircumstances,ifthequestionwereoneofdoubtful
construction,suchlongacquiescenceinit,suchcontemporaneousexpositionsofit,and
suchextensiveanduniformrecognitionofitsvalidity,would,inourjudgment,entitle
thequestiontobeconsideredatrestunless,indeed,theinterpretationofthe
constitutionistobedeliveredovertointerminabledoubtthroughoutthewhole
progressoflegislationandofnationaloperations.Congress,theexecutive,andthe
judiciary,have,uponvariousoccasions,acteduponthisasasoundandreasonable
doctrine.Especiallydidthiscourt,inthecasesofStuartv.Laird,1Cranch299,and
Martinv.Hunter,1Wheat.304,andinCohensv.CommonwealthofVirginia,6Ibid.
264,relyuponcontemporaneousexpositionsoftheconstitution,andlong
acquiescenceinit,withgreatconfidence,inthediscussionofquestionsofahighly
interestingandimportantnature.

153

Butwedonotwishtorestourpresentopinionuponthegroundeitherof
contemporaneousexposition,orlongacquiescence,orevenpracticalactionneitherdo
wemeantoadmitthequestiontobeofadoubtfulnature,andtherefore,asproperly
callingfortheaidofsuchconsiderations.Onthecontrary,ourjudgmentwouldbethe
same,ifthequestionwereentirelynew,andtheactofcongresswereofrecent
enactment.Weholdtheacttobeclearlyconstitutional,inallitsleadingprovisions,and,
indeed,withtheexceptionofthatpartwhichconfersauthorityuponstatemagistrates,
tobefreefromreasonabledoubtanddifficulty,uponthegroundsalreadystated.Asto
theauthoritysoconferreduponstatemagistrates,whileadifferenceofopinionhas
existed,andmayexiststill,onthepoint,indifferentstates,whetherstatemagistrates
areboundtoactunderit,noneisentertainedbythiscourt,thatstatemagistratesmay,if
theychoose,exercisethatauthority,unlessprohibitedbystatelegislation.

154

Theremainingquestionis,whetherthepoweroflegislationuponthissubjectis
exclusiveinthenationalgovernment,orconcurrentinthestates,untilitisexercisedby
congress.Inouropinion,itisexclusiveandweshallnowproceedbrieflytostateour
reasonsforthatopinion.Thedoctrinestatedbythiscourt,inSturgesv.Crowninshield,
4Wheat.122,193,containsthetrue,althoughnotthesole,ruleorconsideration,which
isapplicabletothisparticularsubject.'Wherever,'saidMr.ChiefJusticeMARSHALL,in
deliveringtheopinionofthecourt,'thetermsinwhichapowerisgrantedtocongress,
orthenatureofthepower,require,thatitshouldbeexercisedexclusivelybycongress,
thesubjectisascompletelytakenfromthestatelegislatures,asiftheyhadbeen
forbiddentoact.'Thenatureofthepower,andthetrueobjectstobeattainedbyit,are
thenasimportanttobeweighed,inconsideringthequestionofitsexclusiveness,asthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

42/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

wordsinwhichitisgranted.
155

Inthefirstplace,itismaterialtostate(whathasbeenalreadyincidentallyhintedat),
thattherighttoseizeandretakefugitiveslavesandthedutytodeliverthemup,in
whateverstateoftheUniontheymaybefound,and,ofcourse,thecorresponding
powerincongresstousetheappropriatemeanstoenforcetherightandduty,derive
theirwholevalidityandobligationexclusivelyfromtheconstitutionoftheUnited
States,andarethere,forthefirsttime,recognisedandestablishedinthatpeculiar
character.Beforetheadoptionoftheconstitution,nostatehadanypowerwhatsoever
overthesubject,exceptwithinitsownterritoriallimits,andcouldnotbindthe
sovereigntyorthelegislationofotherstates.Whenevertherightwasacknowledged,or
thedutyenforced,inanystate,itwasasamatterofcomity,andnotasamatterofstrict
moral,politicalorinternationalobligationorduty.Undertheconstitution,itis
recognisedasanabsolute,positiverightandduty,pervadingthewholeUnionwithan
equalandsupremeforce,uncontrolledanduncontrollablebystatesovereigntyorstate
legislation.Itit,therefore,inajustsense,anewandpositiveright,independentof
comity,confinedtonoterritoriallimits,andboundedbynostateinstitutionsorpolicy.
Thenaturalinferencedeductiblefromthisconsiderationcertainlyis,intheabsenceof
anypositivedelegationofpowertothestatelegislatures,thatitbelongstothelegislative
departmentofthenationalgovernment,towhichitowesitsoriginandestablishment.
Itwouldbeastrangeanomaly,andforcedconstruction,tosupose,thatthenational
governmentmeanttorelyfortheduefulfilmentofitsownproperduties,andtherights
itintendedtosecure,uponstatelegislation,andnotuponthatoftheUnion.Afortiori,
itwouldbemoreobjectionable,tosuppose,thatapower,whichwastobethesame
throughouttheUnion,shouldbeconfidedtostatesovereignty,whichcouldnot
rightfullyactbeyonditsownterritoriallimits.

156

Inthenextplace,thenatureoftheprovisionandtheobjectstobeattainedbyit,
requirethatitshouldbecontrolledbyoneandthesamewill,andactuniformlybythe
samesystemofregulationsthroughouttheUnion.If,then,thestateshavearight,inthe
absenceoflegislationbycongress,toactuponthesubject,eachstateisatlibertyto
prescribejustsuchregulationsassuititsownpolicy,localconvenienceandlocal
feelings.Thelegislationofonestatemaynotonlybedifferentfrom,bututterly
repugnanttoandincompatiblewith,thatofanother.Thetimeandmode,and
limitationoftheremedy,theproofsofthetitle,andallotherincidentsapplicable
thereto,maybeprescribedinonestate,whicharerejectedordisclaimedinanother.
Onestatemayrequiretheownertosueinonemode,another,inadifferentmode.One
statemaymakeastatuteoflimitationsastotheremedy,initsowntribunals,shortand
summaryanothermayprolongtheperiod,andyetrestricttheproofs.Nay,somestates
mayutterlyrefusetoactuponthesubjectofallandothersmayrefusetoopenitscourts
toanyremediesinrem,becausetheywouldinterferewiththeirowndomesticpolicy,
institutionsorhabits.Theright,therefore,wouldnever,inapracticalsense,bethesame
inallthestates.Itwouldhavenounityofpurpose,oruniformityofoperation.Theduty
mightbeenforcedinsomestatesretardedorlimitedinothersanddenied,as
compulsory,inmany,ifnotinall.Consequenceslikethesemusthavebeenforeseenas
verylikelytooccurinthenonslaveholdingstates,wherelegislation,ifnotsilentonthe
subject,andpurelyvoluntary,couldscarcelybepresumedtobefavorabletotheexercise
oftherightsoftheowner.

157

Itisscarcelyconceivable,thattheslaveholdingstateswouldhavebeensatisfiedwith
leavingtothelegislationofthenonslaveholdingstates,apowerofregulation,inthe
absenceofthatofcongress,whichwouldormightpracticallyamounttoapowerto
destroytherightsoftheowner.Iftheargument,therefore,ofaconcurrentpowerinthe
statestoactuponthesubectmatter,intheabsenceoflegislationbycongress,bewell
foundedthen,ifcongresshadneveractedatall,oriftheactofcongressshouldbe
repealed,withoutprovidingasubstitute,therewouldbearesultingauthorizityineachof
thestatestoregulatethewholesubject,atitspleasure,andtodoleoutitsownremedial

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

43/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

justice,orwithholdit,atitspleasure,andaccordingtoitsownviewsofpolicyand
expediency.Surely,suchastateofthingsnevercouldhavebeenintended,undersucha
solemnguaranteeofrightandduty.Ontheotherhand,construetherightoflegislation
asexclusiveincongress,andeveryevilandeverydangervanishes.Therightandthe
dutyarethencoextensiveanduniforminremedyandoperationthroughoutthewhole
Union.Theownerhasthesamesecurity,andthesameremedialjustice,andthesame
exemptionfromstateregulationandcontrol,throughhowevermanystateshemaypass
withhisfugitiveslaveinhispossession,intransitutohisowndomicile.Butuponthe
othersupposition,themomenthepassesthestateline,hebecomesamenabletothe
lawsofanothersovereignty,whoseregulationsmaygreatlyembarrassordelaythe
exerciseofhisrights,andevenberepugnanttothoseofthestatewherehefirstarrested
thefugitive.Consequencesliketheseshow,thatthenatureandobjectsoftheprovisions
imperiouslyrequire,thattomakeiteffectual,itshouldbeconstruedtobeexclusiveof
stateauthority.WeadoptthelanguageofthiscourtinSturgesv.Crowninshield,4
Wheat.193,andsay,that'ithasneverbeensupposed,thattheconcurrentpowerof
legislationextendedtoeverypossiblecaseinwhichitsexercisebythestateshasnot
beenexpresslyprohibitedtheconfusionofsuchapracticewouldbeendless.'Andwe
knownocaseinwhichtheconfusionandpublicinconvenienceandmischiefsthereof
couldbemorecompletelyexemplifiedthanthepresent.
158

Thesearesomeofthereasons,butbynomeansall,uponwhichweholdthepowerof
legislationonthissubjecttobeexclusiveincongress.Toguard,however,againstany
possiblemisconstructionofourviews,itispropertostate,thatwearebynomeansto
beunderstood,inanymannerwhatsoever,todoubtortointerferewiththepolice
powerbelongingtothestates,invirtueoftheirgeneralsovereignty.Thatpolicepower
extendsoverallsubjectswithinterritoriallimitsofthestates,andhasneverbeen
concededtotheUnitedStates.Itiswhollydistinguishablefomtherightandduty
securedbytheprovisionnowunderconsiderationwhichisexclusivelyderivedfrom
andsecuredbytheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andowsitswholeefficacythereto.
Weentertainnodoubtwhatsoever,thatthestates,invirtueoftheirgeneralpolice
power,possessesfulljurisdictiontoarrestandrestrainrunawayslaves,andremove
themfromtheirborders,andotherwisetosecurethemselvesagainsttheirdepredations
andevilexample,astheycertainlymaydoincasesofidlers,vagabondsandpaupers.
Therightsoftheownersoffugitiveslavesareinnojustsenseinterferedwith,or
regulated,bysuchacourseandinmanycases,theoperationsofthispolicepower,
althoughdesignedgenerallyforotherpurposes,forprotection,safetyandpeaceofthe
state,mayessentiallypromoteandaidtheinterestsoftheowners.Butsuchregulations
canneverbepermittedtointerferewith,ortoobstruct,thejustrightsoftheownerto
reclaimhisslave,derivedfromtheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,orwiththe
remediesprescribedbycongresstoaidandenforcethesame.

159

Uponthesegrounds,weareofopinion,thattheactofPennsylvaniauponwhichthis
indictmentisfounded,isunconstitutionalandvoid.Itpurportstopunishasapublic
offenceagainstthatstate,theveryactofseizingandremovingaslave,byhismaster,
whichtheconstitutionoftheUnitedStateswasdesignedtojustifyanduphold.The
specialverdictfindsthisfact,andthestatecourtshaverenderedjudgmentagainstthe
plaintiffinerroruponthatverdict.Thatjudgmentmust,therefore,bereversed,andthe
causeremandedtothesupremecourtofPennsylvania,withdirectionstocarryinto
effectthejudgmentofthiscourtrendereduponthespecialverdict,infavorofthe
plaintiffinerror.

160
161

TANEY,Ch.J.
Iconcurintheopinionpronouncedbythecourt,thatthelawofPennsylvania,under
whichtheplaintiffinerrorwasindicted,isunconstitutionalandvoidandthatthe
judgmentagainsthimmustbereversed.Butasthequestionsbeforeusariseuponthe
constructionoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andasIdonotassenttoallthe
principlescontainedintheopinionjustdelivered,itispropertostatethepointson

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

44/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

whichIdiffer.
162

Iagreeentirelyinallthatissaidinrelationtotherightofthemaster,byvirtueofthe
thirdclauseofthesecondsectionofthefourtharticleoftheconstitutionoftheUnited
States,toarresthisfugitiveslaveinanystatewhereinhemayfindhim.Hehasaright,
peaceably,totakepossessionofhim,andcarryhimaway,withoutanycertificateor
warrantfromajudgeofthedistrictorcircuitcourtoftheUnitedStates,orfromany
magistrateofthestateandwhoeverresistsorobstructshim,isawrongdoer:andevery
statelawwhichproposes,directlyorindirectly,toauthorizesuchresistanceor
obstruction,isnullandvoid,andaffordsnojustificationtotheindividualortheofficer
ofthestatewhoactsunderit.Thisrightofthemasterbeinggivenbytheconstitutionof
theUnitedStates,neithercongressnorastatelegislaturecan,byanylaworregulation,
impairitorrestrictit.

163

Iconcuralsoinallthatiscontainedintheopinionconcerningthepowerofcongress
toprotectthecitizensoftheslaveholdingstates,intheenjoymentofthisrightandto
providebylawaneffectualremedytoenforceit,andtoinflictpenaltiesuponthosewho
shallviolateitsprovisionsandnostateisauthorizedtopassanylaw,thatcomesin
conflictinanyrespectwiththeremedyprovidedbycongress.TheactofFebruary12th,
1793,isaconstitutionalexerciseofthispowerandeverystatelawwhichrequiresthe
master,againsthisconsent,togobeforeanystatetribunalorofficer,beforehecantake
possessionofhispropertyorwhichauthorizesastateofficertointerferewithhim,
whenheispeaceablyremovingitfromthestate,isunconstitutionalandvoid.

164

But,asIunderstandtheopinionofthecourt,itgoesfurther,anddecides,thatthe
powertoprovidearemedyforthisrightisvestedexclusivelyincongressandthatall
lawsuponthesubject,passedbyastate,sincetheadoptionoftheconstitutionofthe
UnitedStates,arenullandvoidevenalthoughtheywereintended,ingoodfaith,to
protecttheownerintheexerciseofhisrightsofproperty,anddonotconflictinany
degreewiththeactofcongress.Idonotconsiderthisquestionasnecessarilyinvolved
inthecasebeforeusforthelawofPennsylvania,underwhichtheplaintiffinerrorwas
prosecuted,isclearlyinconflictwiththeconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,aswellas
withthelawof1793.Butasthequestionisdiscussedintheopinionofthecourt,andasI
donotassenteithertothedoctrineorthereasoningbywhichitismaintained,Iproceed
tostateverybrieflymyobjections.

165

Theopinionofthecourtmaintains,thatthepoweroverthissubjectissoexclusively
vestedincongress,thatnostate,sincetheadoptionoftheconstitution,canpassany
lawinrelationtoit.Inotherwords,accordingtotheopinionjustdelivered,thestate
authoritiesareprohibitedfrominterfering,forthepurposeofprotectingtherightofthe
master,andaidinghimintherecoveryofhisproperty.Ithink,thestatesarenot
prohibitedandthat,onthecontrary,itisenjoineduponthemasaduty,toprotectand
supporttheowner,whenheisendeavoringtoobtainpossessionofhispropertyfound
withintheirrespectiveterritories.Thelanguageusedintheconstitutiondoesnot,inmy
judgment,justifythisconstructiongiventoitbythecourt.Itcontainsnowords
prohibitingtheseveralstatesfrompassinglawstoenforcethisright.Theyare,in
expressterms,forbiddentomakeanyregulationthatshallimpairitbuttherethe
prohibitionstops.Andaccordingtothesettledrulesofconstructionforallwritten
instruments,theprohibitionbeingconfinedtolawsinjurioustotheright,thepowerto
passlawstosupportandenforceit,isnecessarilyimplied.Andthewordsofthearticle
whichdirectthatthefugitive'shallbedeliveredup,'seemevidentlydesignedtoimposeit
asadutyuponthepeopleoftheseveralstates,topasslawstocarryintoexecution,in
goodfaith,thecompactintowhichtheythussolemnlyenteredwitheachother.The
constitutionoftheUnitedStates,andeveryarticleandclauseinit,isapartofthelawof
everystateintheUnionandistheparamountlaw.Therightofthemaster,therefore,to
seizehisfugitiveslave,isthelawofeachstateandnostatehasthepowertoabrogateor
alterit.Andwhymaynotastateprotectarightofproperty,acknowledgedbyitsown
paramountlaw?Besides,thelawsofthedifferentstates,inallothercases,constantly

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

45/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

protectthecitizensofotherstatesintheirrightsofproperty,whenitisfoundwithin
theirrespectiveterritoriesandnoonedoubtstheirpowertodoso.Andintheabsence
ofanyexpressprohibition,Iperceivenoreasonforestablishing,byimplication,a
differentruleinthisinstancewhere,bythenationalcompact,thisrightofpropertyis
recognisedasanexistingrightineverystateoftheUnion.
166

Idonotspeakofslaveswhomtheirmastersvoluntarilytakeintoanonslaveholding
state.Thatcaseisnotbeforeus.Ispeakofthecaseprovidedforintheconstitutionthat
istosay,thecaseofafugitivewhohasescapedfromtheserviceofhisowner,andwho
hastakenrefugeandisfoundinanotherstate.

167

Moreover,theclauseoftheconstitutionofwhichwearespeaking,doesnotpurport
tobeadistributionoftherightsofsovereigntybywhichcertainenumeratedpowersof
governmentandlegislationareexclusivelyconfidedtotheUnitedStates.Itdoesnot
dealwiththatsubject.Itprovidesmerelyfortherightsofindividualcitizensofdifferent
states,andplacesthemundertheprotectionofthegeneralgovernmentinordermore
effectuallytoguardthemfrominvasionbythestates.Thereareotherclausesinthe
constitutioninwhichotherindividualrightsareprovidedforandsecuredinlike
manneranditneverhasbeensuggested,thatthestatescouldnotupholdandmaintain
them,becausetheywereguarantiedbytheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Onthe
contrary,ithasalwaysbeenheldtobethedutyofthestatestoenforcethemandthe
actionofthegeneralgovernmenthasneverbeendeemednecessary,excepttoresistand
preventtheirviolation.

168

Thus,forexample,theconstitutionprovidesthatnostateshallpassanylawimpairing
theobligationofcontracts.This,liketherightinquestion,isanindividualright,placed
undertheprotectionofthegeneralgovernment.Andinordertosecureit,congress
havepassedalawauthorizingawritoferrortothesupremecourt,whenevertheright
thussecuredtotheindividualisdrawninquestion,anddeniedtohim,inastatecourt
andallstatelawsimpairingthisrightareadmittedtobevoid.Yetnoonehasever
doubted,thatastatemaypasslawstoenforcetheobligationofacontract,andmaygive
totheindividualthefullbenefitoftherightsoguarantiedtohimbytheconstitution,
withoutwaitingforlegislationonthepartofcongress.Whymaynotthesamethingbe
doneinrelationtotheindividualrightnowunderconsideration?

169

Again,theconstitutionoftheUnitedStatesdeclares,thatthecitizensofeachstate
shallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralstates.And
althoughtheprivilegesandimmunities,forgreatersafety,areplacedunderthe
guardianshipofthegeneralgovernmentstillthestatesmay,bytheirlaws,andintheir
tribunals,protectandenforcethem.Theyhavenotonlythepower,butitisaduty
enjoineduponthembythisprovisionintheconstitution.Theindividualrightnowin
question,standsonthesamegrounds,andisgivenbysimilarwords,andoughttobe
governedbythesameprinciples.Theobligationtoprotectrightsofthisdescriptionis
imposedupontheseveralstatesasaduty,whichtheyareboundtoperformannthe
prohibitionextendstothoselawsonlywhichviolatetherightintendedtobesecured.I
cannotunderstandtheruleofconstructionbywhichapositiveandexpressstipulation
forthesecurityofcertainindividualrightsofpropertyintheseveralstates,isheldto
implyaprohibitiontothestatestopassanylawstoguardandprotectthem.

170

Thecoursepursuedbythegeneralgovernment,aftertheadoptionoftheconstitution,
confirmsmyopinionastoitstrueconstruction.Nolawwaspassedbycongresstogivea
remedyforthisright,untilnearlyfouryearsaftertheconstitutionwentintooperation.
Yet,duringthatperiodoftime,themasterwasundoubtedlyentitledtotakepossession
ofhisproperty,whereverhemightfinditandtheprotectionofthisrightwasleft
altogethertothestateauthorities.Inattemptingtoexerciseit,hewascontinuallyliable
toberesistedbysuperiorforceorthefugitivemightbeharboredinthehouseofsome
onewhowouldrefusetodeliverhim.Andifastatecouldnotauthorizeitsofficers,upon
themaster'sapplication,tocometohisaid,theguaranteecontainedintheconstitution

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

46/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

wasofverylittlepracticalvalue.Itistrue,hemighthavesuedfordamages.Butashe
would,mostcommonly,beastrangerintheplacewherethefugitivewasfound,he
mightnotbeabletolearneventhenamesofthewrongdoersandifhesucceededin
discoveringthem,theymightprovetobeunabletopaydamages.Atallevents,hewould
becompelledtoencounterthecostsandexpensesofasuit,prosecutedatadistance
fromhisownhomeandtosacrifice,perhaps,thevalueofhisproperty,inendeavoring
toobtaincompensation.
171

Thisisnotthemodeinwhichtheconstitutionintendedtoguardthisimportantright
noristhisthekindofremedyitintendedtogive.Thedeliveryofthepropertyitselfits
promptandimmediatedeliveryisplainlyrequired,andwasintendedtobesecured.
Indeed,ifthestateauthoritiesareabsolvedfromallobligationtoprotectthisright,and
maystandbyandseeitviolated,withoutanefforttodefendit,theactofcongressof
1793scarcelydeservesthenameofaremedy.Thestateofficersmentionedinthelaw
arenotboundtoexecutethedutiesimposeduponthembycongress,unlesstheychoose
todoso,orarerequiredtodosobyalawofthestateandthestatelegislaturehasthe
power,ifitthinksproper,toprohibitthem.Theactof1793,therefore,mustdepend
altogetherforitsexecutionupontheofficersoftheUnitedStatesnamedinit.Andthe
mastermusttakethefugitive,afterhehasseizedhim,beforeajudgeofthedistrictor
circuitcourt,residinginthestate,andexhibithisproofs,andprocurefromthejudgehis
certificateofownership,inordertoobtaintheprotectioninremovinghisproperty
whichthisactofcongressprofesstogive.Now,inmanyofthestates,thereisbutone
districtjudge,andthereareonlyninestateswhichhavejudgesofthesupremecourt
residingwithinthem.Thefugitivewillfrequentlybefoundbyhisowner,inaplacevery
distantfromtheresidenceofeitherofthesejudgesandwouldcertainlyberemoved
beyondhisreach,beforeawarrantcouldbeprocuredfromthejudgetoarresthim,even
iftheactofcongressauthorizedsuchawarrant.Butitdoesnotauthorizethejudgeto
issueawarranttoarrestthefugitivebutevidentlyreliedonthestateauthoritiesto
protecttheownerinmakingtheseizure.Anditisonlywhenthefugitiveisarrestedand
broughtbeforethejudge,thatheisdirectedtotaketheproof,andgivethecertificateof
ownership.Itisonlynecessarytostatetheprovisionsofthislaw,inordertoshowhow
ineffectualanddelusiveistheremedyprovidedbycongress,ifstateauthorityis
forbiddentocometoitsaid.

172

Butitismanifest,fromthefaceofthelaw,thataneffectualremedywasintendedto
begiven,bytheactof1793.Itneverdesignedtocompelthemastertoencounterthe
hazardandexpenseoftakingthefugitive,inallcases,tothedistantresidenceofoneof
thejudgesofthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesforitauthorizedhimalso,togobeforeany
magistrateofthecounty,cityortowncorporatewhereintheseizureshouldbemade.
Andcongressevidentlysupposed,thatithadprovidedatribunalattheplaceofthe
arrest,capableoffurnishingthemasterwiththeevidenceofownership,toprotecthim
moreeffectuallyfromunlawfulinterruption.Sofarfromregardingthestateauthorities
asprohibitedfrominterferingincasesofthisdescription,thecongressofthatdaymust
havecountedupontheircordialcooperationtheylegislatedwithexpressreferenceto
statesupport.Anditwillberemembered,thatwhenthislawwaspassed,the
governmentoftheUnitedStateswasadministeredbythemenwhohadbutrecently
takenaleadingpartintheformationoftheconstitution.Andtherelianceobviously
placeduponstateauthority,forthepurposeofexecutingthislaw,provesthatthe
constructionnowgiventotheconstitutionbythecourt,hadnotenteredintotheir
minds.Certainly,itisnottheconstructionwhichitreceivedinthestatesmost
interestedinitsfaithfulexecution.Maryland,forexample,whichissubstantiallyoneof
thepartiestothiscase,hascontinuallypassedlaws,eversincetheadoptionofthe
constitutionoftheUnitedStates,forthearrestoffugitiveslavesfromotherstatesas
wellasherown.Herofficersarebylawrequiredtoarrestthem,whenfoundwithinher
territoryandhermagistratesarerequiredtocommitthemtothepublicprison,in
ordertokeepthemsafely,untilthemasterhasanopportunitytoreclaimingthem.And
iftheownerisnotknown,measuresaredirectedtobetaken,byadvertisement,to

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

47/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

apprisehimofthearrestandifknown,personalnoticetobegiven.Andasfugitives
fromthemoresouthernstates,whenendeavoringtoescapeintoCanada,very
frequentlypassthroughherterritory,theselawshavebeenalmostdailyinthecourseof
execution,insomepartofthestate.Butifthestatesareforbiddentolegislateonthis
subject,andthepowerisexclusivelyincongress,thenthesestatelawsare
unconstitutionalandvoidandthefugitivecanonlybearrested,accordingtothe
provisionsoftheactofcongress.Butthatlaw,thepowertoseizeisgiventonoonebut
theowner,hisagentorattorney.Andiftheofficersofthestatearenotjustifiedinacting
underthestatelaws,andcannotarrestthefugitive,anddetainhiminprison,without
havingfirstreceivedanauthorityfromtheownertheterritoryofthestatemustsoon
becomeanopenpathwayforthefugitivesescapingfromotherstates.Fortheyareoften
intheactofpassingthroughit,bythetimethattheownerfirstdiscoversthattheyhave
abscondedandinalmosteveryinstance,theywouldbebeyonditsborders(iftheywere
allowedtopassthroughwithoutinterruption),beforethemasterwouldbeabletolearn
theroadtheyhadtaken.
173

Iamaware,thatmybrethrenofthemajoritydonotcontemplatethese
consequencesanddonotsuppose,thattheopiniontheyhavegivenwillleadtothem.
Anditseemstobesupposed,thatlawsnearlysimilartothoseIhavementioned,might
bepassedbythestate,intheexerciseofherpowersoverherinternalpolice,andby
virtueofherrighttoremovefromherterritorydisorderlyandevildisposedpersons,or
thosewho,fromthenatureofherinstitutions,aredangeroustoherpeaceand
tranquillity.Butitwouldbedifficult,perhaps,tobringallthelawsIhavementioned
withinthelegitimatescopeoftheinternalpowersofpolice.Thefugitiveisnotalways
arrested,inordertopreventadangerousorevildisposedpersonfromremaininginher
territory.Heishimselfmostcommonlyanxioustoescapefromitanditoftenhappens,
thatheisseizednearthebordersofthestate,whenheisendeavoringtoleaveit,andis
broughtbackanddetained,untilhecanbedeliveredtohisowner.Hemaysometimes
befoundtravellingpeaceablyalongthepublichighway,onhisroadtoanotherstate,in
companywithandundertheprotectionofawhitemanwhoisabettinghisescape.And
itcouldhardlybemaintained,thatthearrestandconfinementofthefugitiveinthe
publicprison,undersuchcircumstances,untilhecouldbedeliveredtohisowner,was
necessaryfortheinternalpeaceofthestateandtherefore,ajustifiableexerciseofits
powersofpolice.Ithasnotheretoforebeensupposednecessary,inordertojustifythese
laws,toreferthemtosuchquestionablepowersofinternalandlocalpolice.Theywere
believedtostanduponsurerandfirmergrounds.Theywerepassed,notwithreference
merelytothesafetyandprotectionofthestateitselfbutinordertosecurethedelivery
ofthefugitiveslavetohislawfulowner.Theywerepassedbythestate,inthe
performanceofadutybelievedtobeenjoineduponitbytheconstitutionoftheUnited
States.

174

Itistrue,thatMarylandaswellaseveryotherslaveholdingstate,hasadeepinterest
inthefaithfulexecutionoftheclauseinquestion.Buttheobligationofthecompactis
notconfinedtothemitisequallybindinguponthefaithofeverystateintheUnion
andhasheretofore,inmyjudgment,beenjustlyregardedasobligatoryuponall.

175

Idissent,therefore,uponthesegrounds,fromthatpartoftheopinionofthecourt
whichdeniestheobligationandtherightofthestateauthoritiestoprotectthemaster,
whenheisendeavoringtoseizeafugitivefromhisservice,inpursuanceoftheright
giventohimbytheconstitutionoftheUnitedStatesprovidedthestatelawisnotin
conflictwiththeremedyprovidedbycongress.

176
177

THOMPSON,Justice.
Iconcurinthejudgmentgivenbythecourtinthiscase.Butnotbeingabletoyieldmy
assenttoallthedoctrinesembracedintheopinion,Iwillverybrieflystatethegrounds
onwhichmyjudgmentisplaced.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

48/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

178

Theprovisionintheconstitutionuponwhichthepresentquestionarisesisasfollows:
'Nopersonheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthelawsthereof,escapinginto
another,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationtherein,bedischargedfromsuch
serviceorlabor,butshallbedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartytowhomsuchserviceor
labormaybedue.'Art.4,2.Weknow,historically,thatthisprovisionwastheresultof
acompromisebetweentheslaveholdingandnonslaveholdingstatesanditisthe
indispensabledutyofalltocarryitfaithfullyintoexecution,accordingtoitsrealobject
andintention.

179

Thisprovisionnaturallydividesitselfintotwodistinctconsiderations.First,theright
affirmedandsecondly,themodeandmannerinwhichthatrightistobeassertedand
carriedintoexecution.Therightissecuredbytheconstitution,andrequiresnolawto
fortifyorstrengthenit.Itaffirms,inthemostunequivocalmanner,therightofthe
mastertotheserviceofhisslave,accordingtothelawsofthestateunderwhichheisso
held.Anditprohibitsthestatesfromdischargingtheslavefromsuchservice,byanylaw
orregulationtherein.Thesecondbranchoftheprovision,inmyjudgment,requires
legislativeregulations,pointingoutthemodeandmannerinwhichtherightistobe
asserted.Itcontemplatesthedeliveryofthepersonoftheslavetotheowneranddoes
notleavetheownertohisordinaryremedyatlaw,torecoverdamagesonarefusalto
deliverupthepropertyoftheowner.Legislativeprovision,inthisrespect,isessential
forthepurposeofpreservingpeaceandgoodorderinthecommunity.Suchcases,in
somepartsofourcountry,arecalculatedtoexcitefeelingswhich,ifnotrestrainedby
law,mightleadtoriotsandbreachesofthepeace.Thislegislation,Ithink,belongsmore
appropriatelytocongressthantothestates,forthepurposeofhavingtheregulation
uniformthroughouttheUnitedStates,asthetransportationoftheslavemaybethrough
severalstatesbutthereisnothinginthesubjectmatterthatrendersstatelegislation
unfit.Itisnoobjectiontotherightofthestatestopasslawsonthesubject,thatthereis
nopoweranywheregiventocompelthemtodoitneitheristheretocompelcongress
topassanylawonthesubjectthelegislationmustbevoluntaryinbothandgoverned
byasenseofduty.ButIcannotconcurinthatpartoftheopinionofthecourt,which
assertsthatthepoweroflegislationbycongressisexclusiveandthatnostatecanpass
anylawtocarryintoeffecttheconstitutionalprovisiononthissubject,although
congresshadpassednolawinrelationtoit.Congress,bytheactof1793,haslegislated
onthesubjectandanystatelawinconflictwiththat,wouldbevoid,accordingtothe
provisionsoftheconstitution,whichdeclares,thatthelawsoftheUnitedStates,which
shallbemadeinpursuanceoftheconstitution,shallbethesupremelawoftheland,
anythinginthelawsofanystatetothecontrarynotwithstanding.Thisprovisionmeets
thecaseofaconflictbetweencongressionalandstatelegislationandimplies,thatsuch
casesmayexist,growingoutoftheconcurrentpowersofthetwogovernments.The
provisionintheconstitution,underconsideration,isoneunderwhichsuchconflicting
legislationmayariseandharmonyisproducedbymakingthestatelawyieldtothatof
theUnitedStates.Buttoassertthatthestatescannotlegislateonthesubjectatall,inthe
absenceofalllegislationbycongress,is,inmyjudgment,notwarrantedbyanyfairand
reasonableconstructionoftheprovision.Thereiscertainlynothinginthetermsusedin
thisarticle,norinthenatureofthepowertosurrendertheslave,thatmakeslegislation
bycongressexclusive.Andif,asseemstotheadmitted,legislationisnecessarytocarry
intoeffecttheobjectoftheconstitution,whatbecomesoftheright,wherethereisno
lawonthesubject?Shouldcongressrepealthelawof1793,andpassnootherlawonthe
subject,Icanentertainnodoubt,thatstatelegislation,forthepurposeofrestoringthe
slavetohismaster,andfaithfullytocarryintoexecutiontheprovisionofthe
constitution,wouldbevalid.Icanseenothingintheprovisionitself,nordiscoverany
principleofsoundpublicpolicy,uponwhichsuchalawwouldbedeclared
unconstitutionalandvoid.Theconstitutionprotectsthemasterintherighttothe
possessionandserviceofhisslave,andofcourse,makesvoidallstatelegistion
impairingthatrightbutdoesnotmakevoidstatelegislationinaffirmanceoftheright.I
forbearenlarginguponthisquestion,buthavebarelystatedthegeneralgroundsupon
whichmyopinionrestsandprincipallytoguardagainsttheconclusion,that,bymy

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

49/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

silence,Iassenttothedoctrinethatalllegislationonthissubjectisvestedexclusivelyin
congressandthatallstatelegislation,intheabsenceofanylawofcongress,is
unconstitutionalandvoid.
180

181

BALDWIN,Justice,concurredwiththecourtinreversingthejudgmentofthe
supremecourtofPennsylvania,ontheground,thattheactofthelegislaturewas
unconstitutionalinasmuchastheslaveryofthepersonremovedwasadmitted,the
removalcouldnotbekidnapping.Buthedissentedfromtheprincipleslaiddownbythe
courtasthegroundsoftheiropinion.
WAYNE,Justice.

182

Iconcuraltogetherintheopinionofthecourt,asithasbeengivenbymybrother
STORY.Inthatopinionitisdecided:

183

1.Thattheprovisioninthesecondsectionofthefourtharticleoftheconstitution,
relativetofeguitivesfromserviceorlabor,confersupontheownerofafugitiveslavethe
right,byhimselforhisagent,toseizeandarrest,withoutcommittingabreachofthe
peace,hisfugitiveslave,asproperty,inanystateoftheUnionandthatnostatelawis
constitutionalwhichinterfereswithsuchright.

184

2.Thattheprovisionauthorizesandrequireslegislationbycongresstoguardthat
rightofseizureandarrestagainstallstateandotherinterference,tomakethedelivery
offugitiveslavesmoreeffectualwhentheclaimsofownersarecontestedandtoinsure
toownerstheunmolestedtransportationoffugitiveslaves,throughanyofthestates,to
thestatefromwhichtheymayhavefled.

185

3.Thatthelegislationbycongressupontheprovision,asthesupremelawoftheland,
excludesallstatelegislationuponthesamesubjectandthatnostatecanpassanylawor
regulation,orinterposesuchasmayhavebeenalaworregulationwhenthe
constitutionoftheUnitedStateswasratified,tosuperaddto,control,qualifyorimpede
aremedy,enactedbycongress,forthedeliveryoffugitiveslavestothepartiestowhom
theirserviceorlaborisdue.

186

4.Thatthepoweroflegislationbycongressupontheprovisionisexclusiveandthat
nostatecanpassanylawasaremedyuponthesubject,whethercongresshadorhadnot
legislateduponit.

187

5.Thattheactofcongressofthe12thFebruary1793,entitled'anactrespecting
fugitivesfromjustice,andpersonsescapingfromtheserviceoftheirmasters,'givesa
remedybutdoesnotexhausttheremedieswhichcongressmaylegislateuponthe
subject.

188

6.Thatthepointssodecidedarenotintendedtointerfereinanyway,nordothey
interfereinanymanner,withthepolicepowerinthestates,toarrestandimprison
fugitiveslaves,toguardagainsttheirmisconductanddepredationsortopunishthem
foroffencesandcrimescommittedinthestatestowhichtheymayhavefled.

189

7.Thesepointsbeingsodecidedandappliedtothecasebeforethecourtitfollows,
thatthelawofPennsylvania,uponwhichtheplaintiffisindicted,isunconstitutional
andthatthejudgmentgivenbythesupremecourtofPennsylvaniaagainsttheplaintiff
mustbereversed.

190

Allofthejudgesofthecourtconcurintheopinion,thatthelawunderwhichthe
plaintiffinerrorwasindicted,isunconstitutional.Allofthemconcuralsointhe
declaration,thattheprovisionintheconstitutionwasacompromisebetweentheslave
holding,andthenonslaveholdingstates,tosecuretotheformerfugitiveslavesas
property.Allofthemembersofthecourt,too,exceptmybrotherBALDWIN,concurin
theopinion,thatlegislationbycongress,tocarrytheprovisionintoexecution,is

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

50/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

constitutionalandhecontends,thattheprovisiongivestotheownersoffugitiveslaves
alltherightsofseizureandremovalwhichlegislationcouldgivebutheconcursinthe
opinion,iflegislationbycongressbenecessary,thattherighttolegislateisexclusivelyin
congress.Thereisnodifference,then,amongthejudges,astothereversalofthe
judgmentnoneinrespecttotheoriginandobjectoftheprovision,ortheobligationto
exerciseit.Butdifferencesdoexistastothemodeofexecution.Threeofthejudgeshave
expressedtheopinion,thatthestatesmaylegislateupontheprovision,inaidofthe
objectitwasintendedtosecureandthatsuchlegislationisconstitutional,whenitdoes
notconflictwiththeremedywhichcongressmayenact.
191

Ibelieve,thatthepowertolegislateupontheprovisionisexclusivelyincongress.The
provisionis,that'nopersonheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthelawsthereof,
escapingintoanother,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationtherein,be
dischargedfromsuchserviceorlabor,butshallbedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartyto
whomsuchserviceorlaborisdue.'Theclausecontainsfoursubstantivedeclarationsor
twoconditions,aprohibition,andadirection.First,thefugitivemustoweserviceor
laborunderthelawofthestatefromwhichhehadescapedsecond,hemusthavefled
fromit.Theprohibitionis,thathecannotbedischargedfromservice,inconsequence
ofanylaworregulationofthestateinwhichhemaybeandthedirectionisaffirmative,
ofanobligationuponthestates,anddeclarativeofarightinthepartytowhomthe
serviceorlaborofafugitiveisdue.

192

Myobject,andtheonlyobjectwhichIhaveinview,inwhatIamabouttosay,is,to
establishtheposition,thatcongresshastheexclusiverighttolegislateuponthis
provisionoftheconstitution.Ishallendeavortoproveit,bytheconditionofthestates
whentheconstitutionwasformedbyreferencestotheprovisionitselfandtothe
constitutiongenerally.

193

Letitberemembered,thattheconventionerswhoformedtheconstitution,werethe
representativesofequalsovereigntiesthattheywereassembledtoformamoreperfect
unionthanthenexistedbetweenthestatesundertheconfederacythattheyco
operatedtothesameendbutthattheyweredividedintotwoparties,havingantagonist
interestsinrespecttoslavery.Oneoftheseparties,consistingofseveralstates,required
asacondition,uponwhichanyconstitutionshouldbepresentedtothestatesfor
ratification,afullandperfectsecurityfortheirslavesasproperty,whentheyfledinto
anyofthestatesoftheUnionthefactisnotmoreplainlystatedbymethanitwasputin
theconvention.Therepresentativesfromthenonslaveholdingstatesassentedtothe
condition.Theprovisionunderreviewwasproposedandadoptedbytheunanimous
voteoftheconvention.It,withanallowanceofacertainportionofslaveswiththe
whites,forrepresentativepopulationincongress,andtheimportationofslavesfrom
abroadforanumberofyears,werethegreatobstaclesinthewayofforminga
constitution.Eachofthemwasequallyinsisteduponbytherepresentativesfromthe
slaveholdingstatesandwithoutallofthembeingprovidedfor,itwaswellunderstood,
thattheconventionwouldhavebeendissolved,withoutaconstitutionbeingformed.I
mentionthefactsastheyweretheycannotbedenied.Ihavenothingtodo,judicially,
withwhatapartoftheworldmaythinkoftheattitudeofthedifferentpartiesuponthis
interestingtopic.Iamsatisfiedwithwhatwasdoneandreverethemen,andtheir
motivesforinsisting,politically,uponwhatwasdone.Whenthethreepointsrelatingto
slaveshadbeenaccomplished,everyimpedimentintheywayofformingaconstitution
wasremoved.Theagreementconcerningthemwascalled,intheconvention,a
compromisetheprovisioninrespecttofugitivesfromserviceorlabor,wascalleda
guaranteeofarightofpropertyinfugitiveslaves,wherevertheymightbefoundinthe
Union.Theconstitutionwaspresentedtothestatesforadoption,withthe
understandingthattheprovisionsinitrelatingtoslaveswereacompromiseand
guaranteeandwithsuchanunderstanding,ineverystate,itwasadoptedbyallofthem.
Notaguaranteemerelyintheprofessionalacceptationoftheword,butagreatnational
engagement,inwhichthestatessurrenderedasovereignright,makingitapartofthat

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

51/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

instrument,whichwasintendedtomakethemonenation,withinthesphereofits
action.Theprovision,then,mustbeinterpretedbythoserulesofconstructionassented
tobyallcivilizednations,asobligatoryinascertainingtherightsgrowingoutofthese
agreements.Weshallsee,directly,howtheserulesbearuponthequestionofthepower
oflegislationuponthissubjectbeingexclusivelyincongressandwhythestatesare
excludedfromlegislatinguponit.
194

Theprohibitionuponthestatestodischargefugitiveslavesisabsolute.Theprovision,
however,doesnotcontain,indetail,themannerofassertingtherightitwasmeantto
secure.Noristhereinitanyexpressedpoweroflegislationnoranyexpressed
prohibitionofstatelegislation.Butitdoesprovide,thatdeliveryofafugitiveshallbe
madeontheclaimoftheownerthatthefugitiveslaveowingserviceandlaborinthe
statefromwhichhefled,andescapingtherefrom,shallbedecisiveoftheowner'sright
toadelivery.Itdoesnot,however,providethemodeofprovingthatserviceandlaboris
due,inacontestedcase,norforanysuchevidenceoftheright,whenithasbeen
established,aswillinsuretoanownertheunmolestedtransportationofthefugitive,
throughotherstates,tothestatefromwhichhefled.Buttherighttoconveyisthe
necessaryconsequenceofarighttodeliverythelatterwouldbegoodfornothing,
withouttheformer.Proofofownershipgivesboth,ifitgiveseitheroranythingandyet
therightmightbe,inthelargernumberofinstances,unavailing,ifitwerenotcertified
bysomeofficialdocument,thattherighthadbeenestablished.Acertificatefroman
officerauthorizedtoinquireintothefacts,istheeasiestwaytosecuretherighttoits
contemplatedintent.Itwasforeseen,thatclaimswouldbemade,whichwouldbe
contestedsometribunalwasnecessarytodecidethem,andtoauthenticatethefact,
thataclaimhadbeenestablished.Withoutsuchauthentication,thecontestmightbe
renewedinothertribunalsofthestateinwhichthefacthadbeenestablishedandin
thoseoftheotherstatesthroughwhichthefugitivemightbecarried,onhiswaytothe
statefromwhichhefled.Suchacertificatetoo,beingrequired,protectspersonswho
arenotfugitivesfrombeingseizedandtransportedithastheeffectofsecuringthe
benefitofalawfulclaim,andofpreventingtheaccomplishmentofonethatisfalse.
Suchacertificate,togivearighttotransportafugitiveslavethroughanotherstate,a
statecannotgiveitsoperationwouldbeconfinedtoitsownboundaries,andwouldbe
uselesstoasserttherightinanothersovereignty.Thisanalysisoftheprovisionisgiven,
toshowthatlegislationwascontemplatedtocarryitfullyintoeffect,inmanyofthe
casesthatmightoccurandtopreventitsabuse,whenattemptsmightbemadetoapply
ittothosewhowerenotfugitives.AnditbringsmetothepointIhaveasserted,that
congresshastheexclusiverighttolegislateupontheprovision.

195

Thosewhocontend,thatthestatesmaylegislateinaidoftheobjectoftheprovision,
admitthatcongresscanlegislatetothefullextenttocarryitintoexecution.Thereis,
then,nonecessityforthestatestolegislate.Thisisagoodreasonwhytheyshouldnot
legislateandthatiswasintendedthattheyshouldnotdosoforlegislationbycongress
makesthemodeofassertingtherightuniformthroughouttheUnionandlegislationby
thestateswouldbeasvariousastheseparatelegislativewillandpolicyofthedifferent
statesmightchoosetomakeit.Certainly,suchaninterestastheconstitutionwas
intendedtosecure,wemaywellthinktheframersoftheconstitutionintendedto
provideforbyauniformlaw.Iadmit,however,thatsuchconsiderationsdonot
necessarilyexcludetherightofthestatestolegislate.Theargumentinfavoroftheright
is,thatthestatesarenot,inexpressterms,prohibitedfromlegislating,andthatthe
exclusionisnotnecessarilyimplied.Ifurtheradmit,ifitbenotnecessarilyimplied,that
therightexists.Suchistherule,inrespecttotherightoflegislationbythestates,inall
casesundertheconstitution,whenthequestionofarighttolegislateinmerelysuch.

196

Myfirstremarkis,andIwishittobeparticularlyobserved,thatthequestionisnot
oneonlyoftherightofthestatestolegislateinaidofthisprovision,unconnectedwith
otherconsiderationsbearingdirectlyuponthequestion.Thetruequestioninthecase
is,bywhatrulesshallthecompromiseorguaranteebeconstrued,sothattheobligations

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

52/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

andrightsofthestatesundertheprovisionmaybeascertainedandsecured.Itis
admitted,thattheprovisionraiseswhatisproperlytermedaperfectobligationuponall
ofthestatestoabstainfromdoinganythingwhichmayinterferewiththerightssecured.
Willthisbeso,ifanypartofwhatmaybenecessarytodischargetheobligationis
reservedbyeachstate,tobedoneaseachmaythinkproper?Theobligationiscommon
toallofthem,tothesameextent.Itsobjectis,tosecurethepropertyofsomeofthe
states,andtheindividualrightsoftheircitizens,inthatproperty.Shall,then,eachstate
bepermittedtolegislateinitsownway,accordingtoitsownjudgment,andtheir
separatenotions,inwhatmannertheobligationshallbedischargedtothosestatesto
whichitisdue?Topermitsomeofthestatestosaytotheothers,howtheproperty
includedintheprovisionwastobesecuredbylegislation,withouttheassentofthe
latter,wouldcertainlybe,todestroytheequalityandforceoftheguarantee,andthe
equalityofthestatesbywhichitwasmade.Thiswasnotanticipatedbythe
representativesoftheslaveholdingstatesintheconvention,norcouldithavebeen
intendedbytheframersoftheconstitution.Isitnotmorereasonabletoinfer,asthe
stateswereformingagovernmentforthemselves,totheextentofthepowersconceded
intheconstitution,towhichlegislativepowerwasgiventomakealllawsnecessaryand
propertocarryintoexecutionallpowersvestedinitthattheymeant,thattherightfor
whichsomeofthestatesstipulated,andtowhichallacceded,should,fromthepeculiar
natureofthepropertyinwhichonlysomeofthestateswereinterested,becarriedinto
executionbythatdepartmentofthegeneralgovernmentinwhichtheywerealltobe
representedthecongressoftheUnitedStates.
197

Butisnotthispoweroflegislationbythestates,uponthisprovision,aclaimforeach
touseitsdiscretionininterpretingthemannerinwhichtheguaranteeshallbefulfilled?
Aretherenorulesofinterpretation,foundeduponreasonandnature,tosettlethis
question,andtosecuretherightsgivenbytheprovision,betterthanthediscretionof
thepartiestotheobligation?Hasnotexperienceshown,thatthoserulesmustbe
appliedtoconventionsbetweennations,inorderthatjusticemaybedone?Allcivilized
nationshaveconsentedtobeboundbythemandtheyareapartofthelawsofnations.
Isnotoneofthoserules,themaxim,thatneitheroneortheotheroftheinterestedor
contractingpowershasarighttointerprethisactortreatyathispleasure?Suchisthe
ruleinrespecttothetreatiesandconventionsofnationsforeigntoeachother.It
applies,withequalnecessityandforce,tostatesunitedinonegeneralgovernment.
Especially,tostatesmakingaprovisioninrespecttopropertypeculiartosomeofthem,
whichhasbecomesointerwovenwiththierinstitutionsandtheirrepresentationinthe
generalgovernmentofallofthem,thattherighttosuchpropertymustbemaintained
andguarded,inordertopreservetheirseparateexistence,andtokeepuptheir
constitutionalrepresentationincongress.Suchcannotbethecase,unlessthereis
uniformityinthelawforassertingtherighttofugitiveslavesandifthestatescan
legislate,aseachofthemmaythinkitshouldbedone,aremedy,bywhichtherightof
propertyinfugitiveslavesistobeascertainedandfinallycencluded.Nordoesitmatter,
thattheruletowhichIhaveadvertedasbeingexclusiveoftherightofthestatesto
legislateupontheprovision,doesnotappearinit.Itisexactlytosuchcasesthattherule
applies,anditmustbesoapplied,unlessthecontraryhasbeenexpresslyprovided.The
modeofitsapplicationisasauthoritativeastherule.Therule,too,appliestothe
provision,withoutanyconflictwiththeotherrule,thatthestatesmaylegislateinall
cases,whentheyarenotexpresslyorimpliedlyprohibitedbytheconstitution.Thelatter
ruleisinnowaytrenchedupon,byexcludingthestatesfromlegislatinginthiscase.
Thisprovisionistheonlyoneintheconstitutioninwhichasecurityforaparticularkind
ofpropertyisprovidedprovided,too,expresslyagainsttheinterferencebythestatesin
theirsovereigncharacter.Thesurrenderofasovereignrightcarrieswithitallits
incidents.Itdiffersfromyieldingaparticipationtoanothergovernment,inasovereign
right.Inthelatter,bothmayhavejurisdiction.Thestateyieldingtheright,retaining
jurisdictiontotheextentofdoingnothingrepugnanttotheexerciseoftherightbythe
governmenttowhichithasbeenyielded.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

53/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

198

Butitissaid,allthatiscontendedfor,is,thatthestatesmaylegislatetoaidtheobject,
andthatsuchlegislationwillbeconstitutional,ifitdoesnotconflictwiththeremedies
whichcongressmayenact.Thisisacautiouswayofassertingtherightinthestates,and
itseemstoimposealimitationwhichmakesitunobjectionable.Butthereplytoitis,
thattherighttolegislatearemedy,impliessomuchindefinitepoweroverthesubject,
andsuchprotractedcontinuance,astothemodeoffinallydeterminingwhethera
fugitiveowesserviceandlabor,thattherequirementsoftheremedy,withoutbeing
actuallyinconflictwiththeprovisionortheenactmentsofcongress,mightbe
oppressivetothosemostinterestedintheprovision,byinterposingdelaysandexpenses
morecostlythanthevalueofthefugitivesoughttobereclaimed.Ordinarily,andwhen
rightlyunderstood,itistrue,thattheabuseofathingisnoargumentagainstits
correctnessoritsusebutthatsuggestioncanonlybecorrectlymade,incasesin
supportofarightorpowerabstractlyandpositivelyright,andwhichhadbeenabused
underthepretenceofusingitorwheretheproperusehasbeenmistaken.Inmattersof
government,however,apowerliabletobeabusedisalwaysagoodreasonfor
withholdingit.ItisthereasonwhythepowersoftheUnitedStates,underthe
constitution,aresocautiouslygivenwhytheexpressprohibitionsuponthestatesnotto
legislateincertaincaseswereexpressedwhythelimitationupontheformer,thatthe
powersnotgrantedarereservedtothestates,asitisexpressedintheamendmenttothe
constitution.Butintruth,anyadditionallegislationinthiscasebyastate,actingasa
remedy,inaidoftheremedygivenbytheconstitutionandbycongress,wouldbe,in
practice,inconflictwiththelatter,ifitbeaprocessdifferingfromitthoughitmight
makethemodeofrecoveringafugitiveeasierthantheformer,andmuchmoreso,when
itmadeitmoredifficult.Therighttolegislatearemedyimpliestheabilitytodoeither
anditisbecauseitdoesso,andmaybethelatter,thatIdenyallrightinthestatesto
legislateuponthissubjectunlessitbetoaid,bymereministerialacts,theprotectionof
anowner'srighttoafugitiveslavethepreventionofallinterferencewithitbythe
officersofastate,oritscitizens,oranauthoritytoitsmagistratestoexecutethelawof
congressandsuchlegislationoverfugitivesasmaybestrictlyofapolicecharacter.

199

Admitthestatestolegislateremediesinthiscase,besidessuchasaregivenby
congress,andtherewillbenosecurityforthedeliveryoffugitiveslavesinhalfofthe
statesoftheUnion.Suchwasthecasewhentheconstitutionwasadopted.Thestates
mightlegislateingoodfaith,accordingtotheirnotionshowsucharightofproperty
shouldbetried.Theyhavealreadydoneso,andtheactofPennsylvania,nowunder
consideration,shows,thattheassertionofarighttoafugitiveslaveisburdenedby
provisionsentailingexpensesdisproportionedtohisvalueandthatitisonlytobe
asserted,byarrayingagainsttheclaimallofthosepopularprejudiceswhich,underother
circumstances,wouldbeproperfeelingsagainstslavery.

200

ButtheproprietyoftheruleofinterpretationwhichIhaveinvoked,toexcludethe
statesfromlegislatinguponthisprovisionoftheconstitution,becomesmoreobvious,
whenitisremembered,thattheprovisionwasnotintendedonlytosecuretheproperty
ofindividuals,butthatthroughtheirrights,theinstitutionsofthestatesshouldbe
preserved,solongasanyoneofthestateschosetocontinueslaveryasapartofits
policy.Thesubjecthasusuallybeenarguedasiftherightsofindividualsonlywere
intendedtobesecured,andasifthelegislationbythestateswouldonlyactuponsuch
rights.Theframersoftheconstitutiondidnotactuponsuchnarrowgroundstheywere
engagedinformingagovernmentforallofthestatesbyconcessionsofsovereign
rightsfromall,withoutimpairingtheactualsovereigntyofanyone,exceptwithinthe
sphereofwhatwasconceded.Onegreatobjectwas,thatallkindsofproperty,aswell
thatwhichwascommoninallofthestates,asthatwhichwaspeculiartoanyofthem,
shouldbeprotected,inallofthestates,aswellfromanyinterferencewithitbythe
UnitedStates,asbythestates.Experiencehadshown,thatundertheconfederacy,the
reclamationoffugitiveslaveswasembarrassedanduncertain,andthattheywere
yieldedtobythestatesonlyfromcomityitwasintended,thatitshouldbenolongerso.
Thepolicyofthedifferentstates,someofthemcontiguous,hadalreadybecomemarked

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

54/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

anddecideduponthesubjectofslaverytherewasnodoubt,itwouldbecomemoreso.
Itwasforeseen,thatunlessthedeliveryoffugitiveslaveswasmadeapartofthe
constitution,andtherightofthestatestodischargethemfromservicewastakenaway,
thatsomeofthestateswouldbecometherefugeofrunawaysand,ofcourse,thatin
proportiontothefacilityandcertaintyofanystatebeingarefuge,sowouldtherightof
individuals,andtheinstitutionsoftheslaveholdingstates,beimpaired.Thelatterwere
bound,whenformingageneralgovernmentwiththeotherstates,underwhichthere
wastobeacommunityofrightsandprivilegesforallcitizensintheseveralstates,to
protectthatpropertyoftheircitizenswhichwasessentialtothepreservationoftheir
stateconstitutions.Ifthishadnotbeendone,allofthepropertyofthecitizenswould
havebeenprotected,ineverystate,exceptthatwhichwasthemostvaluableina
numberofthem.Insuchacase,thestateswouldhavebecomemembersoftheUnion
uponunequalterms.Besides,thepropertyofanindividualisnotthelesshis,becauseit
isinanotherstatethanthatinwhichhelivesitcontinuestobehis,andformsapartof
theweathofhisstate.Theprovision,then,inrespecttofugitiveslaves,only
comprehendedwithinthegeneralruleaspeciesofpropertynotwithinitbefore.By
doingso,therightofindividuals,andthatofthestatesinwhichslaverywascontinued,
werepreserved.Itremainedinthestates,asapartofthatwealth,fromwhich
contributionsweretoberaisedbytaxeslaidwiththeconsentoftheowners,tomeetthe
wantsofthestateasabodypolitic.Ifthisbeso,uponwhatprincipleshallthestatesact,
bytheirlegislation,uponproperty,whichisnationalaswellasindividualanddirectthe
mode,whenitiswithintheirjurisdiction,withouttheconsentoftheowners,and
withoutthefaultofthestateswheretheownersreside,howtherightofpropertyshould
beascertainedanddetermined.Thecaseofafugitiveslaveisnotlikethatofacontest
forotherproperty,tobedeterminedbetweentwoclaimants,bytheremedygivenbythe
tribunalsofthestatewherethepropertymaybe.Itisnotacontroversybetweentwo
persons,claimingtherighttoathing,buttheassertionbyonepersonofarightof
propertyinanother,tobedetermineduponprinciplespeculiartosuchrelation.Ifthe
provisionhadnotbeenintroducedintotheconstitution,thestatesmigthhaveadjudged
theright,inthewaytheypleasedbuthavingsurrenderedtherighttodischarge,theyare
notnowtobeallowedtoassumearighttolegislate,totrytheobligationofafugitiveto
servitude,inanyotherwaythaninconformitytotheprinciplespeculiartotherelation
ofmasterandslave.Theirlegislation,inthewayofremedy,wouldbearuponstateas
wellasindividualrightsandIamsure,whentheconstitutionwasformed,thestates
neverintendedtogiveanysuchrighttoeachother.Ifithassuchaneffect,Ithink,Imay
rightlyconclude,thatlegislationinthecasebeforeusisforbiddentothestates.
201

ButIhaveafurtherreasonfortheconclusiontowhichIhavecomeuponthispoint
towhichIcannotseethatananswercanbegiven.Theprovisioncontemplates,besides
therightofseizurebytheowner,thataclaimmaybemade,whenaseizurehasnotbeen
effected,orafterwards,ifhisrightshallbecontestedthattheclaimshallbegood,upon
theshowingbytheclaimantthatthepersonchargedasafugitiveowesserviceorlabor,
underthelawsofthestatefromwhichhefled.Theprohibitionintheprovision,is,that
heshallnotbe'discharged,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationofastate'wherehe
maybe.Ifthen,inacontrovertedcase,apersonclaimedasafugitive,shallbe
discharged,underaremedylegislatedbyastate,totrythefactofhisowingserviceor
labor,ishenotdischargedunderalaworregulationofastate?Itisnoanswertothis
question,tosay,thatthedischargewasnotmadeinvirtueofanylawdischargingthe
fugitivefromservitudeandthatthedischargeoccurredonlyfromthemodeoftrialto
ascertainifheowedserviceandlabor.Forthatistoassume,thatprovisiononly
preventeddischargesfrombeingmadebythestates,byenactmentorlaw,declaring
thatfugitiveslavesmightbedischarged.Theprovisionwillnotadmitofsuchan
interpretation.Norisitanyanswertosay,thatstateregulationstoascertainwhethera
fugitiveowesserviceorlabor,aredistinguishablefromsuchas,directlyorby
construction,wouldleadtohisdischargeforifadischargebemadeunderoneorthe
otherwhetherthedischargeberightorwrong,atisadischargeundertheregulationof
astate.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

55/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

202

Iunderstoodtheprovisiontomean,andwhenitsobjectandthesurrenderbythe
statesoftherighttodischargearekeptinmind,itsobviousmeaningtoeveryonemust
be,thatthestatesarenotonlyprohibitedfromdischargingafugitivefromservice,bya
lawbutthattheyshallnotmakeorapplyregulationstotrythequestionofthefugitive
owingservice.Thelanguageoftheprovision,is,'noperson,&c.,shall,inconsequence
ofanylaworregulationtherein,'bedischargedfromsuchserviceorlabor.Thewords'in
consequence,'meaningtheeffectofacausecertainlyembraceregulationstotrythe
rightofproperty,aswellaslawsdirectlydischargingafugitivefromservice.Ifthisbe
notso,thestatesmayregulatethemodeofanowner'sseizingofafugitiveslave,
prohibitingitfrombeingdoneexceptbywarrantandbyanofficerthusdenyingtoan
ownertherighttouseacasualopportunitytorepossesshimselfofthiskindofproperty,
whichthereisarighttodo,inrespecttoallotherkindsofproperty,wherenotinthe
possessionofsomeoneelse.Itmayregulatethequantityandqualityoftheproofto
establishtherightofanownertoafugitive,andgivecompensatoryandpunitory
damagesagainstaclaimant,ifhisrightbenotestablishedaccordingtosuchproof.It
mightlimitthetrialtoparticulartimesandcourtsgiveappealsfromonetoother
courtsandprotracttheultimatedecision,untilthevalueincontroversywasexceeded
bythecostofestablishingit.Suchrightsoflegislationinthestatestotryarightof
propertyinafugitiveslave,aresurelyinconsistentwiththatsecuritywhichJudge
IREDELLtoldthepeopleofNorthCarolina,intheconvention,thattheconstitution
gavetothemfortheirslaves,whentheyfledintootherstates.Speakingofthisclauseof
theconstitutionhesays,'Insomeofthenorthernstates,theyhaveemancipatedallof
theirslavesifanyoneofourslavesgothere,andremainthereacertaintime,they
would,bythepresentlaws,beentitledtotheirfreedom,sothattheirmasterscouldnot
getthemagainthiswouldbeextremelyprejudicialtotheinhabitantsofthesouthern
statesand,topreventit,thisclauseisinsertedintheconstitution.'Tothesame
purpose,andwithmorepositiveness,ClarlesCotesworthPinckneysaidtothepeopleof
SouthCarolina,intheconventionofthatstate,'wehaveobtainedarighttorecoverour
slavesinwhateverpartofAmericatheymaytakerefugewhichisarightwehadnot
before.'

203

Butfurther,doesnotthelanguageofthisprovision,intheprecisetermsused,'shall
notbedischargedfromsuchserviceorlabor,'show,thatthestatesurrenderingtheright
todischarge,meanttoexcludethemselvesfromlegislatingamodeoftrial,which,from
thetimeitwouldtake,wouldbeaqualifiedortemporarydischargetotheinjuryofthe
owner?Wouldnotapostponementofthetrialofafugitiveowingserviceorlabor,for
onemonth,bealosstotheownerofhisserive,equivalenttoadischargeforthattime?
Andifastatecanpostpone,bylegislation,thetrialforonemonth,mayitnotdosofora
longertime?Andwhetheritbeforalongerorashortertime,isitnotadischargefrom
service,forwhatevertimeitmaybe?Itisnoanswertothisargument,tosay,thattimeis
necessarilyinvolvedintheprosecutionofallrights.Thequestionhereisnotastoatime
beingmoreorlessnecessarybutastotherightofastate,byregulationstotrythe
obligationofafugitivetoserviceorlabor,tofixinitsdiscretionthetimeitmaytake.

204

Thesubjectmightbefurtherdiscussedandillustratedbyargumentsequallycogent
withthosealreadygiven.ButIforbear!Fortheforegoingreasons,inadditiontothose
givenintheopinionofthecourt,Iamconstrainedtocometotheconclusion,thatthe
rightoflegislatinguponthatclauseintheconstitution,preventingthestatesfrom
dischargingfugitiveslaves,isexclusivelyinthecongressoftheUnitedStates.Iamas
littleinclinedasanyonecanbe,todeny,inadoubtfulcase,arightoflegislationinthe
statesbutIcannotconcede,thatitexists,undertheconstitution,inacaserelatingto
thepropertyofsomeofthestatesinwhichtheothershavenointerestandwhose
legislators,fromthenatureofthesubject,andthehumanmindinrelationtoit,cannot
besupposedtobebestfittedtosecuretherightguarantiedbytheconstitution.

205

Ihadintendedtogiveanaccountofthebeginningandprogressofthelegislationof
thestatesuponthissubjectbutmyremarksarealreadysomuchextended,thatImust

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

56/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

declinedoingso.Itwouldhaveshown,perhaps,asmuchasanyotherinstance,howa
mistaken,doubtfulandhesitatingexerciseofpower,inthecommencement,becomes,
byuse,aconvictionofitscorrectness.Itwouldalsohaveshown,thatthelegislationof
thestatesinrespecttofugitiveslaves,andparticularlythatwhichhasmostembarrasssd
therecoveryoffugitiveslaves,hasbeeninoppositiontoanunbrokencurrentof
decisionsinthecourtsofthestates,andthoseoftheUnitedStates.Notapointhasbeen
decidedinthecausenowbeforethiscourt,whichhasnotbeenruledinthecourtsof
Massachusetts,NewYorkandPennsylvania,andinotherstatecourts.Judgeshave
differedastosomeofthem,butthecourtsofthestateshaveannouncedallofthem,
withtheconsiderationandsolemnityofjudicialconclusion.Incases,too,inwhichthe
decisionswereappropriate,becausethepointswereraisedbytherecord.
206

IconsiderthepointIhavebeenmaintaining,moreimportantthananyotherinthe
opinionofthecourt.Itremovesthosecauseswhichhavecontributedmorethanany
othertodisturbthatharmonywhichisessentialtothecontinuanceoftheUnion.The
framersoftheconstitutionknewittobeso,andinsertedtheprovisioninit.Hereafter,
theycannotoccur,ifthejudgmentofthiscourtinthiscauseshallmeetwiththesame
patrioticacquiescencewhichthetribunalsofthestatesandthepeopleofthestateshave
heretoforeaccordedtoitsdecisions.Therecoveryoffugitiveslaveswillhereafterbe
exclusivelyregulatedbytheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andtheactsofcongress.

207

Apartfromthepositionthatthestatesmaylegislateinallcases,wheretheyarenot
expresslyprohibited,orbynecessaryimplicationtheclaimforthestatestolegislateis
mainlyadvocatedupontheground,thattheyareboundtoprotectfreeblacksand
personsofcolorresidinginthemfrombeingcarriedintoslaverybyanysummary
process.Theanswertothisis,thatlegislationmaybeconfinedtothatend,andbemade
effectual,withoutmakingsucharemedyapplicabletofugitiveslaves.Thereisno
proprietyinmakingaremedytoprotectthosewhoarefree,theprobablemeansof
freeingthosewhoarenotso.Itisalsosaid,thestatesmayaid,byremedies,theactsof
congress,whentheyarenotinconflictwiththem.Ireply,congresshasfullpowerto
enactallthatsuchaidcouldgiveandifexperienceshowsanydeficiencyinits
enactments,congresswillnodoubtsupplyit.Iftherearenotnowagenciesenoughto
maketheassertionoftherighttofugitivesconvenienttotheirowners,congresscan
multiplythem.Butifitshouldnotbedone,betterisitthattheinconvenienceshouldbe
borne,thanthatthestatesshouldbebroughtintocollisionuponthissubject,asthey
havebeenandthattheyshouldattempttosupplydeficiencies,upontheirseparate
viewsofwhattheremediesshouldbetorecoverfugitiveslaveswithintheirjurisdictions.

208

Ihavehearditsuggestedalso,asareasonwhythestatesshouldlegislateuponthis
subject,thatcongressmayrepealtheremedyithasgiven,andleavetheprovision
unaidedbylegislationandthatthenthestatesmightcarryitintoexecution.Beitso
butthelatterisnotneeded,forthoughlegislationbycongresssupportstherights
intendedtobesecured,thereisenergyenoughintheconstitution,withoutlegislation
uponthissubject,toprotectandenforcewhatitgives.

209

DANIEL,Justice.

210

Concurringentirely,asIdo,withthemajorityofthecourt,intheconclusionsthey
havereachedrelativetotheeffectandvalidityofthestatuteofPennsylvanianowunder
review,itiswithunfeignedregretthatIamconstrainedtodissentfromsomeofthe
principlesandreasoningswhichthatmajority,inpassingtoourcommonconclusions,
havebelievedthemselvescalledontoaffirm.

211

Injudicialproceedings,generally,thathasbeendeemedasafeandprudentruleof
action,whichinvolvesnorightsorquestionsnotnecessarytobeconsideredbutleaves
theseforadjudicationwhereandwhenonlytheyshallbepresenteddirectlyand
unavoidably,andwhensurroundedwitheverycircumstancewhichcanbestillustrate
theircharacter.If,inordinaryquestionsofprivateinterest,thisruleisrecommendedby

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

57/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

considerationsofprudence,andaccuracyandjusticeitissurelymuchmoretobe
observed,whenthesubjecttowhichitisapplicableisthegreatfundamentallawofthe
confederacyeveryclauseandarticleofwhichaffectsthepolityandtheactsofstates.
Guidedbytherulejustmentioned,itseemstome,thattheregularactionofthecourtin
thiscaseislimitedtoanexaminationofthePennsylvaniastatute,toacomparisonofits
provisionswiththethirdclauseofthefourtharticleoftheconstitution,andwiththeact
ofcongressof1793,withwhichthelawofPennsylvaniaisallegedtobeinconflictand
thattoaccomplishthesepurposes,ageneraldefinitionorcontrastofthepowersofthe
stateandfederalgovernments,wasneitherrequisitenorproper.Themajorityofmy
brethren,intheconscientiousdischargeoftheirduty,havethoughtthemselvesbound
topursueadifferentcourseanditisintheirdefinitionanddistributionofstateand
federalpowers,andinthemodesandtimestheyhaveassignedfortheexercisingthose
powers,thatIfindmyselfcompelledtodifferwiththem.
212

Thatportionoftheconstitutionwhichprovidesfortherecoveryoffugitiveshares,is
thethirdclauseofthesecondsectionofthefourtharticleandisinthesewords:'No
personheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthelawsthereof,escapinginto
another,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulationherein,bedischargedfromsuch
serviceorlaborbutshallbedeliveredup,onclaimofthepartytowhomsuchserviceor
labormaybedue.'Theparamountauthorityofthisclauseintheconstitutionto
guarantytotheownertherightofpropertyinhisslave,andtheabsolutenullityofany
statepower,directlyorindirectly,openlyorcovertly,aimedtoimpairthatright,orto
obstructitsenjoyment,Iadmit,nay,insistupon,tothefullestextent.Icontend,
moreover,thattheactof1793,madeinaidofthisclauseoftheconstitutionandforits
enforcement,sofarasitconformstotheconstitution,isthesupremelawtothestates
andcannotbecontravenedbythem,withoutaviolationoftheconstitution.Butthe
majorityofmybrethren,proceedingbeyondthesepositions,assumetheground,that
theclauseoftheconstitutionabovequoted,asanaffirmativepowergrantedbythe
constitution,isessentiallyanexclusivepowerinthefederalgovernmentand
consequently,thatanyandeveryexerciseofanthoritybythestates,atanytime,though
undeniablyinaidoftheguaranteetherebygive,isabsolutelynullandvoid.

213

WhilstIamfreetoadmitthepowerswhichareexclusiveinthefederalgovernment,
someofthembecamesodenominatedbytheexpresstermsoftheconstitutionsome,
becausetheyareprohibitedtothestatesandothers,becausetheirexistence,andmuch
more,theirpracticalexertionbythetwogovernments,wouldberepugnant,andwould
neutralize,iftheydidnotconflictwithanddestroy,eachotherIcannotregardthethird
clauseofthefourtharticleasfallingeitherwithinthedefinitionormeaningofan
exclusivepower.Suchapower,Iconsiderasorginallyandabsolutely,andatalltimes
incompatiblewithpartitionorassociationitexcludeseverythingbutitself.Thereisa
classofpowers,originallyvestedinthestates,which,bythetheoryofthefederal
government,havebeentransferredtothelatterpowerswhichtheconstitutionofitself
doesnotexecute,andwhichcongressmayormaynotenforce,eitherinwholeorin
part,accordingtoitsviewsofpolicyornecessityorasitmayfindthemforthetime
beneficiallyexecutedorotherwiseunderthestateauthorities.Thesearenotproperly
concurrent,butmaybedenominateddormantpowersinthefederalgovernmentthey
mayatanytimebeawakenedintoefficientactionbycongress,andfromthattime,so
farastheyarecalledintoactivity,will,ofcourse,displacethepowersofthestates.But
shouldtheyagainbewithdrawnorrendereddormant,orshouldtheirprimitiveexercise
bythestatesneverbeinterferedwithbycongresscoulditbeproperlysaid,thatbecause
theypotentiallyexistedincongress,theywere,therefore,deniedtothestates?The
prosperity,thenecessities,ofthecountry,andthesoundestrulesofconstitutional
construction,appeartome,topresentadecidednegativetothisinquiry.Nay!Iam
preparedtoaffirm,thatevenininstanceswhereincongressmayhavelegislated,
legislationbyastatewhichisstrictlyancillary,wouldnotbeunconstitutionalor
improper.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

58/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

214

TheinterpretationforwhichIcontendcannotbedeemedanoveltyinthiscourtbut
restsuponmorethanoneofitsdecisionsupontheconstitutionalactionofstate
authorities.InthecaseofSturgesv.Crowninshield,whichbroughtinquestiontheright
ofthestatestopassinsolventorbankruptlaws,ChiefJusticeMARSHALLholdsthe
followingdoctrine(4Wheat.1923):'Thecounselfortheplaintiffcontend,thatthe
grantofthispowertocongress,withoutlimitation,takesitentirelyfromthestates.In
supportofthisproposition,theyargue,thateverypowergiventocongressisnecessarily
supremeandif,fromitsnature,orfromthewordsofthegrant,itisapparently
intendedtobeexclusive,itisasmuchsoasiftheywereexpresslyforbiddentoexercise
it.Thesepropositionshavebeenenforcedandillustratedbymanyargumentsdrawn
fromdifferentpartsoftheconstitution.Thatthepowerisbothulimitedandsupreme,is
notquestionedthatitsisexclusive,isdeniedbythecounselforthedefendant.In
consideringthisquestion,itmustberecollected,thatprevioustotheformationofthe
newconstitution,weweredividedintoindependentstates,unitedforsomepurposes,
butinmostrespectssovereign.Thesestatescouldexercisealmosteverylegislative
powerandamongstothers,thatofpassingbankruptlaws.WhentheAmericanpeople
createdanationallegislature,withcertainenumeratedpowers,itwasneithernecessary
norproper,todefinethepowersretainedbythestates.Thesepowersremainasthey
werebeforetheadoptionoftheconstitution,exceptsofarastheymaybeabridgedby
thatinstrument.Insomeinstances,asinmakingtreaties,wefindanexpress
prohibitionandthisshowsthesenseoftheconventiontohavebeen,thatthemere
grantofapowertocongressdidnotimplyaprohibitiononthestatestotheexerciseof
thesamepower.'Again,p.198,'itdoesnotappeartobeaviolentconstructionofthe
constitution,andiscertainlyaconvenientone,toconsiderthepowrsofthestatesas
existingoversuchcasesasthelawsoftheUniondonotreach.Bethisasitmay,the
powerofcongressmaybeexercisedordeclined,asthewisdomofthatbodyshalldecide.
Itisnotthemereexistenceofthepower,butitsexercise,whichisincompatiblewiththe
exerciseofthesamepowrbythestates.Ithasbeensaid,thatcongresshasexercisedthis
powerandbydoingso,hasextinguishedthepowerofthestates,whichcannotbe
revivedbyrepealingthelawofcongress.Wedonotthinkso.Iftherightofthestatesis
nottakenawaybythemeregrantofthatpowertocongress,itcannotbeextinguished
itcanonlybesuspended,byenactingageneralbankruptlaw.Therepealofthat,
cannot,itistrue,conferthepoweronthestatesbutitremovesadisabilitytoits
exercise,whichwascreatedbytheactofcongress.

215

InthecaseofHoustonv.Moore,6Wheat.48,thefollowingdoctrine,washeldbyMr.
JusticeSTORY,andinaccordancewiththeopinionofthecourt,inthatcase.'The
constitutioncontainingagrantofpowers,inmanyinstancessimilartothosealready
existinginthestategovernments,andsomeofthesebeingofvitalimportancealsoto
stateauthorityandstatelegislation,itisnottobeadmitted,thatameregrantofpowers,
inaffirmativeterms,tocongress,does,perse,transferanexclusivesovereigntyinsuch
subjectstothelatteronthecontrary,areasonableinterpretationofthatinstrument
necessarilyleadstotheconclusion,thatthepowerssograntedareneverexclusiveof
similarpowersexistinginthestates,exceptwheretheconstitutionhas,inexpress
terms,givenanexclusivepowertocongress,ortheexerciseofalikepowerisprohibited
tothestates.Theexampleofthefirstclassistobefoundintheexclusivelegislation
delegatedtocongressoverplacespurchasedbytheconsentofthelegislatureofthestate
inwhichthesameshallbe,forforts,arsenals,dockyards,&c.ofthesecondclass,the
prohibitionofastatetocoinmoneyoremitbillsofcreditofthethirdclass,asthiscourt
havealreadyheld,isthepowertoestablishanuniformruleofnaturalizationandthe
delegationofadmiraltyandmaritimejurisdiction.Inallothercases,notfallingwithin
theclassesalreadymentioned,itseemsunquestionable,thatthestatesretain
concurrentauthoritywithcongress,notonlyundertheeleventhamendmentofthe
constitution,butuponthesoundestprinciplesofgeneralreasoning.Thereisthis
reserve,however,thatincasesofconcurrentauthority,wherethelawsofthestatesand
oftheUnionareindirectandmanifestcollisiononthesamesubject,thoseofthe
Union,beingthesupremelawoftheland,areofparamountauthorityandthestate

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

59/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

laws,sofar,andsofaronly,assuchincompatibilityexists,mustnecessarilyyield.Such
arethegeneralprinciplesbywhichmyjudgmentisguided,ineveryinvestigationof
constitutionalpoints.Theycommendthemselvesbytheirintrinsicequityandhave
beenamplyjustifiedbythegreatmenunderwhoseguidencetheconstitutionwas
framed,aswellsasbythepracticeofthegovernmentoftheUnion.Todesertthem,
wouldbetodeliverourselvesovertoendlessdoubtsanddifficultiesandprobably,to
hazardtheexistenceoftheconstitutionitself.'
216

InthecaseortheCityofNewYorkv.Miln,11Pet.102,Mr.JusticeBARBOUR,inthe
deliveringtheopinionofthecourt,laysdownthefollowingposition(p.137),asdirectly
deduciblefromthedecisioninGibbonsv.Ogden,7Wheat.204,andBrownv.Stateof
Maryland,12Ibid.419:'Whilstastateisactingwithinthelegitimatescopeofitspower,
astotheendtobeattained,itmayusewhatevermeans,beingappropriatetothatend,it
maythinkfitalthoughtheybethesame,orsonearlythesameasscarcelytobe
distinguishedfromthoseadoptedbycongressactingunderadifferentpowersubject
onlytothislimitation,thatintheeventofcollision,thelawofthestatemustyieldtothe
lawofcongress.Thecourtmustbeunderstood,ofcourse,asmeaningthatthelawof
congressispasseduponasubjectwithinthesphereofitspower.'Inthesamecase,the
followinglanguageisheldbyMr.JusticeTHOMPSON(p.145):'Intheleadingcases
uponthisquestion,wherethestatelawhasbeenheldtobeconstitutional,therehas
beenanactualconflictbetweenthelegislationofcongressandthatofthestates,upon
therightdrawninquestionandinallsuchcases,thelawofcongressissupreme.Butin
thecasenowbeforethecourt,nosuchconflictarisescongresshasnotlegislatedonthis
subjectinanymannertoaffectthequestion.'Andagain(p.146),itissaidbythesame
judge:'Itisnotnecessaryinthiscasetofixanylimitsuponthelegislationofcongress
andofthestatesonthissubjectortosayhowfarcongressmay,underthepowerto
regulatecommerce,controlstatelegislationinthisrespect.Itisenoughtosay,that
whateverthepowerofcongressmaybe,ithasnotbeenexercisedsoasinanymannerto
conflictwiththestatelawandifthemeregrantofthepowertocongressdoesnot
necessarilyimplyaprohibitionofthestatestoexercisethepower,untilcongress
assumesthepowertoexerciseit,noobjectiononthatgroundcanarisetothislaw.'
Here,then,arerecognitions,repeatedandexplicit,ofthepropriety,utilityand
regularityofstateaction,inreferencetopowersconfessedlyvestedinthegeneral
government,solongasthelatterremainspassive,orshallembracewithinitsown
actiononlyaportionofitspowers,andthatportionnotcomprisedintheproceedings
ofthestategovernmentandsolongasthestatesshallneitherconflictwiththe
measuresofthefederalgovernment,norcontraveneitspolicy.Fromthese
recognitions,itmustfollow,bynecessaryconsequence,thatpowersvestedinthe
federalgovernmentwhicharecompatiblewiththemodesofexecutionjustadvertedto,
cannotbeessentiallyandoriginally,norpractically,exclusivepowersforwhateveris
exclusive,utterlyforbids,ashasbeenpreviouslyobserved,allpartitionorassociation.I
hold,then,thatthestatescanestablishproceedingswhichareintheirnaturecalculated
tosecuretherightsoftheslaveholderguarantiedtohimbytheconstitutionasIshall
attempttoshow,thatthoserightscanneverbesoperfectlysecured,aswhenthestates
shall,ingoodfaith,exerttheirauthoritytoassistineffectuatingtheguaranteegivenby
theconstitution.Fugitivesfromservice,inattemptingtofleeeithertothenonslave
holdingstates,orintotheCanadas,must,inmanyinstances,passtheintermediate
states,beforetheycanattaintothepointtheyaimat.

217

Ifthereisapowerinthestatestoauthorizeandordertheirarrestanddetentionfor
deliverytotheirowners,notonlywilltheprobabilitiesofrecoverybeincreased,bythe
performanceofdutiesenjoinedbylawuponthecitizensofthosestates,aswellprivate
personsasthosewhoareofficersofthelawbuttheincitementsofinterest,underthe
hopeofreward,will,inacertainclassofpersons,powerfullycooperatetothesame
ends.Butletitbedeclared,thattherightsofarrestanddetention,withaviewof
restorationtotheowner,belongsolelytothefederalgovernment,exclusiveofthe
individualrightoftheownertoseizehisproperty,andwhataretobetheconsequences?

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

60/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

Inthefirstplace,wheneverthemaster,attemptingtoenforcehisrightofseizureunder
theconstitution,shallmeetwithresistance,theinconsiderablenumberoffederal
officersinastate,andtheirfrequentremotenessfromthetheatreofaction,must,in
numerousinstances,atoncedefeathisrightofproperty,anddeprivehimalsoof
personalprotectionandsecurity.Bytheremovalofeveryincentiveofinterestinstate
officers,orindividuals,andbytheinculcationofabeliefthatanycooperationwiththe
masterbecomesaviolationoflaw,themostactiveandefficientauxiliarywhichhecould
possiblycalltohisaidisentirelyneutralized.Again,suppose,thatafugitivefromservice
shouldhavefledtoastatewhereslaverydoesnotexist,andinwhichtheprevalent
feelingishostiletothatinstitutiontheremight,nevertheless,insuchacommunity,bea
dispositiontoyieldsomethingtoanacknowledgedconstitutionalrightsomethingto
nationalcomity,too,inthepreservationofthatrightbutletitoncebeproclaimedfrom
thistribunal,thatanyconcessionbythestatestowardsthemaintenanceofsucharight,
isapositiveoffence,theviolationofasolemnduty,andIaskwhatpretextmore
plausiblecouldbeofferedtothosewhoaredisposedtoprotectthefugitive,ortodefeat
therightsofthemaster?Theconstitutionandtheactofcongresswouldthusbe
convertedintoinstrumentsforthedestructionofthatwhichtheyweredesigned
especiallytoprotect.Butitissaid,thatifthestatescanlegislateatalluponthesubjectof
fugitivesfromservice,theymay,undertheguiseofregulationsforsecuringthemaster's
right,enactlawswhich,inreality,impairordestroythem.This,likeeveryother
argumentdrawnfromthepossibleabuseofpower,isdeemedneitherfairnorlogical.It
isequallyapplicabletotheexerciseofpowerbythefederalasbythestategovernments
andmightbeusedinoppositiontoallpowerandallgovernment,asitisundeniable,
thatthereisnopowerandnogovernmentwhichisnotsusceptibleofgreatabuses.But
thosewhoargue,fromsuchpossibleorprobableabuses,againstallregulationsbythe
statestouchingthismatter,shoulddismisstheirapprehensions,undertherecollection
thatshouldthoseabusesbeattempted,thecorrectivemaybefound,asitisnowaboutto
beappliedtosomeextent,inthecontrollingconstitutionalauthorityofthiscourt.
218

Ithasbeensaid,thatthestates,intheexerciseoftheirpolicepowers,mayarrestand
imprisonvagrantsorfugitiveswhomayendangerthepeaceandgoodorderofsociety
andbythatmeanscontributetotherecoverybythemasterofhisfugitiveslave.It
shouldberecollected,however,thatthepolicepowerofastatehasnonaturalaffinity
withherexteriorrelations,norwiththosewhichshesustainstohersisterstatesbutis
confinedtomattersstrictlybelongingtoherinternalorderandquiet.Thearrestor
confinement,orrestorationofafugitive,merelybecauseheissuch,fallsnotregularly
withintheobjectsofpoliceregulationsforsuchapersonmaybeobnoxioustono
chargeofviolenceordisorderhemaybemerelypassingthroughthestatepeaceably
andquietlyorhemaybeunderthecareandcountenanceofsomepersonaffecting
ownershipoverhim,withtheveryviewoffacilitatinghisescape.Undersuch
circumstances,hewouldnotbeapropersubjectfortheexertionofthepolicepower
andifnottobechallengedunderadifferentpowerinthestate,hisescapewouldbe
inevitable,howeverstrongmightbetheevidencesofhisbeingafugitive.Butletitbe
supposed,thateitheronaccountofsomeoffenceactuallycommittedorthreatenedor
fromsomeinternalregulationforbiddingthepresenceofsuchpersonswithinastate,
theymaybedeemedsubjectsfortheexertionofthepolicepowerproper,towhatend
wouldtheexerciseofthatpowernaturallylead?Fugitivesmightbearrestedfor
punishment,ortheymightbeexpelledordeportedfromthestate.Nothingbeyond
thesecouldbelegallyaccomplishedandthustheinvocationofthispolicepower,sofar
fromsecuringtherightsofthemaster,wouldbemadeanenginetoinsurethe
deprivationofhisproperty.Suchareaportionoftheconsequenceswhich,inmy
opinion,mustflowfromthedoctrinesaffirmedbythemajorityofthecourtdoctrines,
inmyview,notwarrantedbytheconstitution,norbytheinterpretationheretofore
givenofthatinstrumentandtheassertionwhereofseemednottohavebeen
necessarilyinvolvedintheadjudicationofthiscause.Withtheconvictions
predominatinginmymindastothenatureandtendenciesofthesedoctrineswhilstI
cherishtheprofoundestrespectforthewisdomandpurityofthosewhomaintainthem

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

61/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

itwouldbeaderelictionofdutyinme,toyieldtothemadirectoratacitacquiescence
I,therefore,declaremydissentfromthem.
219

McLEAN,Justice.

220

Asthiscaseinvolvesquestionsdeeplyinteresting,ifnotvital,tothepermanencyof
theUnionofthesestatesandasIdifferononepointfromtheopinionofthecourt,I
deemitpropertostatemyownviewsonthesubject.

221

Theplaintiff,EdwardPrigg,wasindictedunderthefirstsectionofanactof
Pennsylvania,entitled'anacttogiveeffecttotheprovisionsoftheconstitutionofthe
UnitedStates,relativetofugitivesfromlabor,fortheprotectionoffreepeopleofcolor,
andtopreventkidnapping.'Itprovides,'ifanypersonorpersonsshall,fromandafter
thepassingofthisact,byforceandviolence,takeandcarryaway,orcausetobetaken
orcarriedaway,andshall,byfraudorfalsepretenceseduce,orcausetobeseduced,or
shallattempttotake,carryawayorseduce,anynegroormulatto,fromanypartorparts
ofthiscommonwealth,toanyotherplaceorplaceswhatsoever,outofthis
commonwealth,withadesignandintentionofsellinganddisposingof,orofcausingto
besold,orofkeepinganddetaining,orofcausingtobekeptanddetained,suchnegro
ormulatto,asaslaveorsevantforlife,orforanytermwhatsoevereverysuchpersonor
persons,hisortheiraidersorabettors,shall,onconvictionthereof,bedeemedguiltyof
felony,andshallbefinedinasumnotlessthanfivehundrednormorethanone
thousanddollars,andshallbesentencedtoimprisonmentandhardlabornotlessthan
sevennormorethantwentyoneyears.'

222

Theplaintiff,beingacitizenofMaryland,withothers,tookMargaretMorgan,a
coloredwoman,andaslave,byforceandviolence,withoutthecertificaterequiredby
theactofcongress,fromthestateofPennsylvania,andbroughthertothestateof
Maryland.Byanamicablearrangementbetweenthetwostates,judgmentwasentered
againstthedefendant,inthecourtwheretheindictmentwasfoundandonthecause
beingremovedtothesupremecourtofthestate,thatjudgment,proforma,was
affirmed.Andthecaseisnowhereforourexaminationanddecision.

223

Thelastclauseofthesecondsectionofthefourtharticleoftheconstitutionofthe
UnitedStates,declares,that'Nopersonheldtoserviceorlaborinonestate,underthe
lawsthereof,escapingintoanother,shall,inconsequenceofanylaworregulation
therein,bedischargedfromsuchserviceorlaborbutshallbedeliveredup,onclaimof
thepartytowhomsuchserviceorlabormaybedue.'Thisclauseoftheconstitutionis
now,forthefirsttime,broughtbeforethiscourtforconsideration.

224

Thattheconstitutionwasadoptedinaspiritofcompromise,ismatterofhistory.And
allexperienceshows,thattoattainthegreatobjectsofthisfundamentallaw,itmustbe
construedandenforcedinaspiritofenlightenedforbearanceandjustice.Without
advertingtootherconflictingviewsandinterestsofthestatesrepresentedinthe
generalconvention,thesubjectofslaverywasthen,asitisnow,amostdelicateand
absorbingconsideration.Insomeofthestates,itwasconsideredanevil,andastrong
oppositiontoit,inallitsforms,wasfeltandexpressed.Inothers,itwasviewedasa
cherishedright,incorporatedintothesocialcompact,andsacredlyguardedbylaw.
Opinionssoconflicting,andwhichsodeeplypervadedtheelementsofsociety,couldbe
broughttoareconciledactiononlybyanexerciseofexaltedpatriotism.Fortunatelyfor
thecountry,thispatriotismwasnotwantingintheconventionandinthestates.The
dangerofdiscordandruinwasseen,andfeltandacknowledgedandthisledtothe
formationoftheconfederacy.Theconstitution,asitis,cannotbesaidtohave
embodiedinallitsparts,thepeculiarviewsofanygreatsectionoftheUnionbutitwas
adoptedbyawiseandfarreachingconviction,thatitwasthebestwhich,underthe
circumstances,couldbedevisedandthatitsimperfectionswouldbelostsightof,ifnot
forgotten,inthenationalprosperityandglorywhichitwouldsecure.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

62/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

225

Alawisbetterunderstoodbyaknowledgeoftheevilswhichledtoitsadoptionand
thisappliesmoststronglytoafundamentallaw.Atanearlyperiodofourhistory,
slaveryexistedinallthecoloniesandfugitivesfromlaborwereclaimedanddelivered
up,underaspiritofcomityorconventionallawamongthecolonies.Thearticlesof
confederationcontainednoprovisiononthesubject,andtherecanbenodoubt,that
theprovisionintroducedintotheconstitutionwastheresultofexperienceandmanifest
necessity.Amattersodelicate,importantandexciting,wasveryproperlyintroduced
intotheorganiclaw.

226

Doestheprovisioninregardtothereclamationoffugitiveslaves,vestthepower
exclusivelyinthefederalgovernment?Thismustbedeterminedfromthelanguageof
theconstitution,andthenatureofthepower.Thelanguageoftheprovisionisgeneral
itcoversthewholeground,notindetail,butinprinciple.Thestatesareinhibitedfrom
passing'anylaworregulationwhichshalldischargeafugitiveslavefromtheserviceof
hismaster'andapositivedutyisenjoinedonthemtodeliverhimup,'onclaimofthe
partytowhomhisservicemaybedue.'Thenatureofthepowershowsthatitmustbe
exclusive.Itwasdesignedtoprotecttherightsofthemaster,andagainstwhom?Not
againstthestate,northepeopleofthestateinwhichheresidesbutagainstthepeople
andthelegislativeactionofotherstateswherethefugitivefromlabormightbefound.
Undertheconfederation,themasterhadnolegalmeansofenforcinghisrights,ina
stateopposedtoslavery.Adisregardofrightsthusassertedwasdeeplyfeltinthesouth
itproducedgreatexcitement,andwouldhaveledtoresultsdestructiveoftheUnion.To
avoidthis,theconstitutionalguaranteewasessential.Thenecessityforthisprovision
wasfoundintheviewsandfeelingsofthepeopleofthestatesopposedtoslaveryand
who,undersuchaninfluence,couldnotbeexpectedfavorablytoregardtherightsofthe
master.Now,bywhomisthisparamountlawtobeexecuted?

227

Itiscontended,thatthepowertoexecuteitrestswiththestates.Thelawwas
designedtoprotecttherightsoftheslaveholderagainstthestatesopposedtothose
rightsandyet,bythisargument,theeffectivepowerisinthehandsofthoseonwhomit
istooperate.Thiswouldproduceastrangeanomalyinthehistoryoflegislationit
wouldshowaninexperienceandfollyinthevenerableframersoftheconstitution,from
which,ofallpublicbodiesthateverassembled,theywere,perhaps,mostexempt.The
clauseoftheconstitutionunderconsiderationdeclaresthatnofugitivefromlaborshall
bedischargedfromsuchlabor,byanylaworregulationofthestateintowhichhemay
havefled.Isthestatetojudgeofthis?Isitleftforthestatetodeterminewhateffectshall
begiventothisandotherpartsoftheprovision?Thispowerisnotsusceptibleof
divisionitisapartofthefundamentallaw,andpervadestheUniontheruleofaction
whichitprescribeswasintendedtobethesameinallthestates.Thisisessentialtothe
attainmentoftheobjectsofthelawiftheeffectofitdepended,inanydegree,uponthe
constructionofastate,bylegislationorotherwise,itsspirit,ifnotitsletter,wouldbe
disregarded.Thiswouldnotproceedfromanysettleddeterminationinanystateto
violatethefundamentalrule,butfromhabitsandmodesofreasoningonthesubject
suchisthediversityofhumanjudgment,thatoppositeconclusions,equallyhonest,are
oftendrawnfromthesamepremises.Itis,therefore,essentialtotheuniformefficacy
ofhisconstitutionalprovision,thatitshouldbeconsideredexclusivelyafederalpower.
Itis,initsnature,asmuchsoasthepowertoregulatecommerce,orthatofforeign
intercourse.

228

Togivefulleffecttothisprovision,waslegislationnecessary?Congress,bythe
passageoftheactof1793,legislatedonthesubject,andthisshowshowthisprovision
wasconstrued,shortlyafteritsadoptionandthereasonswhichweredeliberately
considered,andwhichledtothepassageoftheact,showclearlythatitwasnecessary.
Thesereasonswillbemoreparticularlyreferredtounderanotherheadoftheargument.
Butlookingonlyattheconstitution,thepropriety,ifnotthenecessity,oflegislationis
seen.Theconstitutionprovidesthatthefugitivefromlaborshallbedeliveredup,on
claimbeingmadebythepersonentitledtosuchlaborbutitissilentastohowandon

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

63/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

whomthisclaimshallbemadetheactofcongressprovidesforthisdefectand
uncertainty,byestablishingthemodeofprocedure.
229

Itiscontended,thatthepowertolegislateonthissubjectisconcurrentlyinthestates
andfederalgovernmentthattheactofthelatterareparamount,buttheactsofthe
formermustberegardedasofauthority,untilabrogatedbythefederalpower.Howa
powerexercisedbyonesovereigntycanbecalledconcurrent,whichmaybeabrogated
byanother,Icannotcomprehendaconcurrentpower,fromitsnature,Ihadsupposed
mustbeequal.Ifthefederalgovernment,bylegislatingonthesubject,annulsallstate
legislationonthesamesubject,itmustfollow,thatthepowerisinthefederal
governmentandnotinthestate.Taxationisapowercommontoastateandthegeneral
government,anditisexercisedbyeach,independentlyoftheotherandthismustbe
thecharacterofallconcurrentpowers.

230

Itissaid,thatapowermaybevestedinthefederalgovernmentwhichremains
dormant,andthatinsuchcaseastatemaylegislateonthesubject.Inthecasesupposed,
whencedoesthelegislaturederiveitspower?Isitderivedfromtheconstitutionofthe
state,ortheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates?Ifthepowerisgivenbythestate
constitution,itmustfollow,thatitmaybeexercisedindependentlyofthefederal
powerforitispresumed,noonewillsanctionthedoctrine,thatcongress,by
legislation,mayabridgetheconstitutionalpowerofastate.Howcanthepowerofthe
statebederivedfromthefederalconstitution?Isitassumed,ontheground,that
congress,havingthepower,havefailedtoexerciseit?Whereissuchanassumptionto
end?Mayitnotbeappliedwithequalforceandproprietytothewholegroundoffederal
legislation,exceptingonlythepowersinhibitedtothestates?Congresshavenot
legislateduponacertainsubject,butthisdoesnotshowthattheymaynothaveduly
considereditortheymayhaveactedwithoutexhaustingthepower.Now,inmy
judgment,itisillogicalandunconstitutional,tohold,thatineitherofthesecases,astate
maylegislate.

231

Isthisavagrantpowerofthestate,likeafloatinglandwarranttobelocatedonthe
firstvacantspotthatshallbefound?Mayastateoccupyafragmentoffederalpower
whichhasnotbeenexercised,andlikeatenantatwill,continuetooccupyituntilitshall
havenoticetoquit?Nosuchpowerisderivedbyimplicationfromthefederal
constitution.Itdefinesthepowersofthegeneralgovernment,andimposescertain
restrictionsanddutiesonthestatesbutbeyondthis,itinnodegreeaffectsthepowers
ofthestates.Thepowerswhichbelongtoastateareexercisedindependentlyinits
sphereofsovereignty,itstandsonanequalitywiththefederalgovernment,andisnot
subjecttoitscontrol.Itwouldbeasdangerous,ashumiliating,totherightsofastate,to
hold,thatitslegislativepowerswereexercised,toanyextentandunderany
circumstances,subjecttotheparamountactionofcongresssuchadoctrinewouldlead
toseriousanddangerousconflictsofpower.

232

Theactof1793seemstocoverthewholeconstitutionalground.Thethirdsection
provides,'thatwhenapersonheldtolaborinanystateorterritoryoftheUnitedStates,
underthelawsthereof,shallescapeintoanyotherofthesaidstatesorterritories,the
persontowhomsuchlabororservicemaybedue,hisagentorattorney,isempowered
toseizeorarrestsuchfugitivefromlabor,andtotakehimorherbeforeanyjudgeofthe
circuitordistrictcourtsoftheUnitedStates,residingorbeingwithinthestate,or
beforeanymagistrateofacounty,cityortowncorporate,whereinsuchseizureorarrest
shallbemade,anduponproof,tothesatisfactionofsuchjudgeormagistrate,eitherby
oraltestimonyoraffidavit,&c.,thatthepersonsoseizedorarrested,doth,underthe
lawsofthestateorterritoryfromwhichheorshefled,oweserviceorlabortothe
personclaiminghimorher,itshallbethedutyofsuchjudgeormagistrate,togivea
certificatethereoftosuchclaimant,hisagentorattorney,whichshallbesufficient
warrantforremovingsaidfugitivetothestatefromwhichheorshefled.'Thefourth
sectionimposesapenaltyonanypersonwhoshallobstructorhindersuchclaimant,his
agentorattorney,&c.,orshallrescuesuchfugitive,whensoarrested,&c.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

64/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

233

Itseemstobetakenasaconcededpoint,intheargument,thatcongresshadno
powertoimposedutiesonstateofficers,asprovidedintheaboveact.Asageneral
principle,thisistruebutdoesnotthecaseunderconsiderationformanexception?
Congresscannomoreregulatethejurisdictionofthestatetribunals,thanastatecan
definethejudicialpoweroftheUnion.Theofficersofeachgovernmentareresponsible
onlytotherespectiveauthoritiesunderwhichtheyarecommissioned.Butdonotthe
clausesintheconstitutioninregardtofugitivesfromlabor,andfromjustice,give
congressapoweroverstateofficers,onthesesubjects?Thepowerinboththecasesis
admittedorprovedtobeexclusivelyinthefederalgovernment.Theclauseinthe
constitutionprecedingtheoneinrelationtofugitivesfromlabor,declaresthat,'a
personchargedinanystatewithtreason,felonyorothercrime,whoshallfleefrom
justice,andbefoundinanotherstate,shall,ondemandoftheexecutiveauthorityofthe
statefromwhichhefled,bedelivereduptoberemovedtothestatehavingjurisdiction
ofthecrime.'Inthefirstsectionoftheactof1793,congresshaveprovided,thaton
demandbeingmadeasabove,'itshallbethedutyoftheexecutiveauthority,tocausethe
persondemandedtobearrested,&c.Theconstitutionalityofthislaw,itisbelieved,has
neverbeenquestioned.Ithasbeenobeyedbythegovernorsofstates,whohave
uniformlyacknowledgeditsobligation.Tosomedemands,surrendershavenotbeen
madebuttherefusalshave,innoinstance,beenonthegroundthattheconstitution
andactofcongresswereofnobindingforce.Otherreasonshavebeenassigned.

234

Now,ifcongressmay,bylegislation,requirethisdutytobeperformedbythehighest
stateofficer,maytheynot,onthesameprinciple,requireappropriatedutiesinregard
tothesurrenderoffugitivesfromlabor,byotherstateofficers?Overthesesubjects,the
constitutionalpoweristhesame.Inbothcases,theactof1793definesonwhatevidence
thedeliveryshallbemadethiswasnecessary,astheconstitutionissilentonthe
subject.Theactprovides,thatonclaimbeingmade,ofafugitivefromlabor,'itshallbe
thedutyofsuchjudgeormagistrate,togiveacertificatethatthepersonclaimedowes
servicestotheclaimant.'Theconstitutionrequires'thatsuchpersonshallbedelivered
up,onclaimofthepartytowhomtheserviceisdue.'Hereisapositivedutyimposed
andcongresshavesaidinwhatmodethisdutyshallbeperformed.Hadtheynotpower
todoso?Iftheconstitutionwasdesigned,inthisrespect,torequire,notanegative,but
apositive,dutyonthestateandthepeopleofthestatewherethefugitivefromlabormay
befound(ofwhich,itwouldseem,therecanbenodoubt),itmustbeequallyclear,that
congressmayprescribeinwhatmannertheclaimandsurrendershallbemade.Iam,
therefore,broughttotheconclusion,thatalthough,asageneralprinciple,congress
cannotimposedutiesonstateofficers,yetinthecasesoffugitivesfromlaborandfrom
justice,theyhavethepowertodoso.

235

InthecaseofMartin'sLesseev.Hunter,1Wheat.304,thiscourtsay,'Thelanguageof
theconstitutionisimperativeonthestatesastotheperformanceofmanyduties.Itis
imperativeonthestatelegislaturestomakelawsprescribingthetime,placeand
mannerofholdingelectionsforsenatorsandrepresentatives,andforelectorsof
presidentandvicepresident.Andinthese,aswellasinothercases,congresshavea
righttorevise,amendorsupersedethelawswhichmaybepassedbythestate
legislatures.'Now,Idonotinsistontheexerciseofthefederalpowertotheextentas
herelaiddown.Igonofurtherthantosay,thatwheretheconstitutionimposesa
positivedutyonastateoritsofficerstosurrenderfugitives,congressmayprescribethe
modeofproof,andthedutyofthestateofficers.Thispowermayberesistedbyastate,
andthereisnomeansofcoercingit.Inthisview,thepowermaybeconsideredan
importantone.So,thesupremecourtofastatemayrefusetocertifyitsrecordonawrit
oferrortothesupremecourtoftheUnion,underthe25thsectionofthejudiciaryact.
Butresistancetoaconstitutionalauthoritybyanyofthestatefunctionaries,shouldnot
beanticipatedandifmade,thefederalgovernmentmayrelyuponitsownagencyin
givingeffecttothelaws.

236

Icomenowtoamostdelicateandimportantinquiryinthiscase,andthatis,whether

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

65/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

theclaimantofafugitivefromlabormayseizeandremovehimbyforce,outofthestate
inwhichhemaybefound,indefianceofitslaws.Irefernottolawswhicharein
conflictwiththeconstitution,ortheactof1793.Suchstatelaws,Ihavealreadysaid,are
void.ButIhavereferencetothoselawswhichregulatethepoliceofthestate,maintain
thepeaceofitscitizens,andpreserveitsterritoryandjurisdictionfromactsofviolence.
237

Aboutthetimeoftheadoptionoftheconstitution,acoloredmanwasseizedby
severalpersonsinthestateofPennsylvania,andforciblyremovedoutofit,withthe
intent,ascharged,toenslavehim.Thisactwasthen,asitisnow,acriminaloffenceby
thelawofPennsylvania.Certainpersonswereindictedforthisoffence,andintheyear
1791,thegovernorofPennsylvaniademandedofthegovernorofVirginia,thepersons
indicted,asfugitivesfromjustice.ThegovernorofVirginiasubmittedthecasetothe
attorneygeneralofthatstate,whodecided,thattheoffencechargedintheindictment
wasnotsuchacrimeas,undertheconstitution,requiredasurrender.Healsoheld,'that
controloverthepersonschargedoughtnottobeacquiredbyanyforcenotspecified
anddelegatedbypositivelaw.'ThegovernorofVirginiarefusedtoarrestthe
defendants,anddeliverthemtotheauthoritiesofPennsylvania.Thecorrespondence
betweenthegovernors,andtheopinionoftheattorneygeneralofVirginia,withother
papersrelatingtothecase,weretransmittedtothepresidentoftheUnitedStates,who
laidthembeforecongress.Andtherecanbenodoubt,thatthiscorrespondence,and
theforcibleremovalofthecoloredpersonwhichgaverisetoit,ledtothepassageofthe
actof1793.Itisnotunworthyofremark,thatacontroversyonthissubjectshouldfirst
havearisen,aftertheadoptionoftheconstitution,inPennsylvaniaandthataftera
lapseofmorethanhalfacentury,acontroversyinvolvingasimilaractofviolence
shouldbebroughtbeforethiscourt,forthefirsttime,fromthesamestate.

238

Boththeconstitutionandtheactof1793,requirethefugitivefromlabortobe
deliveredup,onclaimbeingmade,bytheparty,orhisagent,towhomtheserviceisdue.
Notthatasuitshouldberegularlyinstitutedtheproceedingauthorizedbythelawis
summaryandinformal.Thefugitiveisseizedbytheclaimant,andtakenbeforeajudge
ormagistratewithinthestate,andonproof,parolorwritten,thatheoweslabortothe
claimant,itismadethedutyofthejudgeormagistrate,togivethecertificate,which
authorizestheremovalofthefugitivetothestatefromwhenceheabsconded.The
counselinquire,ofwhomtheclaimshallbemade?Andtheyrepresentthatthefugitive,
beingatlargeinthestate,isinthecustodyofnoone,norundertheprotectionofthe
statesothattheclaimcannotbemade,andconsequently,thattheclaimantmayseize
thefugitiveandremovehimoutofthestate.Aperusaloftheactofcongressobviates
thisdifficulty,andtheconsequencewhichisrepresentedasgrowingoutofittheactis
framedtomeetthesupposedcase.Thefugitiveispresumedtobeatlarge,forthe
claimantisauthorizedtoseizehimafterseizure,heisincustodybeforeit,hewasnot
andtheclaimantisrequiredtotakehimbeforeajudicialofficerofthestateanditis
beforesuchofficerhisclaimistobemade.Tosuppose,thattheclaimisnottobemade,
andindeed,cannotbe,unlessthefugitivebeinthecustodyorpossessionofsomepublic
officerorindividual,istodisregardtheletterandspiritoftheactof1793.Thereisnoact
inthestatutebookmorepreciseinitslanguageand,asitwouldseem,lessliableto
misconstruction.Inmyjudgment,thereisnottheleastfoundationintheactforthe
rightassertedintheargument,totakethefugitivebyforceandremovehimoutofthe
state.

239

Suchaproceedingcanreceivenosanctionundertheact,foritisinexpressviolation
ofit.Theclaimanthavingseizedthefugitive,isrequiredbytheact,totakehimbeforea
federaljudgewithinthestate,orastatemagistratewithinthecounty,cityortown
corporate,withinwhichtheseizurewasmade.Now,cantherebeanypretence,that
aftertheseizureunderthestatute,theclaimantmaydisregardtheotherexpress
provisionofit,bytakingthefugitive,withoutclaim,outofthestate.Butitissaid,the
mastermayseizehisslavewhereverhefindshim,ifbydoingso,hedoesnotviolatethe
publicpeacethattherelationofmasterandslaveisnotaffectedbythelawsofthestate,

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

66/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

towhichtheslavemayhavefled,andwhereheisfound.Ifthemasterhasarighttoseize
andremovetheslave,withoutclaim,hecancommitnobreachofthepeace,byusingall
theforcenecessarytoaccomplishhisobject.
240

Itisadmitted,thattherightsofthemaster,sofaratregardstheservicesoftheslave,
arenotimpairedbythischangebutthemodeofassertingthem,inmyopinion,is
essentiallymodified.Inthestatewheretheserviceisdue,themasterneedsnootherlaw
thanthelawofforce,tocontroltheactionoftheslave.Butcanthislawbeappliedbythe
master,inastatewhichmakestheactunlawful?Canthemasterseizehisslaveand
removehimoutofthestate,indisregardofitslaws,ashemighttakehishorsewhichis
runningatlarge?Thisgroundistakenintheargument.Istherenodifferencein
principleinthesecases?Theslave,asasensibleandhumanbeing,issubjecttothelocal
authorityintowhatsoeverjurisdictionhemaygoheisanswerableunderthelawsforhis
acts,andhemayclaimtheirprotectionthestatemayprotecthimagainstalltheworld
excepttheclaimofhismaster.Shouldanyonecommitlawlessviolenceontheslave,the
offendermayunquestionablybepunishedandshouldtheslavecommitmurder,he
maybedetainedandpunishedforitbythestate,indisregardoftheclaimofthemaster.
Beingwithinthejurisdictionofastate,aslavebearsaverydifferentrelationtoitfrom
thatofmereproperty.

241

Inastatewhereslaveryisallowed,everycoloredpersonispresumedtobeaslave
andonthesameprinciple,inanonslaveholdingstate,everypersonispresumedtobe
free,withoutregardtocolor.Onthisprinciple,thestates,bothslaveholdingandnon
slaveholding,legislate.Thelattermayprohibit,asPennsylvaniahasdone,undera
certainpenalty,theforcibleremovalofacoloredpersonoutofthestate.Issuchlawin
conflictwiththeactof1793?Theactof1793authorizesaforcibleseizureoftheslaveby
themaster,nottotakehimoutofthestate,buttotakehimbeforesomejudicialofficer
withinit.ThelawofPennsylvaniapunishesaforcibleremovalofacoloredpersonoutof
thestate.Now,hereisnoconflictbetweenthelawofthestateandthelawofcongress
theexecutionofneitherlawcan,byanyjustinterpretation,inmyopinion,interfere
withtheexecutionoftheotherthelawsinthisrespectstandinharmonywitheach
other.

242

Itisveryclear,thatnopowertoseizeandforciblyremovetheslave,withoutclaim,is
givenbytheactofcognress.Canitbeexercisedundertheconstitution?Congresshave
legislatedontheconstitutionalpower,andhavedirectedthemodeinwhichitshallbe
executed.Theact,itisadmitted,coversthewholegroundandthatitisconstitutional,
thereseemstobenoreasontodoubt.Now,undersuchcircumstances,canthe
provisionsoftheactbedisregarded,andanassumedpowersetupunderthe
constitution?Thisisbelievedtobewhollyinadmissiblebyanyknownruleof
construction.Thetermsoftheconstitutionaregeneral,andlikemanyotherpowersin
thatinstrument,requirelegislation.Inthelanguageofthiscourt,inMartinv.Hunter,1
Wheat.304,'thepowersoftheconstitutionareexpressedingeneralterms,leavingto
thelegislature,fromtimetotime,toadoptitsownmeanstoeffectuatelegitimate
objects,andtomouldandmodeltheexerciseofitspowers,asitsownwisdomandthe
publicinterestsshouldrequire.'Thiscongresshavedonebytheactof1793.Itgivesa
summaryandeffectualmodeofredresstothemaster,andishenotboundtopursueit?
Itisthelegislativeconstructionoftheconstitutionandisitnotamostauthoritative
construction?Iwasnotpreparedtohearthecounselcontend,thatnotwithstanding
thisexpositionoftheconstitution,andampleremedyprovidedintheact,themaster
mightdisregardtheactandsetuphisrightundertheconstitution.Andhavingtaken
thisstep,itwaseasytotakeanother,andsay,thatthisrightmaybeassertedbyaforcible
scizureandremovalofthefugitive.Thiswouldbeamostsingularconstitutional
provision.Itwouldextendtheremedybyrecaption,intoanothersovereignty,whichis
sanctionedneitherbythecommonlawnorthelawofnations.Ifthemastermay
lawfullyseizeandremovethefugitiveoutofthestatewherehemaybefound,without
anexhibitionofhisclaim,hemaylawfullyresistanyforce,physicalorlegal,whichthe

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

67/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

state,orthecitizensofthestate,mayinterpose.Toholdthathemustexhibithisclaimin
caseofresistance,istoabandonthegroundassumed.Heisengaged,itissaid,inthe
lawfulprosecutionofaconstitutionalrightallresistance,then,bywhomsoevermade,
orinwhatsoeverform,mustbeillegal.Undersuchcircumstances,themasterneedsno
proofofhisclaim,thoughhemightstandinneedofadditionalphysicalpowerhaving
appealedtohispower,hehasonlytocollectasufficientforcetoputdownallresistance
andattainhisobjecthavingdonethis,henotonlystandsacquittedandjustifiedbuthe
hasrecourseforanyinjuryhemayhavereceivedinovercomingtheresistance.
243

Ifthisbeaconstitutionalremedy,itmaynotalwaysbeapeacefulone.Butifitbea
rightfulremedy,thatitmaybecarriedtothisextent,noonecandeny.Andifitmaybe
exercised,withoutclaimofright,whymayitnotberesortedto,aftertheunfavorable
decisionofthejudgeormagistrate?Thiswouldlimitthenecessityoftheexhibitionof
proofbythemastertothesinglecasewheretheslavewasintheactualcustodyofsome
publicofficer.Howcanthisbethetrueconstructionoftheconstitution?Thatsucha
procedureisnotsanctionedbytheactof1793hasbeenshownthatanactwaspassed
expresslytoguardagainstactsofforceandviolence.

244

Icannotperceivehowanyonecandoubtthattheremedygivenintheconstitution,if,
indeed,itgiveanyremedy,withoutlegislation,wasdesignedtobeapeacefulonea
remedysanctionedbyjudicialauthorityaremedyguardedbytheformsoflaw.Butthe
inquiryisreiterated,isnotthemasterentitledtohisproperty?Ianswer,thatheis.His
rightisguarantiedbytheconstitution,andthemostsummarymeansforits
enforcementisfoundintheactofcongressandneitherthestatenoritscitizenscan
obstructtheprosecutionofthisright.Theslaveisfoundinastatewhereeveryman,
blackorwhite,ispresumedtobefreeandthisstate,topreservethepeaceofitscitizens,
anditssoilandjurisdictionfromactsofviolence,hasprohibitedtheforcibleabduction
ofpersonsofcolor.Doesthislawconflictwiththeconstitution?Itclearlydoesnot,in
itsterms.

245

Theconflictissupposedtoariseoutoftheprohibitionagainsttheforcibleremovalof
personsofcolor,generally,whichmayincludefugitiveslaves.Primafocie,itdoesnot
includeslaves,aseverymanwithinthestateispresumedtobefree,andthereisno
provisionintheactwhichembracesslaves.Itslanguageclearlyshows,thatitwas
designedtoprotectfreepersonsofcolorwithinthestate.Butitisadmitted,thereisno
exceptionastotheforcibleremovalofslavesandheretheimportantandmostdelicate
questionarisesbetweenthepowerofthestate,andtheassumedbutnotsanctioned
powerofthefederalgovernment.Noconflictcanarisebetweentheactofcongressand
thisstatelawtheconflictcanonlyarisebetweentheforcibleactsofthemasterandthe
lawofthestate.Themasterexhibitsnoproofofrighttotheservicesoftheslave,but
seizeshimandisabouttoremovehimbyforce.Ispeakonlyoftheforceexertedonthe
slave.Thelawofthestatepresumeshimtobefree,andprohibitshisremoval.Now,
whichshallgiveway,themasterorthestate?Thelawofthestatedoes,innocase,
discharge,inthelanguageoftheconstitution,theslavefromtheserviceofhismaster.It
isamostimportantpoliceregulation.Andifthemasterviolateit,ishenotamenable?
Theoffenceconsistsintheabductionofapersonofcolorandthisisattemptedtobe
justified,uponthesimplegroundthattheslaveisproperty.Thataslaveisproperty,must
beadmitted.Thestatelawisnotviolatedbytheseizureoftheslavebythemaster,for
thisisauthorizedbytheactofcongressbutbyremovinghimoutofthestatebyforce,
andwithoutproofofright,whichtheactdoesnotauthorize.Now,isnotthisanact
whichastatemayprohibit?Thepresumption,inanonslaveholdingstate,isagainstthe
rightofthemaster,andinfavorofthefreedomofthepersonheclaims.This
presumptionmayberebutted,butuntilitisrebuttedbytheproofrequiredintheactof
1793,andalso,inmyjudgment,bytheconstitution,mustnotthelawofthestatebe
respectedandobeyed?

246

Theseizurewhichthemasterhasarighttomakeundertheactofcongress,isforthe
purposeoftakingtheslavebeforeanofficer.Hispossessionthesubjectforwhichitwas

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

68/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

made.Thecertificateofrighttotheservicethesubjectforwhichitwasmade.The
certificateofrighttotheserviceoftheslaveisundoubtedlyfortheprotectionofthe
masterbutitauthorizestheremovaloftheslaveoutofthestatewherehewasfound,to
thestatefromwhencehefledandundertheconstitution,thisauthorityisvalidinall
thestates.Theimportantpointis,shallthepresumptionofrightsetupbythemaster,
unsustainedbyanyproof,orthepresumptionwhicharisesfromthelawsand
institutionsofthestate,prevailthisisthetrueissue.Thesovereigntyofthestateison
oneside,andtheassertedinterestofthemasterontheotherthatinterestisprotected
bytheparamountlaw,andaspecial,asummary,andaneffectual,modeofredressis
given.Butthismodeisnotpursued,andtheremedyistakenintohisownhandsbythe
master.
247

Thepresumptionofthestatethatthecoloredpersonisfree,maybeerroneousinfact
andifso,therecanbenodifficultyinprovingit.Butmaynottheassertionofthemaster
beerroneousalsoandifso,howishisactofforcetoberemedied?Thecoloredperson
istakenandforciblyconveyedbeyondthejurisdictionofthestate.Thisforce,notbeing
authorizedbytheactofcongressnorbytheconstitution,maybeprohibitedbythestate.
Astheactcoversthewholepowerintheconstitutionandcarriesout,byspecial
enactments,itsprovisions,weare,inmyjudgmentboundbytheact.Wecannomore,
undersuchcircumstancesadministeraremedyundertheconstitution,indisregardof
theact,thanwecanexerciseacommercialorotherpowerindisregardofanactof
congressonthesamesubject.Thisviewrespectstherightsofthemasterandtherights
ofthestateitneitherjeopardsnorretardsthereclamationoftheslaveitremovesall
stateactionprejudicaltotherightsofthemasterandrecognisesinthestateapowerto
guardandprotectitsownjurisdiction,andthepeaceofitscitizen.

248

Itappears,inthecaseunderconsideration,thatthestatemagistratebeforewhomthe
fugitivewasbroughtrefusedtoact.Inmyjudgment,hewasboundtoperformtheduty
requiredofhimbyalawparamounttoanyact,onthesamesubject,inhisownstate.
Butthisrefusaldoesnotjustifythesubsequentactionoftheclaimantheshouldhave
takenthefugitivebeforeajudgeoftheUnitedStates,twoofwhomresidedwithinthe
state.

249

Itmaybedoubted,whetherthefirstsectionoftheactofPennsylvaniaunderwhich
thedefendantwasindicted,byafairconstruction,appliestothecaseunder
consideration.Thedecisionofthesupremecourtofthatstatewasproforma,and,of
course,withoutexamination.Indeed,Isuppose,thecasehasbeenmadeupmerelyto
bringthequestionbeforethiscourt.Myopinion,therefore,doesnotrestsomuchupon
theparticularlawofPennsylvania,asupontheinherentandsovereignpowerofastate,
toprotectitsjurisdictionandthepeaceofitscitizens,inanyandeverymodewhichits
discretionshalldictate,whichshallnotconflictwithadefinedpowerofthefederal
goverdment.

250

THIScausecameontobeheard,onthetranscriptoftherecordfromthesupreme
courtofPennsylvania,andwasarguedbycounsel:Onconsiderationwhereof,itisthe
opinionofthiscourt,thattheactofthecommonwealthofPennsylvania,uponwhich
theindictmentinthiscaseisfounded,isrepugnanttotheconstitutionandlawsofthe
UnitedStates,andtherefore,voidandthatthejudgmentofthesupremecourtof
Pennsylvaniauponthespecialverdictfoundinthecase,oughttohavebeen,thatthe
saidEdwardPriggwasnotguilty.Itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedbythiscourt,
thatthejudgmentofthesaidsupremecourtofPennsylvaniabeandthesameishereby,
reversed.Andthiscourtproceedingtorendersuchjudgmentinthepremisesasthesaid
supremecourtofPennsylvaniaoughttohaverendered,doherebyorderandadjudge
thatjudgmentuponthespecialverdictaforesaidbehereentered,thatthesaidEdward
Priggisnotguiltyinmannerandformasischargedagainsthiminthesaidindictment,
andthathegothereofquit,withoutdayandthatthiscauseberemandedtothesupreme
courtofPennsylvaniawithdirectionsaccordingly,sothatsuchotherproceedingmaybe
hadthereinastolawandjusticeshallappertain.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

69/70

7/31/2015

41U.S.539

CC | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/41/41.US.539.html

70/70