Miscellany

Wharton Jones, Plaintiff ; John Van Zanbt. Dcf endent. I On a c?rlijic -ilr: af división in opinión bel meen the Jnige.s of the Circuit drnrt nfhe. United States for the district of Ohio. Wr. JiiSTfr-e VVooddcrt delivered the opinión o. the court. This comes liere on a división of fjpiñf!) in Ilie circoit cnurt of Ohio. The snbipct-mniter oflhe ordinal suil wns delt, Por a ppnnliy of S500, under ihnot of Congi-fss of Febru'iry 12th, 1793. f.-r lonceding nnd lnrboring a Higitii e slave beloiigirg to ihe plainliff The certifit-at if the división of opinión, as wül be géén in the record, rdares te various questions, nrisug ui;der two hrar's: Fnvt, on rulings mndp. nt thfi trinl; and, spi-ondly, on a niotion in arrest of judgrr.ert. '1 hre qiifsiirn e.tndedto the unuMin! nnml er of fourteen ; not. hou ever, ilinl tl,e Tpsi(iiiig judge tl tlio ciicuii and hto sótítfte eniprtnmf'd trrDg d'.ul.ts roncerning the g-nern] principlps invölvMJ n tliemnll,ns mny bessen iti thp rp.oit of ihp casf (2 AIcLpnn, C. C, 615,)lut heciuse the qnpstions involved could Dot otlierwise bebronglit hpre; and thry powMsed so wide f nd feep n. tertst ra 1ö i-PinVr it de-iiab!e fhey should come under he revisión of this conrt. For Ihat purposp, in conformity to whnt is understood to have been the usage in the circuits, they accnrnodated the pnrties, by letting a división pro forma be enterad on ail the pbtnti presetited. It is not understood thnt nny of thern ptnbrare ihings urgrd meiely as rpasons for a ne trial. F,,r f n,ey ns such n trial rests in iho discretion of the ciin-t, and is not a maller ofstrict righi.n divisitm ofoj.inion in rclation tn it furiis!khiio ca aso fop hringing the ca--p leie furour decisión vn qnestiuns eer ified.- 6 Wheat., 542, United States vs. D.-.n.l.s;4 VVheM., 213; 5 Cranch, II, 187; 4 VVo.h., C C, 333. B-f,.re piüpHi g on ÍM examinalion of ihe points, it wil] make severa] of ihem more intelligil ]e if e ndvprl to the cliu-e in the Consiitution hearing on ihis subject, and tnp act of Coiig.essuiilierwhico iIip actiën was ins iiuted. The is tlmt "No persoii held to perviceor hibor in one Stnte, uniier the lws thereof,ocniii]g nt.i annther, shall, in consequence of ;iny law or regu!nthn th.rein, bo dischorged froinsuch .service 01 ]:il)or,hut slinl] Ie dolivt-red np on clnirn "I the pn.-ty to hom suc!) service or labor m-iy bc: due." - Art. 4, sec. 2. In respect to the stalute, t wil] not hc npcewury to re[rat hpre my of it, except pontons of the 3d and 4th sectiori8. Sec. 3. "And be il. aten enacted, That when n person held to labor in nny of the United Smte, or in eitlior of the Territorios on the noithuest or south f the i iver Oliio, unHer tne laws thcreof, -'all escape ii.ti nny other of 1 1 ie said ti)tes or TVrriiorir.-, iho erson lo wliom wh la!)'r or service nriy bo due, his ■ïgent nf nitoniey, is hereby empower ed lo seizc or arrest such fugitive fi'om Inhor." fee. 4. "And be it furlher cnacler!, Thnt nr.y persen who sliall knowingly ■ ná vvi'lingly obsiruct or hinder such ■laiinant, his opent or atiornfy, in sa iezin or anesling such fuglive fiom ';ibor, or shall rescue such fugitive f rom uwi claimanl,his agnt or attornpy,wlipn so nne-teti, pursuant to the auihoxin hrein givei) or dec-laied, or shnll hnrbnr or conceal sucli ppr;on after nolice thnt Iip or he was a logitive f rom labor, ns ifnresaui, shnll, for eilher of the said flVnccs, fotfeit nnri pay ih? sum of five un1red doll.-irs." - 1 Lawa by Br, & Litt., 303, 305, act of February 12, 1703. The first question n'. the trial, on wliich a división amsr, was, in subsian-e whpther the "nutire" .rpferred to in this 4ihsociion mus', be in wiiing. No doubt exiuis with this court, that it tnay be otherwise than in wriiing. if it onlvhring horip cle'ily io t! e lief. ndnn's knowledge tint thp pii son In concealed w.is ' a fngi ie fnm i;i')or." The offencp, consuls in continuing to spci f from th ownn svhat tl)P nclsofj Congrcss and ihe C-n-tiiuti"n, ns well n.s the laws ofspvera! ofilie S'ta'es. treit for certain purpose ns propprty, afier,kn.iwing thnt cla:ms of propertv exiíl in respect lo the fiig:tive. No, the net of Congrnss does not,in term,require the ioii:-e lo be n wriiing. nir dcies the rensnn of the provisión, nor tiip evi] to bf guarded against, nor any sound analngy. Tl:e rensonofthe provisión is merelv tliatthp party shill have nutice or infor-: ni.ition suffifieni to put him 'n inquirv wiiiher he is rot n'erincddling with wlial belongs lo nochir. If ihe information given ti Iiim, ora'lv '■ 'r ín vvrihng, is üuc-Ii as ouglit lo satifv n fa'r-mindcd man ihnl b.r scnncnüng tVe property oC ar.oihr. it ix his dut', undpr iK'è Constitiition and law-, tócense to do ii longer. - 5 Rst, 39. m.te Èrx'es vs. Vnn'ei.ii!; C D. & E., 221. BInkc vs. Lenvon. Sucli a noiicp issufficipnt, Biso, by wny of nn.ilogv, as for instance, noti'-e in rrlntion tna iriurcl.-iimori proppny ptir.-hasëd, (K.ïa'l.. 42, the Plrrógh boy; 9 Jurist, 649; 1 Sumner, C. 0., 173, 1 C ranch, 45.) orof a prior d'-fotico nr .-et-off ■g.iÍRRi a riemnnd nssigneHio liitn, (4 D.11..370,Humphrpy.'. vs. li light's nss'gnecs,) 6t een in crimes, tliat the notes Of coi n one is passing away are (ounteiie't. Any oilior oonslrurtion would go ]:krwise beyi.nd ihfi evil t be nvnirted bv tlie nntii-p, wfiich wtm the punishmnni ofnn individual for hni-boring or conceaüng a persen, without h.-iving rensonnblp groun'ls lo believe he was thoreby inuring i'noiher. Any ot'ier conslruetion, too, wnnld be sufii(!al to tlip ]:iw itseT; ns, beíe n m.tice in writing rould be pivparrd and servid on the deie'idant the f.,gi ive wnuld be barried bevond ihe reaoh of rpcovrry in many casps, and in otln rs would have )as!.d into Unknown hands. Phis is not n onsp, üke some CiíeH in tiip argument, wheve the pnrty prqgPCuled Was nnt COnrernsd in gptting nway the appre'tioe or pe'-snn harbored, bui mprely en'eitainpd him aflerwnrds from hnSpitality, or in ignomnirp df his Irue fharactpr and cond'tlon. Then a nioie fmal notice and dem:md of rpstoration mny be proper tefore suit, in order to remove any d uhis ns t'. the i-orülition of the lugilivewho is thus entertaint d, or thr intent of the misipr to ent')i-ce his right and reclaim liis properfy. - 1 Chit. Gpn. Pra"., 419. Rut vprhal notice is ennjghthen. (See the casos in Ea.st,nnd Dürnford & East, just ciied ) Feii-!es ibis, tic present is n cas" whee tho ripfend int was a parliker ii Bccompllshiíig tlio e-cnpe it-e!f, ]ke a parliceps criminis, nnd wliero th? conCRnlment and hrbiTÍng was not alter 'he escape was oer, but dnring its p'ogf' &S, while the ,-laes were in transiti, nn whpre the Roticft is itot exclusiv-lv with a view n procure their reslorntion, but is als" an plpinent in the ca-e, to show wlieihor thn partv was, knowingly or igtiöranilv as to thr-ir conilition, rendi'ring thpm assisinnce to psnapn, by tftini)orarily hffrb'irÍTVg or tecrff'ng thftm. So far as regarda i hts point, ii is a quwtion mfinly of scienifr. No ni rter how or whence lbo hnnvledge camp, ü'it on!y exist The concealment heie was pracusod duritig fresh pnrsnit to rPt;ike the slavrs; nnd lunr-p, without any formal n-'tice or demand, no doubt cou!d exis. its to the wish to i-pclaim them, ;is ell ns the lat-t of their being slaves. (Se Camp., 54, Hart vs. Aldridge. j Fuithvrmore, tliat the defendant hanot siiffcrpd by ihe charge to the jury in this point is itv nifest l'roni lii.s own declaraties al tlie t'ine, thut he knew tn 'ïigitivea to be 4a e, (2 McLeni, C. C, 599, Jones vs. Van ZaudtJ and from the inatructmn to the jury that this fa-t mu1 b clearly proved l)ffore they oughi lo coiivici Inm, ([). 607. ) This vievv of the snhjprt disposes ol several nther piins of división cnnected wiih itj bfCTu-e evrrv purpose cniienipInted ly the notice is agcomplished, witliout a publicntion f" 1 1 previoualy in n newapnper, which is ilie sncond question. ! i'o rquiro such n pubüffiiinn wou ld he entirply orbitrBry, and would s:ill more surfly deftíit the who'e l.-iw, than to liold ihe notice must be in vvriting, nnd -ervod on tha de'enJant, before he is lirl)le. S') as to the third q'iestion, wheih'T the intorina'ion besufficienj f ncquirpd from the sl-ive himself. I: is manifest that sucha S'iurce of inforrtnlinn lor that fact s oneol' the most satifaeov, ns he hns i good mpar.snf knowing It,and is not i ly toadnit his want of friee 3om u:i!ess it ' ac"ual!y exit.--. Ttie next quetion -relatps to wliat ronstitutPa cri'-calment or harb'ring of a slave, withiii the meaning of tlu's Matute. It seems from the facts,wh!ch by aqreemen' nre al] those rporlei in the printf-d case a iriedin i hr roiirt belnv, (2 Mc(ian's R..59G.) as welljis those iiisorieil iu this record, tliat .everul .-laies, ownfid by tho plmntifT, in Kemucky, esoped frnm him and fled to Oh o, arljoining, and, airied by sime persin not rmne I, and wlien al) ut te!vc miles disiimi from theí r mnter's resin(j)ce,ere taken uto a coverod wag 'il by ilie dpieiidnrii in the night,nnd driven with speod iwelve nr toiirtecn müe-!. so that one wns npver rp aken, t'iough fresh suii was made f ir ;' o v.hole. Now,hntever ircbnical o'eiluition y ! exisl of the word concèal r harbor, as jpilie;J to apprentiee-f and nther subjects, no doubt c;ii) exisl tli.it thpse wnrds and ihpir dprivation must here be construid Id reí rnnco to t lie matter of lie st .tute nnd i he nature of the o fie nee to bc pun'shfd. Thee show Ihis oñence to conist Iten in assi.-t'incfi lo ps'-ñpe and reach ! spedih Fonie rlistant p'nre, here [limasiercannit íjn I or rñclirim suc'i fu!tive"i raihr thañ n detairiing ilvm lng in iie neíglihurhood, or secreting them obontone's premi-as. We see nrjtlvng, then, in ihe faets hei-e, or in the ins truel on oftheiiidse ■I O on liten, secundurn stitjcclum malerium, wbiuh sh iw s c.a-i n lo have bren, as the j'i-y foiinii ii to lie, one witliin ihe manifist'le-igu of the sta1ut agaiusi Inr[ boring n5(J concealitijr persons who wfro f igitivps f rom labor, nntico r Pull knowledgp of tlipjr characíe'r, Indpf d, tíie general deíimtion oF (lie word l7iarbor." (u 1 Bouvier, 400,; as quoted by th defpndáni'a counsel, snying nothing ns íot'te anthorily of t!nt work, ís sucli a to be fully covered by the fiicfá in tliis ra-e, ns sti'eH i'.i ihc record, nn1 as fbuiid by the II is '-'o receivp plnnrte-iinHy Böd without lawful nuthoriy, a person, fiw the pnrpose of cncealing him, so thnt annther, Invng tlie nght to tlie Ia w ful cus'"dy of surli peison,shall he (Jeprivnci uflhe nnt" ITpie wis a ':1 1 tife tine reception nf i!ip s!;ivrs, and wilhntit hw.'ul nnthoiity. nnd a ronca!mnt nf thetn In 8 coveied wiinn, and carryinar ihrm cmward nnA away so as todpirive thp owner nfilp'r r i)sitdy. "l'o harlior' is siso ;idrnitto'1 in the argumprii oAen to mean ' to secrrtr." Sno!) is OI1R cfilie Ps!nl)]ished ':efi nii ions by the best lexicoffrA)hr& - Yet, lierp ihey vvpre se'Pte) noionlv ;is nst st itv], by b"ing plicc:1 in a cover' d v,nn;,)n and cnrried lo a grraterl'stanfo frm ïlifir master, Init ihis rio-ic rftpidly, and in part under ihe stiadesol' n ig-ht. Th-it i.o misinko on tliis occurrcdat t'ietrjilis likewive mnniiest, froni the (vi t'iat tlie j'.idge chaigf-d the jury. lli tli'fenrlant must nol be coasüJered h iboring conceiling tho slaves. u;i1pss l'is cunduet was sucb "as not only t show an inion'ion to elude tío vigilante di the ma-ter, hut surh na is cqtculntftdto nit-iin that object."- 2 McLean, C. C, Cl 5. Nor can the recoverv of one nf ihe lavesafterwardtt, who w;s thus conceMeH and irnnsporied, vnry the previous inet of secret ing nnd hnrboring liim. - Thot is tiie fifth inquiry. Tho answer to the sixth is involvel in'thirt tó" ihf fourth aiirj fifth, a! is nn IriKwei (o thoseventh in that tn the firrt qupstlon; bf'■ause, if the noiic netl nol cornp Hom tho claimant him-elf, nnr Iip in writing.ii iiped nol be prece.lcd or soeornpnniod b a claim, wlucli is i!ip seveiith Inquiry. - A claim subsequcntlv made must bc Iq'iaüy valid wiih 'me be'ore the notie, whei er looking to tlie renson ofihe case or the ï-mguaire of the slatute. The gist of the offenre consists in tlie "Oiiccilmeiit of nno'her's properiv,unrier luiowledge fiat it liehingt to am:her, and nt in a chiim liping previuualy ma 'e ind refusrd. 'i'liat refusal miglit con stitute aseiarnle wrong, he anollier species f eviilcnre tci prove a haiboring if tlie slnve, lint il is rrot t e ufT'nce itelf lor wliich the ppnally ftOW sued for s imooser). 'i'ie cighth and list quesiinn unr'ei' this iiea) seems In bf au alstra-t proposii ion, and does not refer to nny particulnr facis in tbe c.ise. But tfttwns Ia:d down in rfilaiion to S'mfl ofthetn, as rniKt be pre-umel to h've been, n or.ier to malte it i proper suject for a d. iit n of opinión 1 be recon-.iderod lir?, we ara not aware of cn tiiing object ionablft in it. TiiP "overt act," spoken of was req'iirrd to le oue bo'h inten Ipd anl cntoulated 10 e'nde the in.'iNter's vig'hnce. h'so, il shovved acts and dps:gns ofihf; de.enrjrmt, I which, in tlie wor is and spirit ofth.j statute, amouni or tend directly tó oor or conceal, " the lugitive Irom lahor. Il i-pmains to cinsider the fiiïh nnd sivth división of opinión under this liead Tiiey nrt-, wiieiher tl,e a-.-t of'C ingresi uil'T which the a"lio,i is brouglit is repugnant either tothe Coristitu'iDn or the ordinan'ïe " for the gnvemmpnr nfihe Territ'iry noithwest ofilie river Ohio." This court lins alréadv, nfier much delibfrat'on, d-cided that the act ui' Feb. j t2ih. 1793, was not repugnant to the Constiiu'ion. The rtason; for thpir opinión are fullv explnined y Jnst ce Story, in Pirggs vs. Petinsylvnni-i, 1G Petr-, 611. In cimingtoth.it conclusión, they wsre foniripil bv thp id-a Ihat the CnnstitutfoQ itself. in ihe c'a'iso hefore cited, flung its sliie'd, lor greürity.nVer su.-h i-ropei ty ris is in controversy n the presen! cas", .nnd j ilie r'ght to pursue and reclaim n withiri I tho limit-i ofanother Siate. Tiiis w;is on'y carrying nut n our i c 'nerntp Iferm of g lyernmant ;he ahn.r right of pvery man, U common law, tn rnaks fresh snit and recaption of' liii own property within tlie reahn. 3 B!., c. 4. B'it tl e power bv hatfonnl 1-ivvto pursiiG anH reg'in most kinds "f pro irtv in the Nmits of a foMgn Gnvernmpn' ís rntheran net f.fenmfty than strlrt right; nnn hfnré, a thf proppi-iy in pfrxons mialit nnt tfuis bB recognrcf) in some ofi thé States n V-c Union, nnd is rpcïrtm - tionnnthe nlloued tlirnugh cillior i ey or riglit, ths claiivo wns undoiibréHlv ! fn'rodi'ced into the Cnstitution ns one of its riimpromVs, f.r thfl snftv of tb-t't of tlie Union whi'-h diii pprrrvt ; siHi pro;e'-ty, iind which oilierwisp i inight ofipn lc rleprived of il emïrelv, by is mere'y crndsin the line of a'n "'.i ining State.- 3 Madison's Pa., 1559, j 1589. TIik W4i llioug'it to he tOoiiBrshn r'nftrinf ti résped toanjr 'ille io propertv of a fripnflh' nrigh' or. nol hroiichl rur placed In ann'herStnte, under itsliw,ly ih ovvnfr liinipc!', hut rscnpin t'-ce ! nsnir.st 1] is riinpcnt. aiid often forlliwith pur?uc1 n O'-dfr lo Ie re'"l.iïmd. The int rf "óngres, naaspd only fomvctps th" O n"tilnt'nri was ml m'ed, rris threfore de-'e'l rnerflv t-i rendar pffeft'vp Ifip'ptfaranty of the C nst'tü'iín ifíelf; .ind n c n'r of 'incisir,'? irirp. ;n tlie onu'-l ofth" S'rites nrrl GeiiTnl Cnverurtipnt, hn forfinffa cn'ury evlu'biled g-en' unifnrmitv in fnvor or iIip vn'idi'v n.-i wp]I na PXi"Hipncy f'f t'ip net. 5 Sn-g. & R., 0'2: 0 John.. 67; 12 WendHI. 311. 507; 2 Pi-k..; Rnld.. C. C. 326; 4 Wash.. C. C, 326 ; 18 Piek.. 215. Whi'e thp cnmjiromi'-è'i of the Con. st:ttit'on eH', it s impoS-iiblè to rio [u-fcfe m thiif rpquii'onr'en's or f'ilfil te dutv 'ncumhpnt on iislowm-Ws nl] the mpmbprs "f il'e Un;on, under it prov!ioir,wlilv'u( sn.stainiiift such pnactments as thoss o' llip of A. D. 17!)3. " e (in no now nropnse to rpviw nt l"iigt'i tl e rensoning on wliirh this : C hn been pronoüni'ad constitiitio'inl. Al' of its pro iVions h -ivo hooi) foimd iif"p-iiiry til pmtrct piivate rig!it uiider thf1 'lnuse in the Con-ttii!ri reltingto thrs sulijpct, and to ewute tlie Huiies impösp(! in the Geiieral Government to aid by l'gilntion in pnforciig evo'y Constitutional provisión, wliplher in ('avor of itsc' ( Drothers. This grmvs out ofilio position and na' ure nf.such a Government, and is as ïmpprntive on it in cises nol pnumTned specia'ly in respect to sucl legislaion ns in othirs. Thai ibis net of Congrí, ihpn, is imi epugnnr.t t' ilie Consü' ution, m'i-t le considere) ns among tlic seilled adjudicalions of 1h 's court. Thn last fjuestion on uhich .1 visión is certifipc), lnfa 10 the ordinance of 1787, and il'e suppospd iel'L'g'inncy lo t of the aut of of 1793. The ordinancs prohib'tpd the ex'stsnce f 8iaverv in thn Territory northwest oflhe river Oliio, amung only its ou n ppople. Similar prohibitions linve from timf t limfi bfen introduced info m-'ny of iIim old St 't 's. But tins ci'oum-tance d"es nol aff-ct the don esiio insiitution of la very, as othpr Stiies mny cljowe to allow it among tl.Pir penplp, nar mpnir the f r'ghts of oropertv imdT it, when their s'avps happen to ecnpe to other Sia'es. Thesft St'it s, whether nortlnva-t of t e f!vf O!no or on the e isiprn si'le of ilie Allcg mirs. ifnui of the Union, would nut be hound to fúgllíve evpn for frimes - :t beitiar, ns before jemnrkH, nn iet nf comiiy or impprfect ol,ligatfdh - 14 Peters, 540, tluliiie vs. Jonriiiison el nl" But wliile witliin the Union, and onier the obliga' i.ina o!" ihe Consti uiion and lawsnfilic Union, fequiririg that this kim' of property in '-tizens of otlip.,■Sta1 e, t':e right t sprvire or labor " be not rlielvirgei or d'tioyed, they mnsi not inlerfere to irnimir or tf estro y r, but f one so t.eld m labor ocflpé uto tbrfr ünu'ts, -linuld nJlinv him lo be ro'akfn & rrtu-ne i t ihe la? w ero he bflongs. In al! this títere s no rppngnnce to the oHinance. Wherever that ei-tfi, Stitcrf s' 11 irnint-iin their on I'ivvs os wpllastlie ordinance, bv not alluwing slavery to exi-t among their ovvn cilizena. - 4 Mariin's R , 365. Bnt in rehtioc to inlmbitnnts of otlier Sta'e, if'hsy ecapft into the limirs of Steles witliin br '.rdinari'-p, nn i if :he Coniiitiition aüow thnm, when fngitivr-s fnm Inbor, to l)P rpcliirnei), this d e not inlerfere ivih 'heirowti lavvs ns V tliir mvn pe'ple, nor do arts of Cngrfss nterf.'re with tlim, whi'.-h ure righifuily p-i-sed In carrv thpse cnsMtutiona! '-iglits ulo ef'eet ihfrp, asfullyas la otlier portions of tlip Union. Bel'iiG concluiine. it mnv be esnect-'il hy the dpfn-id-int rhatsmne notice ritmiU be laken of die nrgamaot iKgir.g mi inn disregi'rd (.ftlie Con-t tntion nnd the a-t 01 Coñgi'PSB ín resper-.r to ibis ubject on acount of the supposed inetpedipnr-y end invalidiiy of all lnws recognlsiifgslavery orany r:g!i! of prppefty m man. Bui ttrit is a pnlitk-al qiicption, scllle by cm:h Sf.te H.r tsp1 f and the Fe feral p over it s limited nnd regulatei ly the pèopfn nnd thp Slntps n the Coiisïifntion ilself. as one of its Sa c red comj)ivirn:sps, nnd whiflh we possèss no nuthority, r.s n judicictl body, lo moaifv or overrule. W'hatPver may le ihf liieorctk-al op!nlons ofnny, asta t'ie expe.J ency ofsome of those comprOmis-s, nr of the rg'it of property in persons vvhich they lee.igViizp, this cmrl hus no a!t-ni.-itiv(-, wliile tliev ei-t, but 'o st-.nd bv ihe Consiitution nnd hnvs, With iiJeüty lo their duties ami t'ieir oaihs. Tlioir pa ' h is a sirnight and n.-irr.nv nne tu go wiiere ihal CoitMitútiñn ;inii ihe l.w.s had, and not lo brei; botli by travtliing without or üeyond ih' m. Let our opinión on thp severa] pninis mi-ed be cerlified to ihe circuit court of' Ohio, in conl'oimity ioiIksp views. ('Icrkofthe Supreme Coitrl nf the U. S