Editing Prigg v. Pennsylvania

''Prigg v. Pennsylvania'', 41 U.S. 539 (1842).

'''Facts''': PA (P) prohibited self-help retrieval of fugitive slaves. A federal law, however, permitted a slave owner to seize a fugitive and present him to federal or stat court. That court, applying the slave-owner’s home state law, would determine whether the fugitive owed labor to the owner. If so, the owner would receive a certificate. Prigg (D), a Maryland slave-owner’s agent, seized a fugitive but was refused a certificate from a state magistrate. D took the slave to Maryland anyway and was then convicted for violating P’s law. D appeals.

'''Issue''': May a state prohibit recovery of slaves in a manner expressly permitted by federal law?

'''Holding''': No.

'''Judgment''': Reversed.

'''Concurrence''' (Taney): Congress does have power to legislate in this area, but the states have power as well to enforce the Constitution. Congress even relied on the states to help by permitting resort to state courts.

'''Dissent''' (McLean): The claimant has no right to seize a fugitive by force and take him from the states. He must first take him to court. Having failed in state court, D should have gone to federal court.

'''Comments''':
* Article 4, §2 provides in part that a slave may not be discharged merely for fleeing to a non-slaveholding state. This was intended to secure the property rights of citizens of slaveholding states and was essential to formation of the Union.
* The Constitution cannot be construed so as to defeat its purpose. No state can qualify, regulate, control, or restrain in any way the slaveholder’s rights to seize and recapture his slave in any state of the Union.
* The Constitution also specifies that the slave “shall be delivered up, on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.” The federal government is bound to effectuate this duty, as it has in this federal law. Although Congress has no express grant of power to provide a procedure for recovery of slaves, the procedure is a necessary and proper means of attaining the required end.
* The Court essentially held that the constitution itself permitted self-help to recover slaves. This seems to conflict with 5th Amend. due process, because it would allow deprivation of liberty without due process—unless the 5th Amend. did not apply to slaves.

[[Category:Cases:Constitutional Law]]