stating that because the Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause “contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right of the owner in the slave . . . . then all the incidents to that right attach also”
How later courts described this case
- stating that because the Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause “contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right of the owner in the slave . . . . then all the incidents to that right attach also”
- concluding that state courts could not “be compelled to enforce” the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act
- affirming the supremacy of the Act and striking down as unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law “purport[ing] to punish as a public offence against the state” the kidnapping and rendition of enslaved fugitives
- “[B]ecause Congress is composed pre- dominately of lawyers, court[s] may assume that Congress is aware of existing law.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Baldwin,
Concurred with the Court in reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on the ground that the act of the legislature was unconstitutional; inasmuch as the slavery of the person removed was admitted, the removal could not be kidnapping. . But he dissented from the principles laid down by the Court as the grounds of their opinion.