John Norris, Plaintiff v. Edwin Crocker and Elisha Egbert

• Decision Date: 01 December 1851
• Citation: 13 How. 429,14 L.Ed. 210,54 U.S. 429
• Parties: JOHN NORRIS, PLAINTIFF, v. EDWIN B. CROCKER AND ELISHA EGBERT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

54 U.S. 429

13 How. 429

14 L.Ed. 210

JOHN NORRIS, PLAINTIFF, v. EDWIN B. CROCKER AND ELISHA EGBERT.

December Term, 1851

THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.

The following certificate explains the question:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

District of Indiana.

At a Circuit Court of the United States, begun and holden at Indianapolis, for the District of Indiana, on Monday, the nineteenth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, and continued from day to day until Friday, the thirtieth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one.

JOHN NORRIS, } v. } EDWIN B. CROCKER AND ELISHA EGBERT. }

Present, honorable John McLean, and the honorable Elisha M. Huntington, judges.

This is an action of debt brought to recover the penalty of five hundred dollars, upon the fourth section of the act of Congress, approved February 12, 1793, entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters;' declaration in the usual form, and demurrer and joinder thereto.

The case coming on to be argued on demurrer, it occurred as a question, whether the aforesaid section of the aforesaid act of February 12, 1793, is repealed, so far as relates to the penalty given by said section, by the act of Congress of September 18th, 1850, entitled 'An act to amend and supplementary to the act entitled, 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12th, 1793; and whether, if repealed, the same can affect this action, which was pending before the passage of the last-named act; on which questions the opinions of the judges were opposed.

Whereupon, on motion of the plaintiff, by his counsel, that the points on which the disagreements hath happened, may, during the term, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court to be finally decided.

It is ordered that the foregoing statement of the pleadings and the following questions involved, which are made under the direction of the judges, be certified according to the request of the plaintiff, by his counsel, and the law in that case made and provided, to wit:

I. Is the fourth section of the act of Congress, approved on the 12th day of February, A. D. 1793, entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' repealed, so far as relates to the penalty, by the act of Congress, approved September 18th, 1850, entitled 'An act to amend, and supplementary to the act entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12th, 1793.

II. Whether, if the fourth section of the last-named act of February 12th, 1793, is repealed, so far as relates to the penalty by the act to amend and supplementary to the same, that repeal will, in law, bar the present action that was pending at the time of the repeal.

Upon this certificate, the cause came up to this court, and was argued by Mr. O. H. Smith, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chase, for the defendants.

Mr. Smith, for the plaintiff.

On the part of the plaintiff, we contend that the act of 1850, does not repeal the fourth section of the act of 1793, but is only cumulative; and we ask this court so to certify to the Circuit Court.

The defendants maintain that the act of 1850 does repeal, by implication, the fourth section of the act of 1793, and every distinct offence created by that section; therefore, if the court should even think that part of the section is repealed by implication, which we submit they will not, still if the whole of the section is not repealed, the certificate must be for the plaintiff, and the demurrer in the Circuit Court must be overruled.

Before we proceed to examine the two acts, and to compare them, we will direct the attention of the court to some plain and familiar principles, for the construction of statutes, by which we are willing to construe these acts, as applicable to this case.

1. 'Generally, statutes are to be construed to operate in futuro, unless a retrospective effect be clearly intended.' Prince v. United States, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 204.

2. 'In doubtful cases, a court should compare all the parts of a statute, and different statutes in pari materia, to ascertain the intention of the legislature.' Sloop Elizabeth, Paine's C. C. R. 11.

3. 'Where a statute is made in addition to another statute on the same subject, without repealing any part of it, the provisions of both must be construed together.' 13 Mass. 324, 344.

4. 'Statutes can never be applied retrospectively, by mere construction.' 9 B. A. 221; 10 Mass. 437; 12 Mass. 383; 16 Mass. 215; 1 Blackf. R. 220.

5. 'Subsequent statutes, which add accumulative penalties, and institute new methods of proceeding, do not repeal former penalties and methods of proceeding, ordained by preceding statutes, without negative words.' 6 Price, 131; 9 B. A. 227.

6. 'The law does not favor a repeal by implication, nor is it to be allowed unless the repugnancy be quite plain; for as such repeal carries with it a reflection upon the wisdom of the former parliament, it has ever been confined to the repealing as little as possible of the preceding statute.' 2 Wash. 297; 2 Barn. & Ald. 149; 6 Maule & Selwyn, 116; 15 East, 372; 9 B. A. 228.

7. 'Although two acts of parliament are seemingly repugnant, yet if there be no clause of non obstante in the latter, they shall, if possible, have such construction that the latter may not be a repeal of the former by implication.' Weston's case, Dyer, 347; 11 Rep. 63; Hard. 344; 9 B. A. 228.

With these general and fundamental principles before us, we proceed to direct the mind of the court——

1st. To the section of the act of Congress upon which this action was brought, and

2d. To the section of the act of 1850, passed pending the action, which is relied upon as repealing the fourth section of the act of 1793.

1. The section of the act of 1793, upon which this action is founded, reads as follows:

'That any person who shall, knowingly and willingly, obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent, or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor as aforesaid, shall for either of the said offences forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars; which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt in any court proper to try the same,' saving, &c.

This section, the court will see, gave several distinct causes of action for the penalty:

1. Against any person who should knowingly and willingly 'obstruct' the claimant, his agent, or attorney, from 'seizing or arresting the fugitive.'

2. Against those who shall knowingly and willingly 'hinder' the claimant, his agent, or attorney, in so 'seizing or arresting the fugitive.'

3. Any persons who shall knowingly and willingly 'rescue' such fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared.'

4. Against persons 'who shall 'harbor' such fugitive' 'after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor.'

5. Against persons 'who shall conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor.'

The section of the act of 1850, that is relied upon as repealing the fourth section of the act of 1793, as to the penalty, by implication, we maintain is merely cumulative. We proceed to give the section; and in order to show the additions that have been made to the section of the act of 1793, by the act of 1850, we give the section, and place the additions in brackets.

'That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct [or prevent] such claimant, his agent, or attorney, [or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them,] from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, [either with or without process as aforesaid,] or shall rescue [or attempt to rescue] such fugitive from service or labor from [the custody of] said claimant, his or her agent or attorney, [or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid,] when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given and declared, [or shall aid, abet, or assist such person, so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly to escape from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid,] or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive [so as to prevent the discovery and arresting of such person] after notice [or knowledge] of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid.'

It will be seen, by an examination of the above section, that it creates new offences, and punishes them differently, and is therefore cumulative.

The section above does not make 'harboring' or 'concealing' a slave subject to a penalty, unless it is done 'so as to prevent the discovery and arresting of such person after notice,' &c., while the section of the law of 1793, on which these actions are founded, makes the offence to 'harbor or conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor,' subject to a penalty of $500. These offences are entirely different, and are visited with different penalties. The legislature (Congress) therefore did not repeal the offence of 'harboring' or 'concealing' slaves from their masters, either in express terms by implication. Both acts can well stand together, and the rule of law is to construe them as we have already stated.

Let us now come to the act of Congress of 1850, and...