376 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
terms that in disposing of the relations of state and federal govern- 
ments he loses sight of both slave and master, and does not in the 
end distinctly indicate whether he thinks the latter was or was not 
rightly convicted under the Pennsylvania law. His main argument 
as to whether the article of the constitution in question was de- 
signed merely to protect the rights of the slaveholders against 
states opposed to them, and, therefore, that to suppose any effective 
power toward the enforcement of that article to be left in the hands 
of those against whom it was to operate, would be utterly absurd 
and a fallacy from which the framers of the constitution must be 
presumed exempt, is fortunately no longer a matter of much prac- 
tical moment. 
He continues, however : 
1 “T come now to a most delicate and important inquiry in this case, and 
that is, Whether the claimant of a fugitive from labor may seize and 
remove him by force out of the state in which he may be found in de- 
fiance of its law? I refer not to the laws which are in conflict with the 
constitution or the act of 1793. Such acts I have already said are void. 
But I have reference to those laws which regulate the police of the state, 
maintain the peace of its citizens and preserve its territory and jurisdic- 
tion from acts of violence.” 
He adds later: 
2 “Tf the master may lawfully seize and remove a fugitive out of,the 
state where he may be found without an exhibition of his claim, he may 
lawfully resist any force physical or legal which the state or any of its 
citizens may interpose. . . . , The master exhibits no proof or right to 
the services of the slave, but seizes and is about to remove him by 
force. I speak only of the force exerted on the slave. The law of the 
state presumes him to be free and prohibits his removal; now which 
shall give way, the master or the state? It isa most important police 
TESUlAtON. . |. leo. My opinion, therefore, does not rest so much upon 
the particular law of Pennsylvania as upon the inherent and sovereign 
power of a state to protect its jurisdiction and the peace of its citizens 
in any and every mode which its discretion shall dictate and which shall 
not conflict with a defined power of the federal government,”’ 
These men were apparently disputing about a name. They were 
all agreeing that there were some things a state might do in refer- 
ence to runaway slaves. It was quite clear that Congress was au- 
thorized to take action in reference to the whole subject of fugitive 
176 Fet., 666. 2 Id,, 669. 
