nd the wrong.

But I must leave these generalities, and pass to the particular points
of this case. This is the first case of its kind that has occurred. The
decision in this case by the Commissioner, though not matter of
precedent, yet goes to the profession, the press, and into the private
records of the country. Therefore we may be excused if we pay some
considerable attention to the points of law involved.

In the first place, it should be borne in mind that a fugitive slave is
not a criminal.

A few years ago, it was thought in Massachusetts that the pursuing of
slaves was criminal. I thank God, it is not yet decided that the
escaping from slavery is criminal. It is a mere question of property
under this act. This law has recognized certain property in slaves,
claimed in a certain manner, in the free States. It is a mere question
of property. The Southern man has certain property in his slave. That
property we do not here recognise. But if the property escapes, and he
pursues it, it is to be recognised in this court. Consequently, when a
Southern man comes here and seizes a person as his property, he takes
him at his own risk, a risk which every man takes in seizing any thing
as his property. If he seizes the wrong property, any person who owns
it, may resist him, or resist his officer armed with a warrant. This has
been ruled in various cases.

Your Honor recollects in the 8th Pickering, the case of the Commonwealth
vs. Kennard. There the writ was placed in the hands of the officer, to
go and attach some property of the defendant. He attached certain
property which he thought belonged to the defendant. He showed his
warrant, but the true owners put him, neck and heels, out of the house.
They were indicted, but the Court sustained them in their act.

In a civil action, if the wrong person, the wrong horse, or the wrong
slave, is taken, then the owner of the property may defend it, or the
man seized may defend himself if he chooses. There is a different
statute on the subject of interfering with the process of the courts,
interfering with judicial processes, under which this respondent is not
held to answer. Whenever this respondent is held to answer for
resisting judicial processes, then these other questions may be raised.
He is now only charged with rescuing property from the owner, or the
officer holding for the owner.

The Constitution says that any person _charged_ with crime, and
escaping, shall delive