lst. Johnson vs. Thomkins. 1 Baldtoin't C. C. Reporta. 571. The most er from another Stato may pursue and take his fugitivo slave without warrant. He may arrest him any where and at any time, and no person has a right to oppose the master in the act, or demand proqf of property. Th Constitution and laws of the United Statsa secure tkis right l ! 2d. Priggvs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1G Peters' Reports. 539, $-c.Pr. Taet, C. J. The masfor has a right peacably to take possession of his slave and carry him away without any certifÃcate or -warrant from any judge of the district court or circuit of the United States ; and whoever resists or obstructs him is a wrong doer, and every State lar which proposes, directly or indirectly, to authorize such resistance or obstruction ia muil and void, and affords no justificaron to the individual or officor of the StatO who acts under it. Pr. Story J. Under and in virtuo of the constitution, the owner of a slave ia clothed with entire authority in every State in the Union, to seize and re-capture liis slave. The constitution of the United States was designed touphold and justify the act ofseizing and removing a slave by his master. Zd. Commonwcallli vs. Griffith 2 Piek. 11. Pr. Parker, C. J. It is very obvious that slaves are not parties to tho constitu Ã¯ions, and the amendment, securing the people against unreasonable seizures.&c. has relation to the parties. Qr ? Mas it not relation to others besides parties - viz: aliens, &c. ?