Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-12-01

SucH, neitiler could override
The laws oil nations, nor dvest our citizens of their
rights IN the under consideration In the nature
Of things The laws of nations, which have for their Oh
iect the regulation of the intercourse of States must
be paramount 10 municipal laws where their provisions
happen to come INTO conflict II not they would he
without authority. If this be So there can be no dis
elimination between the three cases. and all ought 10
be allowed; Or, II not, none; and, in that case cur c
Gems would have just claim for compensation in Ell
ther follows that the principle which embraces one
embraces all There can be just distinction between
them; and shall next proceed to show that in At
tempting to make distinction where there is no differ
ence, the British negotiaor has been compelled TO as
sumo the very point IN controversy between the two Co.
vernments. In doing this propose 10 follow his ar
gument step by step, and prove tie truth Of my asser-
ton at each step.
lie SETS out with laying down the rule b. which he as
serts that those claims should be decided which, lie
says s, that those claimants must be considered enti
tied to compensation who lawfully in possession of
their slaves within the British territory and who were
disturbed in their legal possession othose slaves BY unc-
tionaries OF the British Government. object not 10 the
RUE our citizens had right TO their slaves AT any
time alter they entered the BRUSH tcrritory-tat 49, IL
the mere Tact OF entering extnguislcd all right To
ihem or that Is the amount of the rule they could
Of course have no claim the British Government,
for the plain that the local authority in seizn
and OBTAINING the negroes, seized and detained what
BY suppositon did not belong 10 them That is clear
enough hut let us the applications is given in
lew words. lie says: "Now the owners of The slaves
on board the Enterprise never were lawfully in pos
session Of those slaves within the British territory,
assigning for reason, 'hat before the Enterprise ar.
rived al Bermuda slavery had been abolished in the
british Emprc'- assertion which shall show, IN
a subsequent part OF my remarks 10 be erroncous-
From that and that alone, he the conclusion
thlt the negroes on board the Enterprise had by en-
ering within the British jurisdiction acquired rights
which The local courts bound to protect" Such
certainly would have been the case if they had been
4 brought IN, entered voluntarily lie who enters
voluntarily, the territory of another State, tacitly
submits himself, with all his rights, TO its laws and is
much bound 10 submit 10 them citizens or subjects
10 one denies that but that is not the present case
They entered not voluntarily, but from necessity and
the very point al issue whether the British mCnicipal
laws con!d dvest Their owners Of property in their
slaves on entering British territory in cases such az
the Enterprise, when tire vessel has been forced into
their territory By necessity through an act of Prov
dence, to save the lives Of those on board We DENY
they can, and maintain the opposite ground:-that the
law Of nations in such cases in,erposes and protects
the vessel and those board, with their rights, against
I the municipal LAWS Of the State, TO which they have
never submitted, and to which il would be cruel and
lnhuman, well unjust to subject them Such is
i clearly the point at issue between the two Govern
ments and 1t is not less clear that j, is the very point
assumed ty the British negotator the controversy.
lie felt in assuming his ground, that the general
principle was against him according to which, the
nclpal laws yield to the laws Of nations in such cases.
and in order 10 take hmsefo out Of its operation he
tempted TO make distinction equally novel and unto
nablc. lie asserts tha there is distinction between
laws bearing the personal liberty Of man. and laws
bearing upon the property which man may claim in
irrational animals nanmate things" and comedies
'staat if ship, containing such animals things,
SsEe. San aaf 5Y"ete fnrcn1ir
not voluntarily submitted himself" Yes, It would be
both unjust and inhuman; and because it wonld be so,
is contrary to tho law o! nations, which is but the
rules OF Justice and humanity applied to the intercourse
of nations; and therefore il is that interposes in cases
Ike the present, and places under IFS protection iis
rights Of the unfortunate even against the municipal
! laws Of the place.
But he asserts that the principle does not extend TO
the cases in which rights Of property persons
cerned dor such must he the meaning, il is wholly
irrelevant o the question at ssue because "thee
three parties transaction; the Of the cargo,
the local authority and the alleged slave and the third
party less entitled than the frs. appeal TO the To-
cal authority for such protection the law Of the lane
may afford HIM" This is the position which the
british negotator mainly rests his argument and If this
fails the whole must fall TO the ground. 1t is not diff
cult to see from what he says Of two parties appealing
TO the local authority, that he acty puts aside the law
of nations and assumes The parties TO be under the
municipal law Of the place. cnd also that those laws,
aud the law of nations. are the standard by winch
their rights to be Judged bet is II not MANIFEST tins
is an assumptions in another form, OF the point IN con-
troversy: Against IL uas;!stained and unsustainabe,
by authority reason shall oppose what, nn' must
be the rhest auorityth that ofthe British Government
itsclf-in the cases ofhc Comet and EncoHun, backed
by unanswerabie reason
II the distinction be true at all, between property
in persons and property in things, or irrational ami
mails it was, 10 the full as applicable to those cases,
as TO that Of the Enterprise. In them the right OF
prnpery persons involved and the three parties
A inca ded TO the same extent, as IN that Nor was
personal liberty less concerned AS tar as British laws
could affect the rights OF our czens the negroes be-
lonuina to Tie Comet and Encomum as free as
those belonging 70 the Enterprise. An act OF Par
lament as has been shown, forbade their introduce
, ton, and forfeited the rights of their owners,
thereby making them free, With rights to ma'n-
l. Thorn.
50 and yet, after full and mature investigation ana
reflection for the space OF ten years, 1t was ADMIT
ted that the rule applied to them, winch, II -
conceded, would apply IN similar cases 10 properly
4 in things, irrational animals Now, ASK, u tie act
for the abolition Of the a.e trade, winch Directly Tor
bids the introduction of negroes slaves and orcis
the rights Of their owners, did not as we naye seen,
;ustfy the distinction in the OF the Comet aud
Encoulm now attempted 10 be made between the TWO
ri descriptions Of property how could the act Tor me apo
l,ion of slavery Justify IT i'll the case OF The Enterprise
In the former, there were all the parles WIN ther re-
spcc,iye rights, Just the same as IN tie later ana
lie local authorities not bound 10 recognise ana
prolec the negroes III the one case, why, ask, were
;, they in The other: Can satisfactory answer DC CIV
). en- And, if not, what becomes OF Tie o'sunGuon:
), with all its consequences attempted 10 oc oeas*cu
IS from it, A.. .t
= nose of The position attempts Immediately 10 ory It.
t,e saws. .li, indeed, municipal law be made, which
violates the laws of nations, question Of another kind
NJ may arise Bot the munlcpa law when orG,as sia
IL yery is no violation of the laws of nations 1t s on
= the contrary in strict harmony with the laws oil ma
lions: and therefore when slaves are liberated accord
mo 10 such municipal Jaw, there is wrong done
~ and there can be no compensation granted position
IN pregnant with meaning will hereafter appear OFT
oil must say like all his others, mere assumption oi We
~ point at issue, expressed in vague ana 'ehne ~"
bv IT. in asserting that municipal law aboshng .a
:, orv i mt Violation Of the laws OF nations, u u
M meant that is not violation of those laws Tor s.a
he to abolish slavery which exists under rs i,
may be ssd tsus sS n the though
ne little remarkable that the British Government a
lowed compensation their own subjects BY ns vei
ion act under Wiz" :, 10 ,sser,;on that no compensa
can be granted when the act applied to the ca,
ISL c,r.od x.;thout their consent, INTO II