Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-03-29
NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA
SENATE OF VIRGINIA.

The protest offered by him, yesterday, and or
dered to be laid upon the table, was taken up and
on the question put thereupon, ordered to he nser
ted In the Journals, as follows
The undersigned members of the Senate of Vir
ginia who opposed to the passage Of the act
titled, "An act, TO prevent the citizens OF New
York from carrying slaves out OF this Common
wealth. and to prevent the escape OF persons charged
with the commission oil any crims," having been
denied the opportunity OF presenting their views in
oppo,ition To the sad bill in the form Of substi.
tute Tor the same, by the manner in which it was
pressed through the Senate deem Il duty to them
Selves to their constituents, and to the country to
enter this their solemn hut respectful Protest sgans
the said act and all the i'll consequences which they
spprehend will flow from il. To correct under
standing of the position in which we have been pa-
ced, brief narrative is necessary. The said &C,
was passed by the House OF Delegates on the
twelfth day Of March, 1871, and communicated to
TO the Senate, and was committed TO the Commit
tee on General Laws and ordered TO he printed on
the next day il was considered by the Committee
and reported to the Senate; very soon after il was
thus reported, on the same day. IL was called up by
It's friends. The opponents OF 1t asked that II might
lie upon the table until the next day; that de
MED them, and they then asked that might lie up
on the table until the afternoon Of that day, TO al
low time to prepare and present substitute for it;
that also denied to them, and by the RELENTLESS.
power Of the majority, the bill pressed through
the Senate on the same day on which il was repor
ted by the Committee The views of the under.
signed in respect TO the rights of Virginia and New
fork in the controversy out Of which this unfortu
nate bill has sprung, have been expressed in a pa
per laid before the Senate of Virginia sometime since
and printed, but not spread upon the Journal, and
which we now incorporate in this protest as TIE on
ly means Of spreading opinions upon the same
record upon which the bill stands, and for the
purpose OF showing to the world, that while we
could not censcentiously vote for the bill in cues
ton. opinions the rights of Virginia to pro.
tcct her slave property, and punish all who may in
wade it. fully made up as those ofany other
citizens in this State, and thst we are prepared TO
sustain them at every hazard. But we cannot con-
sent TO set the Constitution aside and put the Union
an jeopardy until all constitutional means have been
appealed 10, and found inadequate 10 our protec-
ton.
The paper referred to as containing an express.
sion OF our views, is in the following words:
"The General Assembly Of Virginia have seen
with deep regret the refusal, second time, by the
Governor Of the State of New York, to surrender
upon the demand Of the Governor Of Virginia, r.
johnson, Edmard Smith and Isaac Gransey. who
were duly charged in this State with felony in
stealing a slave, the property of John G. Colev
of the Borough of Norfolk. In this refusal, the
General Assembly know they have much cause OF
complaint, but they forbear urge it. or at present
TO resort TO legislation for the protection the pro
pery OF the citizens OF Virginia, and the constitu.
tlonal rights oil the State, under the belief that the
people and legislature Of New York would not have
thus invaded either, and. will no, how Justify that
INVASION, and that 10 them, the comfy OF the States
and the just regard entertained for sister Stale
requires that an appeal should be made before any
ulterIor measure Is restored to, especially as the
legislature is now sitting, and we know has the
subject under its consideration.
The General Assembly deem il unnecessary 10
snter, IN detail INTO the argument, by which the
rights OF Virginia, 10 the surrender OF the fugitiyes
demanded, is sustained, IL has been fully and
ably presented by the Governor.of Virginia in his
~ nnnda md INV ha Il
words
By The 2nd Sec. OF the 4th Art Of the Constitu
lion Of the United States, il is provided that ga
person charged in any State, with treason, felony
or other crime, who shalt fee from justice, and be
found IN another STATE shall, on demand of the Ex
ecuIive authority Of the State from which he fed,
be delivered up 10 be removed to the State having
Jurisdiction OF the crime"
By the Common Law OF England, which apper-
tans in Virginia, by the Civil Law, and by the
Laws OF every State OF this Union, theft is crime.
by the Common Law, "pain theft" is defined TO
be ihe felonous stealing and carrying aw4y Of the
personal goods of another" BY the Civil Law il
is defined TO be 'fThe fraudulent subtraction of "A
thing from the person TO whom 1t doth belong, in
order TO appropriate il to ones SELF make use Of
II against the vii | Of the owner" And by the
Divine Law, we told, "thou sha not steal !" nor
even "covet thy neighbours goods, nor his man SER
want, nor his maid-yerVant, nor any thing that is
his"
The sealing the property of another then, is
"crime" by the Laws OF every country and by
he Common Law, and the Statute of Virginia is
elony" and property is the creature of the law of
that country IN which It is. In Virginia, slave is
as Servant was in the days of Moses, proper
~; personal property of goods, and is recognized as
such by the Constitution Of the United States, Art
], Sec 2nd, paragraph 3rd, and Art. 4, Sec 2nd
paragraph 3rd, and the right of property in him
has beeh acknowledged in every State in the Union
an which the question has been made. To steal
slave then is TO steal property, ("goods,") and is
therefore ga crime" and "feony" within the mean.
ing of the Constitution. Again. the trial for crime
must, under the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd Sec, OF
the 3rd Art OF the Constitution Of the United States
"be held in the State where the said crime shal
have been committed" and the surrender required
10 be made by the second paragraph of the Pad Sec
Of the 4th Art must be made 60 the State hspng j
Tisdiesn Of the crime" The surrender then IS to ue
made for trial. and State has jurisdiction" of
crimes bu,those committed against her own laws
Virginia cannot try one for violating the Laws OF
New York, nor New York for q violation OF
the laws OF Virginia. The "crime," therefore
in the meaning Of the Constitution Of the u States
Is a crime against the State laW, when that law is
no, in conhe; with the Constitution. Equally clear
10 It, that the crime" need not be one OF great or
peculiar arocitY" for by the terms Of the Consttu-
lion II may not amount 10 the grade Of felony
and yet the demand may be made and must be met.
The terms Of the Constitut are, % rson CHARGED
with treason, ielonyi or other crime &C." The
Governor Of New York yields the whole question
however, when he admits that the fugitive NAV be
demanded for crimes, deeply affecting the public
safety" for 1t is only necessary 10 stae the case 10
show thatfew things can more affect the interest
and safety Of the Southern States than the right in
citizens OF other States TO come within their limit.
and with immunity, tamper with and steal their
slaves. twould be worse than useless, therefore
20 inuuirc what IS "raluHl in ser or acknowiedged
crime by "the civilized nations Of the woridu
One or two illustrations may be given however. 10
show the nbsurdity rs well rs danger OF the ru'e
proposed 10y the Governor Of New York by wh en-
n mater Of Constitutional compact between co
states should be referred for It's settlement % "the
civilized nations ofthe world" and that the "crirne''
must be recognized by the laws Of the State IN
which the fugitive may be found. The objection
is that stealing a slave is not q crime by the
laws Of New York. Suppose citizen Of New
York steals slave IN Virginia. and absconds
and sells him in New Orleans or Tens and
retnEnsto New York with the money in his pocket
would the law, municipal or moral Of the State
ofNew York, say there was no crime in such a case
and the citizen Of New York should nui.tIv emo,
the money thus dishonesty obtained Yet for
what crime could the fugitive be demanded II not
for stealing the slave because TO cell a slave Is not
in Val N"the State having jurisdiction II the
crme"l a crime II the person selling he the owns,
Of have right 90 sell and ofnecsssi,y Therefore N,
demand must rest upon the odeinll crime Of n,
though selling might be added 10 the description 81
the case, as evidence Oft intent, "the aninu ia
Taah," in the first taking. Were the ethics OF
Constitutional doctrines Of the Governor Of New
York 20 prevail, the citizens Of New York might Oh
tain, without much labOur, an "honest livelihood
by stealing the slaves Of the South provided the,
sold them after they stole them, and took refuge il
New York.
BY this system Of reasoning the Goyerno
of New York would be brought 10 thp
strange conclusion, VITO steal one who can.