Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-02-18

due TO the Governor, 10 the People represent, and
to Virginia. that should do Especially is it due
to Virginia. which above all other States IN this unlon
referred for the soundness of its views points
of constitutional doctrne-whch has ever been cour-
teous though firm, in its intercourse with the other
members Of the Coniederacy and which now asks, in
respectful TERMS that New York will respond through
her Legislature on the question in controversy be-
tween the two States
Having come to this conclusion, vote for the
proposition more Immediately before the house (r l..
Hubbclls) that ought not TO take any action on this
subect-and especially when consider IL, in connection
with the reasons Of gentlemen in its support As to
the resolutions Of The gentleman from Herkimer will
not de,an the house long. Nor do design, nor should
if felt competent, attempt 10 go into an elaborate
view of the points in controversy. The expositions
given by the gentleman from Herkimer were full and
pertinent especially in support of his position that no
wave should be made, IN Il case involving like this
individual right of point Of defence, whether they
ne matters OF form or of substance. That is admitted
bv gentlemen the other side The gentleman from
Albany (hr Wheaton, admitted the full force of II,
but took issue on the point Of fact whether wal
yer had been made by the Governor OF this State OF
any such obiec,ions-lt remains only to show, there
fore by additional proof drawn from the cores
pondence itself how the fact is; and must again call
The attention Of the House TO what the Governor says
On this subject. AT page Al, ne says-"l beg leave,
therefore, to most respectfully, that admitting
line affidavit 10 be sufficient in form and substance To
negro slave from his master iii Virginia, defined
by the laws of that State, yet in my opinion the Of
fence not within the meaning Of the Constitution
i" of the U. S.
Again on page 20 of the correspondence, the Govern
says: "It however properly belonged the Execu
6 tive of Virginia TO determine in what manner and
what occasion he would bring the subject before me,
and these observations upon points heretofore acaircd,
are made only for the purpose of assigning the
facts their proper place in the record, occasion
in which the whole subject is opened for reconsde-
I" ration.
Here certainly is an admission the part of the
Governor that he had distinctly waived the question Of
the nsuiciency of the affidavit, and that he then only
alluded to the fact TO give it its proper place on the
record. In word, the Governor instead Of adhering
to the objection that Virginia had not presented case
in poin, of form and fact calling for his interposon,
preferred to shove from under him the plank which
he stood FIRMLY and launch out into the open sea OF
constitutional argument. There, in my judgment, the
Governor erred Had he adhered to the objection that
the proof offered insufficient to hold the alleged
fugitivcs to trial, rely upon it THIS whole controversy
would have ended there II the waiver by the
Governor of this objection to the form and substance
of the charge, and his taking issue what Firgl-
MIA claimed pon, of constitutional right, that had
led to this collision between the two States.