Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-05-07
DOMESTIC.
Cory.
STATE OF NEW YORK.

STATE OF NEW YORK.
EXECUTIVE DEPARrME>T,
Albany, April 9th, ISL.
Sir. Your communication of the 22d Of March last
enclosing a warrant for the surrender OF Robert r
Curry in compliance with my requisition, IS acSnow-
lodged. The proper agent has been drcced 10 receive
the fugitive and convey HIM to this Stale
Your compliance with this reqnisltlon Is mace, II!
your communication, u ground Tor asking reversal
Of my decision upon similar process oil your preoe-
cesso demanding the surrender Of Peter Johnson and
others Although the candor you have avowcd Is ny
no means questioned, it matter of some surprise
that YOU hove treated the cases altogether anao-
oous II YOU could have shown that the Indictment
accompanying my reqniston was informal and defec-
tive in charging the crime of forgery II competent
judicial tribunal had decided that the indictment was
thus defective and that upon examination there was
no probable cause TO believe the fugitive guilty OF an
offence against any law Of this State, and II inIgerv
were not crime offence against the laws OF 'irgl-
MA the common law and the laws OF all civilized conn.
tries then, although the cases would be analogous
would in my Judgment and with great Difference, fol-
low rather that the demand made by ough! TO have
been denied than that the requston issued by your
predecessor ought to be granted
Your views concerning the questions recently DIS
cussed between your predecessor and myself your pro-
test against supposed aggressons and your appeal 10
ME to review positions heretofore assumed to abandon
opinions and by you TO be errone-
Gus and untenabe and to restore harmonious relations
between the States of New York and Virginia, have
Ceived most cdrelul ana respectful COHSlacIatioH,-
Since however, you have intlDated that would be I'M
profitable the discussion Of the question refer
red to upon its merits, my reply will necessarily be as
general as your communication.
The Lieutenant Governor Of Virginia, in 1889, de-
nanded of the Executive of this State, Peter Johnson,
Edward Smith and Isaac Gansey, tugtves, upon
vague and insufficient charge of stealing negro slave
in that Common wealth When this demand was made,
the Constitution had existed during half OF century,
period sufficient may be supposed 10 present do
a-nfny md
tended to be provided for by the trainers Of that nstru
ment. During that period the institution of slavery
listed in Virginia and some other States, while IN this
and others abolished Yet within that long time
only one case known 10 have occurred in which the
Executive of slave holding State demanded from a
State in which slavery had ceased to exist the surren-
der ofa fugitive upon charge similar to that adopted by
the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. and case is
known TO have happened in which demand Of that
character, made under such circumstances, was allow
ed. The affidavit deemed BY the Executive insult
fcient and defective, to charge crime against the
laws of Virginia. while the question involved II the re-
QUESTION were supported by proper charge, was re-
gsrded of grave importance and requiring deli
berate consideration An informal note delivered
the agent Of Virginia, pointing out the defects in his
papers and giving leave TO amend, and time was ap
pointed for the consideration Of the whole subject In the
mean time the supposed fug,tives awaited themselves
of the legal remedy and discharged writ OF
habeas corpus, the grounds that the charge
sufficient, and that, upon examination, It was ascertain
ed that the actual offence OF the accused consisted in
their being seamen on board Of ship in which slave
had concealed himself, with view to what proved an
unsuccessful attempt to escape from servitude The
Lieutenant. Governor to whom the circumstances be-
came known, nevertheless, demanded decision upon
the case originally presented That course present.
ed to the Executive OF this State, on one hand, the alter
native Of seeming willing cvade great constitution
al question BY placing his denial of the demand on the
informal objection sustained by the Judge the removal OF
which would not dispose Of the subject and on the
ohe that Of assuming the broad constitutional ground
upon which, mature reflection, he was satisfied the
case at last be decided Both the frankness which
becomes public functonares, and proper respect for
the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. required the adoP-
ton of the latter alternative.
1t was not unforeseen that absolute and probably
irreconcilable difference of opinion must between
the Lieutenant Governor and the Executive of this
State II was obvious that the former would assume,
in conformity with opinions known to prevail IN Vr-
pinia, that men of certain race and condition may
be- and are property and chatels the subjects Of pur-
chase SALE devise and theft. The Executive Of this
State the contrary, would be aithless to the spirit
of its Constitution and laws, if he did not maintain
that oil men, of whatever or condition, men,
and of right ought TO be reemen; that every remedy
for duress of human being, whether 1T be the de
h0mine repiegtand0, hdbeds corpus, action for entce
ment or false imprisonment indictment for kidnap-
ping, regards him a man and not property, and
that is absurd in this State speak of property
immortal beings, and consequently of stealing them,
the common atmosphere 1t equally manifest
that Virginia would insist that her sister States should
recognise the right Of property of class of her
people in another established by her laws 1t would
ON the contrary, become the duty of the Executive Of
this State TO hold, that except far the principle
is controlled by the article Of the Constitution which
declares that persons held to labor service in
State by the laws thereof and escaping into another,
shall, on demand and proof be delivered up to the
persons 10 whom such labor service is DUE the re-
lation Of master and slave peculiar local relation
of the State where it exists and that this State is not
bound to recognize protect it any manner, much
less to protect By extending for that purpose ur
Gle OF the Constitution which had no such design, nor
any reference whatever to the relation.
The Executive of this State, always careful to avoid
even any seeming interference with the institutions or
municipal affairs of other States, would have gladly
avoided such discussion, not from objections on bis
own part but because he supposed the discussion al
though invited By the Lieutenant Governor could not
be agreeable to the people of Virginia. But was the
pleasure nevertheless, of the Lieutenant Governor of
Virginia to demand an answer to the requson, not.
witbstanding the decision would involve the great
questions which have been raised and notwithstanding
be must have known, moreover, that compliance
with the requstion would be to surrender three
as criminals whom a competent tribunal had pro-
nounced guiltless, and thus exhibit the Executive
trampling on the judiciary we'll as striking down the
liberty Of citizens Of this State