Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-02-06
POLITICAL.
From The ~ Y. Journal # Commerce.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA
On our first page will be found statement Of the
controversy between this State and virginia We have
given it somewhat in detail lnasmuch as It involves
question of vast moment To the slavcholding States
and one That may often arise between them and non
savcholdng States, especially those lying contiguous
to each other.
The whole matter ought, in our Judgment, to be
considered in reference the state of things which ex-
ised at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
Circumstances that have arisen since, by when me
word "criiGe" as used in the Constitution would
receive narrower Interpretation than that under
stood by the framers ought not to have erect
for otherwise any State might, by its own legs
ation, inter the Constitution. The question as 10
what constitutes "propery, must be determined
by the same rule. The Governor of New fork re-
fuses 10 treat the in question as CRIME, because
this State does not recognize slaves as property. HOW
far is he justified in this proposition AT the time OF
the adoption Of the Constitution, Virginia and New
York slavehoding States, and were nearly all
the States of the Union In forming the terms OF the
Union the slave question embarrassing one, but
| compromise was agreed on between the North and
South upon these principles:
LIST. That in apporlionng representatives, 3-oths OF
the slaves should be added to the whole number OF free
persons in q State.
| I'd. That the importation of slaves in the United
States should not be prevented prior to lSOS.
Sd. That persons held TO labor service in one State,
and fleeing into another State should be given up.
raj Government against "domestlc violence.
1t was objected against allowing the addition oil
5ths of the slaves to those who would otherwise have
formed the basis of representation, see Federast -so'
LIV) that "saves considered as property, not as
persons" This objectlon which came from the Morrill,
was replied TO in the Federalls as follows:--
"The rne state of the is, that they parake Of
both these qualities, being considered by our laws IN
some respects persons and in other respects as pro-
pery In being compelled to labor not Tor myself but
for master, in being vendIbe by one master 10 ano-
Their MASTER and in being subject al all times to be re-
strained in his liberty and castsed in his body by the
capcious viii Of another the slave may appear 10 Dc
degraded from the human rank and classcd with those
irrational animals which fall under the legal denomina
ton of property. I'm being protected on the other and
in his life and in his limbs against the violence OF all
Others even the master Of his hbo and his liberty, and
in being punishable himself fr all violence committed
against hem the slave is less evidently regarded
by the law member of society, not rs part OF the
irrational creation; moral person. not as mere ar
,cIc Of property. The Federal Constitution therefore
decides with great proprey on the case oil our slaves
when il views them tie mred character Of persons
and Of property. This is their true character
Certainly b. the trainers of the Constitution, the
yes were viewed, as between their owners ana all
Others as property both in the provision and III mat
recurring them to be delivered up from tie State into
which they had fled upon claims of the party to whom
their service labor due In the last case they
were clearly viewed as property alone. IL they mao
been viewed persons merely, the South would nave
been entitled TO a larger representation. virginia
viewed them as property and still does New YORK
was then slave State, and many laws now EXIST
upon her statute book treating them as slaves ] nc
riuht Of property" says Blackstone, " owes It's orr
qln not to the laws Of nature, but merely to civil socie
IL" How il it possible therefore, in interpreting any
clause of the Constitution relating 10 tins subec
TINT The ground can be maintained that slaves are
no, 10 be treated as property The true rule OF inter
probation as applied TO the CONSTITUTIONS IS SIMPLY TO
ascertain from It's language the intent and meaning oil
lis trainers No one doubt that New YORK, nj Inc
time Of the adoption Of The Constitution, considered
slaves as property, and would have SO treated them
upon the demand Of the Governor Of Virginia. She
nos indeed treats them as propcrfy, when the slaves
have rsra1fd the State; and until the Constitution
Is altered we are bound in good faith 10 view them
~ proprrty and perform the same duties III regard 10
their owners, and the several States winch recognize
slavery that were obligatory upon us when the Con
situl,nn was adopted. 1.-THE ground Of Gov. Seward
is admissible, New York might contend without equal
force that inasuch the relation OF master and slave
is not known to laws, We were not bound on The
demand If tie master 10 deliver up slave who had
ESCAPED into this State. IL would be quite as Just to
saw that he would not acknowledge such serrtee, as
dine by the slave, as that would not acknowledge
such property 80 ;, g
The case decided by the Supreme Court Of the u. s.
Affirm the principal that slaves are to De treated as pro-
nertv In the case ofthr Antelope, 10 Wheaton, p 3D.
that cour, decided in 1875 that certain slaves captured
by Colombian privaieer from Spanish vessel oil The
coos of Africa and brought into the L. s. by revenue
cutter should be delivered up to certain Spanish clam
ants on the ground that they were property, and al
,honb We had pronounced traffic in the slaves unlawful
Judpe Marshall in that says, ga distinction IS Ia
l., h,,weep mrn who generally free, and g0o0s
which are always property Although WIN fesp'c.
10 the last possession may constitute Inc ohy PROOF
If nrop,rty which is dcmandable, something more -
necessary where men claimed. Some proof should
H. tbo d.
l., tho cases of the ArInede in the British Admiralty
the possession Of negroes captured was claimed ny an
American after we had declared the traiIc unlawful
Sir VIM Grant decided against the claim on the ground
tha, he could not therefore engage IN the trade IN
order 10 ret possession, says the learned judge, che
must show some property of which nc has been dspos
s,ssed and to which he ought to be restored Sec ~
Wheaton, ll6
capured by British cruscr the slaves were restored IN
the British Prize to the claimant Swede, on the
ground that the trade was lawful by the laws Of Sweden
Sec. TO- Wheaton III.
Tho rascs all proceed upon the ground that although
one nation NAV not tolerate siarery yet IN ITS inter
course with another which does, it will respect the inst
tutions OF the allcr. ,., IIo, Tho,
ssno nTncipe of law is universally acknowledged
than The perfect equality OF nations Russia ana Ge
nova have equal rights 1t results from TINS cqhaiy
that no one can rghtfully impose rule on ano.her
Each PrislateS lOr tscl put its
an itself alone right then which is vested IN all by
consent; and this trade in which all have participated
INNS, remain lawful to those who cannot be nduced 20
reI;nousb il. As no nation can prescribe rule tor
others none can make law of nations and tins raiilc
remains lawful to those whose governments nave ho
forbidden it," a..
The character of property being thus given to the
slaves the common law would at once determine that
stealing one is larceny; for the common law does nor
undertake to enumeraie the kinds of property winch
may, and may not be stolen: 1t simply declares &C.
neral rule that property shall not be stolen The only
remaining question 10 be considered, is whether is
"crme within the meaning of the clause oeeia a
that a person charged in any State with treason feio
ny or other crime who shall flee from justice and be
found in another State, shall on demand OF .ne LSe
cnliye authority ofthe State from which he fed be de-
vered up, to be removed to the State having JuF'sdc
ton of the crime"
Ills n well established rule of construction, that you
mo-, col upon other parts of the instrument 10
the meaning Of particular words ae,ts i IN HIa
nous crimes" and if they have different meaning IN
The law from the word "crimes then 1t shows That The
oneraton of the clause not confined to INFAMOUS
rr;,,a.,, o,Iv II also speaks of msdemeanors