Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-21
pcrly, and reques; Il

Oh the case. Tue gave Judgment Tor The defend
ants Barley J. said that there great distinction
between making The law al England active and ieav-
nr it passive, and he oi cp'n1n that the court
was not warranted in putting that law INTO activity
considering the character which Tie defendants were
filling at the time He did net consider II made "ui
that they wroanuy dfd tin acl with when they were
CHARGED Bat much b fadcr ground wns taken 10y the
other judges. iorod J. said, :" j, appears from the
facts Of the cas- tha, the plaintiff had no right III
these PERSONS except IN hcr character Of slaves, Tor
they were not serving HIM under any contract; anu
according To the principles a. The English law, such
rirh, not he cunsd red Warranted by the general
law of nature do not mean IL that particu cir
cunistances may not ni:odGce legal relation TO that
extent but assuming that there may be such relation,
can only have local existence where IL IS tolerated by
the particular law of the placno which law all persons
there resident are bound 10 s ,it Now if the plaintiff
cannot maintain this action the general law ofna-
turc independently Of any p i've institution then his
risht of action he onnt only upon some right
which he has acquired By the " OF the country where
he is domced If he being tlsh subject could she"
that the defendant, also .sh subject had ene-ed
the country where he, the plaintiff, dcmiced, ana
done any amounting SO violation Of that right III me
possession Of slaves, which was allowed by inc laws u
TINT country mn by prepared to say tlat n''
action might not be maintained against HIM me aMs
of ENGLAND will protect the rights OF D'it'sh sn ~
and give remedy for grievance coin"'''ea :, H.,
fish subject upon another in whatever conh', a' c,
be done. That. however, IS yer? aiiieens a
res;den, in Spanish colony, and perhts may DC "
ferred from what stated IN the speca' chse 'u' ~
the law Of that colony slavery was tolerated an "
oninion tina, according to the pr'heipleS o 'ue E"s'
r., a., -obt 10 slaves even III country where such
-, ira IecoSniaed hv law, must BE- considered as
ndod mt uunn The law Of nature bui upon The par,l-
"ar law of tia, country And surprising that the Inv
If o'and would give remedy Tor the v" i'on Of such
= right by one British subject 10 another, holh be'ns
;, sien, in and bcind obey the laws OF that country
still the right to those slaves, beng founded upon the
INV Of Spain as Applicable the Forid"s must be CO.
extensive with Jhe territories Of that State. do not
mean TO say that if the plaintiff having the right to pos.
sess these nc.sons his slaves there .had taken them
into another place where by law, slavrfy also prevail
ed his right would not have continued IN such place,
the laws Of both countries allowing property IN slaves
The INV of slavery IS however law v tnri'am: and
1rhen marty grts If The territory uherc 1t preraitS,
and ont Of he po,rcr NJ has master and gets Hader Tie pro
lection Of another po'cer ,ror any ,erongut act done
Ia the party giriag that proection nc right cfe master
,chick is foundsd an the municipal lac Of The particular
place o.v does not continue and there is rgh, Of &C
lion against party who merely receives the slave in that
country, without doing any Hongnl act This has
who has been slave IN oil our Hest indta
stands and comes to this oy III, aono m9"I n
slavery is at NJ end" Af,ertsome further remarks,
in which he refers TO previous case, lie says "Ihat
is very different from requiring, as in this case, an
act to be done against the slaves who had voluntarily
left their mastcr When they rot out of the territory
where they became slaves to tie plaintiff and out oil
his power and control they Were, by the general law,
OF na,a.e made free, unrse ;ry were slaves by The
narcular law of the place wic,e the defendant rccev
ed them They were not slave by the law which pre-
vailed Oh board the British sbi4 Of war Best eS-
messed Himself as foaws "NEre these persons slaves
al the .c wien Sir e. CofhbnTn refused 10 90 ne acl
which i. vas desired 10 do J a.n decidedly of opinion
that tlry we're then no longer slaves. ihc 7aomt"f
i siy a. @ a "s 81 s Florida h@rs' "~d""S,
tdipiAc asrs 81 thu, country aceGa Prfradl those pr
sons ,rt0 bcfoTc had dcen s"tcS eere free Inc de-
endants we're not guilty 81 any act plclndcia 10 the
rirhls which the plaintiff alleges to lave been IN
frir rcd The rights at end before The defend
ans were called upon 10 act Slavery IS local law,
aE, therefore il wishes 10 preserve his saves e'
! him attach ihea tc hlmby affection, or make last ',e
ar, .f thei. PRISONS or rivet well Their chains, ior ic
usyrt tsy st broAd the iis .ehere siatfrg q Tsfo--
,:ed ic local !0, they hacc brofsn ttr rhatns, Mey
hurs from Msir prisons anil are free those men,
uhE hoard an English ship, had all Inc rights BE-
4 Ion Earlishmen, and subject 10 all their II
a5i't If'hey had committed any nii%n''' 1!ey inas'
hay n tried according TO English laws II any m
ury AZ been done TO them, they would hdve had re-
il sii hat Sir C. G01GJarn dia c%S,'airy Tor re-
fully could assist the plaintiff lie permitted h'r' 10
IN persuade the slaves 10 return, but lie re-
fused 10 Apply force. think that he might have gone
farther and have said that ,ccr should not be used by
others for il any force had been used b. tie master or
any perzon his assistance, can 1t be doubted that lie
slaves might have brought action Of trespass against
the persons using that force: Nay II The slave acilg
upon his newly recovered right OF freedom, had deter
mined 10 yLica,e that right, originally the gift of ma
Il ture and lad resisted tie force ANA his eah had cnsned
in the course suc resistance there be any doubt
that eyary one who had contributed 10 that death, would,
according 10 lava he guilty Of murder: ihat Is
substantially decided by Sonnsrs'h Case, IRON when
it is clear that such would have been the consequence
Lad these slaves been in Enoiand and FAR This
due.tGn concerned, there IS difference between
an fnrs! ship ami ;hs sol! Of Engiand; for are net
those on hoard English ship much protected and
governed ~ the English laws If they stood upon
" ENGLISH land Ii there he difference in this respect
SommcrStu's case has decided the present. lie was
: eid 10 liz entitled to his discharge and consequently
all persons attempting 10 force n back INTO slavery
would have been tespassers, end !! deaih hai en5ucl
in using ha, force, would have been guilty OF murder
II has ten said that Sir g. C0ckbGrn might have SEN
b them back He certainly not bound to receive
: them into his ship IN tie rrst Instance, bat Eavine
done So he cond more have forced them back ntt
: slavery than he could have committed them TO the
o deep" After come further observations, lie says
"he place where the transaction took place was
o with respect 10 this question, the same as Inc
soil of England Had tie defendants detained these
board their ships near the coast Of England,
writ CT habeas corpus would have set them at liberty
= How then action be maintained against these
f Gallant officers for doing that of their own accord, which
by process or law in British court justice, ihej
d might have been compelled to do 2
These doctrines are laid down in a case in which the
party injured British subject, and they have beer
i acted on by the British Government III which
have formed the subject Of correspondence between
+ that Government and the Government OF the I. s.
!. The Br.tIF; Government has made compensation fol-
slaves belonging 10 citizens Of the L. ), who were
Il taken into British Island and there discharged, wher
slavery prevailed therein But il has refused 20 make
compensation for slaves belonging 10 citizens, who
obtained their freedom by reaching British Island ~
4 which slavery had ceased to prevail
n The English Courts do not, however, permit thc
officers 10 BE- active in Selling vessels having person:
on board who slaves by the laws Of that nation
which the vessel belongs. On the contrary, the'T
Courts Of Admiralty have refused TO assist The captors
in conden,ning such vessels. Aud jury mas assessed
and court Of las has ndjudgej heavy damages fol
Selling and OBTAINING such vessel. This has been
done at the suit of sp9niard coming into an English
Court Of Justice for the seizure ana detention Of yes
sci engaged the prosecution Of the slave trade; Span
having the time, reserved to herself right Of car