Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-03-03

r. Mc EGtt0rS IF hc y. Lateibgtnccr
II struck me upon reading your article of the 18th,
upon the controversy between New York and some OF
the Southern States, tia, yon had taken views Of that
case which were not considered with your usual ac-
curacy. Feeling assured that you would not willing
d s . s:s Z" ; s He'1 may 'Is . sTs
induce you %regiew the grounds upon which your
Opinions were formed. II understand the case, il is
npped ds5n isy " hs limits dy 1
OF Virginia, and fed with them 10 New York; which
offence was felony, hy the laws Of Virginia The
Governor of Virginia, hy authority Of a constitutional
provision which doubtless familiar to you, demanded
Of the Governor Of New York these tugitives from
tee But tin officer refused 10 comply with the request
upon the ground that the laws Of New York did not
recognise lhat species Of property and that stealing
slave was c;isnce within the inteEdnen Of the
provision OF the Constitution 10 which have before
referred Nor this the only subject Of difference
arising of the Federal Constitution, between these
two States The second section of the fourth article OF
that instrument provides that emo person held In ser
lahorln State, under the laws thereof, es
capng into another, shall in consequence Of any law
regulation thSen, be discharged from such service
labor bu 81 be delivered up, on the clam Of the
party, to who su' service or labor may be due" a
law Of the I'm led States has been passed, pursuance
Of that c"nst ona provision, toprcscr'be the mode in
which "persoY c!d service labor in one State un
der the laws thereof shall be reclaimed when they
cape to another But the State Of New York, in the
face of this iar, enacted another, which provides DIFF
iprent mode ut trying this right and makes it penal in
the Federal officers, or i'll the citizens Of their
Of other State, T. enforce the remedy given by
len, against the wrongs which She con-
ceved L. havpFheen offered her in both But tie
constituted arihorcs Of New York refused either TO
acknowledge redress the grievances 81 which Virgil
mia planned, ard turned deaf 10 her reiterated
circumstances. Finding that the right Of navigating
her waters gwen l,y the Constitution The citizens Of
New York was 10 be made the instrument of kidnap.
ping her slsves ard Of violating her laws within her
own jurisdiction, Virginia felt that protection
due 10 her citizens against Stale which refused
20 perform the muclai obligations Of the Federal
bact, 10 acknowledges the validity Of her laws within
her borders The chief evil was that the Govern
uen of y ok refused 10 deliver up lis citzens when
j" tired for stealing slaves wiihna State
whose lass made that act I felony. The remedy pre-
scrbcl 10 require security of those citizens, when
they /" Virginia, that they woa'd not avail them
selves Of ,hr npnnl,y afforded by their own Govern.
nenr 10 steal the property or violate the laws Of
Sate INTO which they had voluntarily entered. 1t was
moreover specially provided, that this security should
longer be required, if New York would agree that
the question Of what constitutes felony in Virginia, is
to he determined by the laws, not of New York but
of Virginia; and if she would repeal her law nuiliiy-
ing act OF Congress, passed, MI admit, in
foym.y with the Constitution OF the United States
The grievance which Virginia thus sought 10 re-
dress was common 10 all Of the slayeholding States
OF tie Union and the action Of Virginia has been
followed by similar legislation IN South Carolina, Of
whose course you complain You say that, whatever
may be thought Of the Of Virginia S Carolina
~ surely wrong in thus taking up her quarrel, be-
cause the Constitution forbids any treaty or alliance
between the States. Now, srs, ! most respectfully
ask how it is that you justify this discrimination be.
tween these two Sta,cs' lfprginis be right how ca
Sonth Carolina he wrong The principles assumed by
New York dangerous 10 tie latter as the former
The grievance and the pcr. common 10 each Of the
slavehodng States, and the fit remedy for one is pro
per for all But you condemn South Carolina because
here be alliance between The States Has she
formed any alliance with Virginia An alliance implies
mutual agreement and mutual obligations Is there
any such agreement between these States a>lo their
legislation upon this any other subject: May not
Their repeal lis present laws, enact others upon ths
subject, without violating any obligations between
themselves: Surely they may. South Carolina has
expressed her appreciation fihc course pursued hy
Virginia. and she has followed long established usage
amongst all Of the Stacs by inerchanging with them
opinions, in the shape Of resolutions But, perhaps
your real objection is IL the nature al The remedy
adopted both BY South Carolina and Virginia; for
whilst you intimate Tia, u York was wrong in the first
instance, you condemn the pursued by Virginia
's Unconstitutional and suggest 10 the Supreme
Court for settlement Of their differences. The valid.
ty Of the "lury law, il IS amlafly called mas be
sledin that Court but bow, pray yoa, con lha, II,