New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-02-09

Indictment made cut IN Que lofrl. Susi' Ile La
ecutive, knowing all the facts, surrender him =
Nc. 1t is answered, because the law IS clearly void,
and there can be no crime against void law
That, sir, is precisely this case. The law against
which j, il alleged these three ssilers Offended IS
void law. 1t is as folows:-
awhoever shall hereafter carry or be carried any
slave or slaves out any county corporation within the
without the consent Of the owner or owners OF sleh
slaves, Of the guardian OF suck owner or owners he
ceaud deprive OF such slave o.
slaves shall be atjuaged guilty OF felony, and surct 70
thereof shall be punished BY fine than huatred
nor more hundr dollars and shall also be ipn
soned in the jail penenary house Tor period not less
than ,wo nor more than years, which fine and inpri
sonnent shall be fixed and asceraised by jury
And it is further enacted
That oaly all these who shall Ir'ltngy and fts
eddy carry away slaves aforesaid but all masters OF ve
seis having slave slaves on board their vessel and
shall sail beyopd limits OF county with sEch slave 0.
slaves on board shall considered carrying on or re-
moving such slave slaves within the meaning OF tbs act
This monstrous law declares that act done IN
ignorance, without design or intent; iarol-
untary act shall be crime Sir, it is impossible.
II is not in the power of man to make that crime
which BY the laws of God and our nature is lnne-
cent. Without intent there can be no crime. An
Involuntary crime is contradiction in terms. OH
might as we'll indict the destructive elements The
provision of the Constitution, it goes deeper-it
attacks the foundation on which the Constitution
rests-,he foundations On which all law, on which
society itself is based. l. confounds guilt and in
necence I,prostrates the eternal rule of right and
wrong which God himself has established Sir, It
is no new doctrine that such laws are absolutely
void. The most emiaent authorities have so de-
carcd and their decisions have been approved In
y.ur highest courts. Shall your Executive be COM
peAed to surrender your citizens TO be punished un
der such law with four years imprisonment, for
an act if done at all, done without knowledge, in
tent or votion. God forbid
But, sir, on this question of the obligation to
surrender without discretion, hold in my hand a
very interesting document. 1t is the opinion of
the Attorney General of Virginia, given in 1871.
1t max be found, together with the whole case on
which it was given, in the 1st vol. American State
Papers entitled 4" Miscellanies." p. 39. Sir, this
is a rich document, and in view OF the arrogant
airs assumed by Virginia, and the violent course
she has pursued in this controversy, 1t will be read
with astonishment by the whole House. In 1888,
three men, named Francis Mcclure, Baldwin Far
sons and Absalom Welles, violently seized negro
man, said to be free, in Pennsy vania, and he'd
with him to Virginia. In 1871 an indictment was
found against these men in Pennsylvania for this
gross Violation OF NcT ldWS, on VI
The incorporated Society for the gradual Aboti-
iition of Slavery" This indictment, accompanied
with full and minute statement of the facts, was
sent by the Governor of Pennsylvania to the Gov
ernor of Virginia, together with a requisiton for
the surrender of the three fug,ives. Here is a
case, in which Virginia was defendant, wonder
fully parallel in every particular, to the case in
which she is now plaintiff; except that 1t was more
aggravated than the present case, taking her own
view of it. The same provision existed In the
ConstitrIon-ihe same obligation rested on the
States then as now. Let Virginia as defendant
decide for Virginia as plaintiff What did she do I?
Did she surrender the fugtives? No, sir; she re-
fused to obey the requisition. The Governor sent
the papers to the Attorney General, who gave it as
his opinion that the Governor was not bound to
comply with the rcquisition. / will read por-
ton of his opinion f" charge in the sense used
in the Constitution, must be such an accusation as
of itself furnishes Sufficient evidence OF guilt to
put the accused upon his trial. or toustiy his I'M
mediate punishment. 1t cannot be an accusation
founded on a mere suspicion; il must be founded
on some judicial act In this respect the demand
sent on by the Governor of Pennsylvania may be
proper, if the crime stated in the bills of ndct-
ment are sufficient to fall within the provision of
the General Government. 1t is not either treason
or felony (or the indictments state tae taking away
of the negro to have been done oiolently and not
feloniously,) and other crimes must be confined
TO such as the State making the demand possesses
an exclusive jurisdiction over. For if either the
Federal Court or the Courts of the State into
which the offenders may take refuge, are author
ICED to punish the offenders, there Is no danger OF
an escape from justice, and no reason for a de-
mand The delivery and removal are only TO be
made for the sake CT proper jurisdiction; and
therefore neither can be required from ]urisdic-
ton that is proper There must be defect in the
jurisdiction of The State in which the demand Is
made, and an exclusive jurisdiction in the State
making the demand
The case stated in the Indictment transmitted by
Gov. Miitlin, would amount to but trespass by
our laws, as between the partes-as between The
offenders and the commonwealth, but to breach
of the peace. In the first instance the remedy
follows the persons of the offenders into our State,
and there is no defect Of jurisdiction here. In the
latter case the offenders may appear by attorney
TO the Indictment If they should be acquitted
there can be no occasion for the demand. If found
guilty, and their personal presence should be found
necessary for their punishment, it will be then
time enough to make demand of them. pre-
sumo in these respects the laws Of Pennsylvania
are assimilated to our own. If they are, then the
offences stated do not appear to me come within
the description of crimes coRtaised in the above
cited section of the Constitution"
II this was sufficient reason for refusal to
surrender in that case, it is equally valid in this.
The Attorney General proceeds to give ether
reas ons-one is that the accompanying proofs
that the fusi,ives were within the State OF Viz
GINA was not satisfactory. But the proof on that
point was as definite in that case as in this. An
other reason given was that there was no law OF
the State or of the United States pointing out the
manner in which the surrender should be made.
The United States law of 1898 was subsequently