New-York daily tribune., 1843-02-02

was Acting Commissioner there-consumed the
whole day. The resolution of inquiry was cut to
pieces, but not finally acted on.
| In the HOUSE, after great number of Petitions
and Resolutions had been presented, Mr.. SAND
FORD gave notice OF bill to provide for the more
speedy collection of Debts in this City. MIR
HUsBsARD moved Joint Resolution in iavsr OF
the Rates of Postage. Then
NEw-YoRK AND VIRGINIA.
Mr. W. HALL called up ;he following resolution
Reso-ed That the Attorney General be directed at the
expense the State institute and conduct in the
an on The complaint OF any CITIZEN o! this State who has
aggrieved by the operation Of The inspection Law OF
Virginia SUITS actions or prosecutions for the
purpose OF testing constulionay OF said law Of fir-
ginia
Mr.. w. HALL hoped the House would excuse
him for pressing it, but it required immediate ac-
tion. While they were occupied in discussing it
they were told that ,heir felew-ci,izens suf-
fering under exactions obnoxious 10 the coustitu.
tion, and insulting TO the honor Of the State. 1t
was not question in which any party feeling was
involved and therefore he asked the aid of every
member of the House in support of his resolution.
This obnoxious law was passed by the Legislature
OF Virginia as retaliatory act; the Governor OF
this State having refused to deliver ep three per-
sons claimed by the Executive of Virginia for
stealing slave. The slave had been already sur
rendered up to his master and owner. The men
claimed were brought up before the Recorder of
Newly ork, and were discharged on the ground
that they had violated no law Of this State or the
State of VirgiRia. The Executive refused to de-
liver them up, on the ground that they had COM
.nitted no crime within the meaning of the law on
which the requisition was based.
Mr. H. then read the affidavit (and only evidence
accompanying the requistion) of man named
King. charging the men claimed fugitires from
Justice. Tho constitution required that the proof
should set out FIRST that the crime committed
within the State making the demand; secondly,
that the accused fled from the justice ofthe State
and thirdly, that tho accused were in the State on
which the requisition was made. The proof he
claimed was defective in three respects II did
not prove that any crime had been committed in
the STATE of Virginia-it did not prove that they
were fugtives from the justice of that State, ana it
did not prove that the parties claimed were found
in the State on which the requisiiion was made.
There was no evidence but what the offence might
nave been committed in the State of Maryland.
The affidavit says be stole and took from me.
rom whence? From this man King, in Virginia,
or in MARYLAND or where! The constitution re-
ouires that the proof must be that the crime has
been committed within the State making the re-
QUESTION There was nothing of thi, kind in the
affidavit nor was there evidence enough on which
anv Justice in this State would have based charge
OF larceny.
Mr.. Fl. then read the letter OF Recorder Morris
to Governor Seward, who had discharged the per-
sons claimed as fugitives, who had been brought
before him on writ of habeas, on the ground that
there no evidence authorizing him 10 give them
up to the justice of Virginia, and he doubted not
there was no evidence on which they could have
been punished in Virginia. The facts escertained
BY Recorder Morris were communicated to the Ex-
ecu,ive of Virginia and by him admitted to be true,
and if true there was no evidence to have author
lied the Governor OF that State to make the requi-
sition.
Mr. II. then proceeded to pu, before the house
several cases in which crimes might be committed
against the State OF Virginia by citizens resident in
this State and 10 which be eontended no obedience
would be paid by the Executive of this State. He
said offences might be committed against ez post
facto or void laws, and were they te pay obedience
| 10 these7 The law here complained of as being
it was void for it goes against the very foundation
| of society.
| Mr.. H. said he would now refer to a case which
occurred in 1871, in which Virginia then stood on
| the ground now occupied by Newly ork, aud Penn
syvania occupied the position held by Virginia.
Three men from Virginia had kidnapped slave
and carried him away re Virginia. Gov. MihliH
| demanded the men of the Executive of Virginia,
and he, acting under the advice of the Attorney
| General Of the State refused to comply with the
| demand, on the ground that nothing more than a
mere ,rcspass had been committed, and the owner
of the slave could sue his captors for damages in
the State of virginia-the jurisdiction following
the person. In Virginia. at that dag, it was not
crime within the meaning of the Constitution TO
abduct slave, il merely trespass for which
the parties were responsible in damages. But, at
| tiis dag, it is crime, and must be punished as
such by the surrender of the criminals 10 the jus
,ice of the State. In this case there raised q
similar objection to the suficiency of the eyi-
dence, on the ground that the proofs alledged IN
support of the requsition did uos ser forth that the
crime was committed within ,he jurisdiction Of the
State making the requisirion.
When Gov. NJ. received the refusal of the Exc
cutive of Virginia, instead of procuring retalia
| tory act to be pushed through the Legislature OF
Pennsyivania, he sent al the papers to the Presi-
! dent of the United States, who laid them before
Edmund Randolph, the Attorney General of the
United States, himself Yirgiuian. His answer
was il favor OF the then taken by Virginia,
and he added that the Executive OF State was
responsible for the just use OF his discretion; tha!
he ought no, to yield TO the requisition wiihou,
sufficient evidence and if he yielded he did so a;
his peril. If ther. was reasonable dosbt in the
| matter, he ought to yield. New he. Mr. H.,
would ask was there not reasonable doubt In this
case which shall justify your Executive IN with.
! holding compliance with this requisirion Tha:
was all he asked in support of the course pursued
by the late Executive. If there was but doubt,
It was sufficient And if thsre was doubt, II
ought so, to have been locked upon By Virginia q,
matter Of oFeaee. Instead Of taking resalisso.y