New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-02-09
Reported for The Albany Evening Journal.


Al, w Hall called for the Consideration OF
Resolution submitted by him previous day,
which was read, as follows:
Re,e;pd That Attorney General be directed al me
ND an the complaint of any citizen oil This state VINO has
been aggreyed by the operation OF The lpons Tor The
Virginia sui!s, actions or ;1 Ia Of Viz.
shs.'e 's.A - zoo &c such .
Mr. w. HALL said the resolution was Oh suon
character. as of itself to excuse MN 'o' Pressing
i, az he now did. Unlike other matters "'iion "
,unied our attention this was one OF inHedlale
r,,ar,i.,l .nrl;cat;on--for it was not unknown to
neroher. tina. a: this moment citizens OF this state
,ysr. .pg.r;ng under exactions which were hostile
m tho Constitution hostile the amicabie spirit
sf the Union under which the States were united.
yr;eyous to individuals who had TO bear them, ana
jn.ul,ing to the honor of the State. Oh this oc,
ess,on. with more than ordinary feeling, ne craved
Inc indulgence of the House. He should endeav-
or in discussing it TO speak calmly and without pas
sion-con6ning himself mainly TO plaiR, simple
statemen, of facts. 1t was question winch Inter-
ested ell-not one in which party feeling was ne
cessarily involved. He asked for the few remarks
he should make the calm considerations OF every
member no matter what his political views de
asked their attention. not as partizan, but as a
son OF New York, having her honor nearest end
dearest to his heart.
Sir, said Mr.. Hall, this obnoxious law was pass
ed avowedly as an act of retaliation for the refusal
of the Executive of this State to surrender three
persons alleged TO be fugitives from the justice OF
Virginia. Protesting, as | do. that whether this
refusal was just unjust it furnished no Justhca
lion-no excuse for this law OF Virginia. pro
coed not with metaphysical argument, but "lth
plain statement of the facts, that each member may
decide for himself whether NewfoIk or her Exc
sutye has done aught to cali for this hostile act on
1lIe part Of Virginia In the summer of 1889
slave was discovered on board the Robert Center,
then lying in ,heSport of New-York he was re-
claimed, and without hindrance, though in defiance
of a law of this State taken by his owner to Vir-
GINA. Notwithstanding this the Governor of Vir-
gnis thought it necessary pursue the matter fur'
Their. He sent requisition demanding that the
three persons comprising the whole crew OF the
Robert Center should be surrendered to Virginia,
on charge of having stolen the slave who had
already been handed over to his master or owner.
Before the Executive had time act on the requisi-
lion, these three men who resided in New-fork,
having been thrown into prison, were brought be-
fore the Recorder habcas corpus-and on
full examination of all the facts-not only of those
capable of proof, but Of those which was rumored
might have been proved, the Recorder discharged
these men, on the ground that there was evi.
dence tina, they had violated any law either of New
York or Virginia. The Executive of this State
refused to surrender these men-on the broad
ground that they were guilty of no crime. He
added Also as reason of his refusal that though
it were proved that they had stolen suves, YET
he could not recognize that Us crime But
did not intend to discuss that question now,
as it does not necessarily arise out OF the case.
shall contine myself to the simple facts, which
will show that the demand OF g surrender IS a5-
surd. The only evidence on which the requisition
was based is to be found in the affidavit attached
10 it.
Norfolk borough to .pt:-Th day personally appeared
before me, King justice of the of the Borough
rough and made oath that on or 18th inst Peter
Johnson Edward Smith and Isaac Gansey TO
5ss ess9 snd
gro slave namsd Isaac, the property Of said Cooley
[I.Sl NJ. KING, Mayor and }. +.
This affidavit is on its face fatally defective. The
language of the Constitution is "a person charged
in any State with treason, felony otker crane,
who shall fee from justice and be found IN an
other State, shall on demand of the Executive au-
Ihority of The State from which he fled be delivered
up, be removed tn The State having jurisdiction
of the crime" By the terms of this provision three
things are necessary to authorize demand or re-
.quire surrender:
/. That crime should have been committed in |
the State making the demand.
.. That the criminal should have fled from the
justice Of that State.
3. That he should have been found in the State
on which the demand is made.
As these three things are essential to establish
1he obligation Of surrender, the Governor, whom
the demand is made has right to be satisfied OF
aiieir existence. The affidavit which accompanied
1his requisiton Of Virginia gives no such Aforma-
lion.
|. 1t does not show that any crime had been
committed.
9 1t does not show that any crime had been
committed IN Firgtnta.
3. 1t does NOT show that the persons demanded
were fngitves from Justice.
No, word is said in the affidavit as to these
persons having fled from )ustice-not word is
nuid from which it can be inferred where the Of
fence was committed, whether in Virginia, or Ma
ryland, or in any other State. AS te the evidence
furnished that crime had been committed, the
affidavit states that "they stole and took away his
slave" But this amounts to nothing, for theft is
conclusion of law, TO which it is not competent
Tor q witness to swear. The witness swears TO
facts, and 1t is the business of the court or masis-
trate to draw conclusions whether such facts con-
stitute the crime OF theft or not. This is so plain
and well known "a principle of law that probably
there is not justice OF the peace in the State who
would bind over man accused of petty larceny on
such evidence. The law of the United States
passed 1898, regulating the manner of demanding
and of surrendcring ugi,ives from Justice declares
that the crime may be charged by indictment or by
affidavit before magistrate. The first charges u
conclusion Of law, but il is by grand jury acting
under advice and the solenlnity of their oaths and
drawn from tbs testimony of witnesses examined
before them under oath; but it was never intended
iogiSs to the opinion o. al unknown and irrespon-