Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-02-08
NEW-YORK AND YIRGINIA.
NV YoRK Assembly,
January 81. 1913.

January 81, lsI3. \
Mr.. W. HALL called up the following resuloton:
Resoired That the Attorney General be directed the
eIpane OF the State, institute and conduct the name
and the complaint Oi any citizen Of this State, who has
been aggeved by the operation OF the inspection law Of
Virginia. suits actions prosecutions for the
purpose OF testing the ona VI said law vi Virgin
ia.
Mr.. W. HAIL hoped the House would excuse him for
pressing IT, but il required immediate action While thew
were occupied in discussing they told that their ie
low citizens suffering under obnoxious TO the
constitution and insulting the honor OF the State. II
question IN which ans party feeling was involved and
therefore he asked the aid OF every member of House
in support of his resolution This obnoxious law was pas
sed by the Legislature OF Virginia reiaatr ~ act the
Governor OF this State having refused deliver up three
persons claimed by the executive Of Virginia steal.
slave The slave had been already surrendered up to
his master and owner. The claimed brought up
before the Recorder OF " " and discharged on the
ground that they had violated law OF this State or the
State Of Virginia. The executive refused deliver them
up, the ground that they had committed crime within
the meaning Of the law which the requson was based
Mr. H. then read the affidavit land only evidence accom-
Panying the requiston) OF named King charging
the claimed ugitves from justice. The constiiu.
ton required that the proof should FIRST that the crime
committed within the State making the demand =
secondly, that the accused fed from the justice Of the
State and thirdly that the accused the State on
which the requisitiOn made The proof ne claimed
was defective IN three respects 1t did prove that any
crime had been committed the State Of Nirgina-it did
not prove that they fugves from the Justice Of that
State and II did prove that the parties claimed
iOunc IN the State which the requsion was made
There evidence but what the offence might have
been committed the State OF Maryland. The affidavit
SAYS he stole and took from me- From whence From
tins man King, IN Virginia, in Maryland, or where
The constitution requires that the proof must be that the
crime has been committed within the State making the re-
QUESTION. There nothing Of this kind in the affidavit
nor was there evidence enough which any Justice in
tins State would have based charge Of larceny.
Mr. H. then read the letter Recorder Morris to Cover
Seward, who had discharged the persons clamcd "a
ugitivcs, who had been brought before him on writ Of a
bcas the ground that there evidence auhorsng
him to give them to the justice OF Virginia. and he doubt
ed not there evidence which they could have been
punished IN Virginia The facts asceTtned by Recorder
Morris were communicated the Executive Of Virginia
and by him admitted be true and If true there wa, no
evidence to have authorised the Governor Of that to
make the requesiton,
Mr.. II. then proceeded put before the house several
in which crimes might be- committed against the state
Of Virginia by resident in this State and 10 birb
ne conicnded obedience would he paid by the Executive
Of this State lie said offences might b. committed agninst
os facfo void laws and were they 10 pay obedience
10 heso The law here complained Of being violated
was void Il might be constitutional, but it was void for
II goes against the very foundation Of society.
Mr. H.. said he would refer 70 a case which occur
red in 1871, IN which Virginia then stood on the ground
now occupied by New.York, and Pennsylvania occupied
the position held by Virginia Three men from Virginia
had kidnapped slave and carried hin away Virginia
Gov Milin demanded the Of the Executive Of Viz
gnn aud he acting under the advice Of the Attorney Cen
eTa Of the State refused comply with the demand on the
ground that nothing more than uespass had been
committed and the Of the slave could sue his cnptor
fordamage in the State Of vfgnia-the jurisdiction follow
ing the person. In Virginia that dqu IL was not crime
within the meaning II the Constitution 10 abducta slave u
merely trespsss for which the parties were resp3us
bic IN damages. Buat hs day, % n crime and must be
punished NJ such BY the surrender Of the criminals 10 the
justice Of the State IN this there was raised similar
objection o. the sucency Of the evidence on the ground
hot the proofs alleged n support Of the re1uston did not
set forth thst the crime committed within the jusdc
| ton Of the State making the requsiton
When Governor W. received the refusal Of the Erecu.
tive of Va instead n procuring cttatory act 10 be push
ed through the legislature Of Pa he the papers 10
the Precedent u the 4. St1es who laid them before I'd.
mund Randolph, tho attorney general o the L. Sstes him.
sell Nrgiuian. His in favor Of the course
then taken by Vrgnia, and be added that the Executive
o. STATE was responsible Tor the just Of hs dscroton
that he ought yield the rcquision without suH.
oicn evidence and he yielded he did HE peril II
there was reasonable doubt IN the natter h. ought not 10
yield Now, he Mr. H. would ask was there not reason.
abie doubt IN this which shall Justify your Executive In
withholding compliance with this requston That was
a he asked in support Of the purucd by the late
Executive. u tnore but doubt IL sufficient
And hore was doubt ought not 70 have been looked
upon by Virginia mator o offence. Instead Of taking
reantoy scp that state should have said let the supreme
judiciary settle this question. With doubt s thrown in
favor Of liberty and not n favor Of slavery. Who can doubt
but that the proper Tor Virginia would have been IA
have gone 20 the Judiciary q the IT, States and n they
sad the course Of this State was legal all parties would
! ccde.
The question for this House 10 determine was what wa.
70 be done. Shall deliver % these three f
gdves for Il must be remembered they not called on
60 give up abstract principle but 10 give mp three Of their
citizens. How shs your Executive stOop do this act
] There words in the English language used q
write his ths insulting demand but what would
turn red with shame Shall repeal lie law granting the
trial by Jury 70 fugitive savesl VIII not rather those who
have seady moved in the pause, reflection they
would probaby alter IN their II the law be
suuOna why there j. end % 10; but shall they repeal il
because Virginia u Id fhavd