Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1852-1852, 1852-11-19
From the Charleston Mercury.

The New York Journal of Commerce OF Satur-
day afternoon contains the decision OF Jnage
Payne, of the Superior Cour. o New YORK noe
rating eirht slaves from the custody OF their OWL
er. who had taken them to that city for the pur-
pose of transporting them to Texas. This Is a
decision of momentous import to the South, and
marks in an emphatic manner, the onward pro-
oress of the Ant;-slarery feeling at the North.
As showing ,me of the issues invoked, we quote
the following article from the Journal Of Com
merce, which was published before the Judge had
rendered his decision:
Tl.e Slave Case.
A case in which new principle is involved is
up for decision before Judge Payne Of this city,
Judge of the Superior Court. 1t is not the
ordinary case of slave brought here by his
master with intention to remain, in which Ii has
been decided that the slave 60 Instant becomes
free, but Il case in which slaves on their way
from one State to another arc taken by their
master through free State rs 4 matter OF re-
cessity We say necessity, not in its absolute
sense but in the sense in which it is used by the
Constitution in the connection in which it is there
used. The Supreme Court have held that it
means convenient necessity. The slaves were
on their way to Texas, and in order to avail
themselves Of the commerce of this port. they
were brought here, instead Of being taken to
Texas by circuitous and expensive land route.
1t is the precise case supposed by Chief Justice
Shaw, of Massachusetts,, but as to which he said
he pronounced 10 opinion, in an ordinary caSe
in which the slave was brought to Massachusetts
separating the case decided, clearly shows that
he thought there was difference between them,
perhaps wide difference, growing out of those
relative rights and duties that appeTtain to the
comfy Of nations-rights and duties that should
be more carefully considered between States oc
cupying as ours do, the near and delicate rela-
ton that flows from our Constitution, than be-
tween States wholly separate and independent.
This new case, in which the slaves were seized
in their necessary transit through free State
to another, is the important one now to be de-
cided.. Our Government has claimed indemnity
from Great Britain for slaves which on their pas
sage over the ocean between the United States
and the Bahama Islands were BY stress Of wealth
er driven into British ports, and there set free
through the interference of the local authorities.
The claim has in some cases been admitted and
paid, and in others rejected, or at least not paid.
Mr.. Webster as Secretary of State, i'll presenting
the claim to Lord Ashburton, makes the follow
ing statement: "In the Southern States of this
Union, slavery exists by the laws Of the States,
and under the guaranty of the Constitution
long antecedent to the time when they ceased
to be British Colonies. In this state Of things,
it will happen that slaves will be often on board
, coasting vessels as hands, as servants attending
the families of their owners, or for the purpose of
being carried from port to port. x
"The maritime law is full of instances of the ap-
plication of that great and practical rlle, that
which is the clear result Of necessity, ought to
draw after it no penalty and no hazard" On
these and other like grounds indemnity was
claimed. Now, let us suppose that the slaves,
instead of being driven into a British port through
necessity were driven into this port. Would the
relation between master and owner be changed!
This is a question that may arise growing out of
the ordinary casualties upon the sea; and GER
tainly if the slaves were in that case held to be-
come free by our own tribunal, it would stop us
from making the claim which Mr. Calhoun and
Mr. Webster each, as Secretary of State, made
on the Government of Great Britain. A high
comfy, looking to the close relations that exist
between the several States Of this Union, would
certainly protect the citizens of one State from
hazard or penalty under such circumstances, the
result ofsuperior force or necessity.
The case in question is one somewhat Of this
character. Illinois, free State, is projected
southwark between portions Of Missouri and Ken.
lucky, slave States. A narrow strip Of Virginia
extends northwardly beyond the back Of the
State, between Pennsylvania and Ohio. The or
dinary line of land travel between Missouri and
Kentucky is across Illinois. The ordinary travel
between the point of Virginia referred and Ken
lucky, is by way of the Ohio river in boats that
stop at ports in Ohio. The principle settled i'll
the case now pending before the superior Court,
will determine probably the case that may occur
in the travel between Missouri and Kentucky,
and N. Western Virginia and Kentucky by the
usual routes-routes that must be considered he
cessary, as that word is applied to ordinary irav-
el What principle, in view Of the cmbarrass-
ments and disturbances ikcly to result from
rule hostile to the interests Of many Of the States
of the Union ought the tribunals of the North
to lay down on this subject? This is question
Of great magnitude, and we do not propose on
the eve of decision by one of our courts, to cx-
press decided opinion upon tie subject. The
court doubtless understands that decision ad-
verse to the rights of Southern citizens will be
regarded as an unfriendly act, and as a ground
that treats them rather as strangers than as bro
thers, and that converts necessity (such it will
be regarded) into a matter of loss and punish