Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-11-19
SLAVE CASE IN new YORK, AGAIN.

SLAVE CASE IN new YORK, AGAIN
We Yesterday published length the opinion OF Juigc
Payne in this dschagins these negroes and de-
carne that they longer property OF Their ontr
master and accompanied it with brelcnarks The
character of The Case and the practical operation OF the ptn
cple attempted to be established by this decision We
propose hastily, TO examine OF the points presented
IN his opinion and the arguments Judge Payne in support
thereof
The case was this: Mr. and Mrs. Lennon intended 10
change their residence from Virginia Texas aud take
with them their eight slaves Instead of long and expen
sve route by land they determined TO 20 by wate and TO
avail themselves Of the commerce OF New York. they took
that port in their route intending to directly on to Texas
II is alleged that in entering The po Of New ok The slaves
were brought within the jurisdiction ui the State Of New
York and that that State does not recognize slavery
those slaves became pso cto free and That their owners
longer entitled 10 their custody or control These
facts aud that the slaves the property of Mr. and Mrs
Lennon when in Virginia, were agreed 10 BY all PARTIES
Judge Payne has decided that by their touching stopping
al the port of New York ransitu from Virginia Texas
these negroes became entitled to their Freedom and their
owners lost all right of property in them.
As we said In our article OF yesterday have doubt
that this decision is unconstitutional as is contrary
TO reason and every of honor and justice that should
ever characterize the relations between private individuals
or States or OF aad the citizens Of other States
This case came up by writ OF habsas corpus requiring
the owners OF these eight slaves bring The same before
| the Judge with the cause Of their detention, &c.
| Judge Payne says:
The respondent, has returned 10 this writ that said eight
coored persons are the property of his wife Juliet LENNON
their for several years past she being
resident OF Virginia. sayehoding State and that by inc
Constitution and laws Of that State they have been and sun
are bound To her service slaves that she with her
said slaves property transu from Virginia to Texas
savetoldng State and by The Constitution ana JAWS
of which she would be entitled said slaves and 10 their
services she had any intention OF bringing and
did not bring them into this State TO remain or RESIDE but
was passing through the harbor OF New York on her way
from VIRGINIA 10 Texas when she compelled by necess
" land without Intending toemain ongef ta
necessary And she insists that said persons arc not
Free but slaves Aforesaid and mat shc - cned 10
their possession and custody"
Mark well the allegations contained in this answer OF Mr.
Lennon and especially that the owner paS COMPELLED by
NECESSITY TO touch land uithot intending to remain
longer than necessary"
To this answer Judge says 1.-THE reator has put 10
general demurrer"
This demurrer as Judge Payne and all lawyers well know
according all the rules OF pleading, admitted the truth Of
all the facts alleged in claimants Zone OF which
is that the "owner compelled by necessity TO touch"
60 and denied only that these sufficient under the
nu TO en,i,ls hin 10 Judgment Thus the issue was made
up Let US see how the court disposed "i it.
The counsel for The claimants in support OF their clan
cited three different The first und second OF these
are stated by The Judge himself, as follows:
The first Of the kind which occurred was that OF Sc
oaUs SiapeS which decided in Indiana. In S29, by
Judge Morris and will be found reported in Am. Jurs,
4U4 The 10 the abeas corpus stated that Sewal 10
sized Virginia. and owned and held The slave under the
laws of that State; that lie emigraling with them to
Missouri and his way passing through Indiana
when he served with the habeus corpus.
It, however, appeared the hearing that Sewai was not
going Missouri reside, but 10 Illinois, State ~huse
fsIay M
charged the slaves This Case therefore, Is not IN poin
and would be entirely irrelevant the present. were II not
called By for portion of the Judges opinion which was not
called o' the before h but applies directly 10 he
case now before me.
"By tie law he gays "oe nature and OF nations, (vac
100 upd the necessary and legal consequences resulting
from the civil and political relations eabsiSling between the
citizens well the States OF this Fedrravc Republic,
have no doubt but the citizen Of Slave State right
10 pass upon business PLEASURE through any OF the
States attended his slaves or servants and While ne retains
the and rights OF citizen o Slave State his
right 10 retain his slaves would be unquestoned An escape
from the attendance upon the person OF his master while on
a Journey through Free State, should be considered
escape the State where the master had night OF cltl-
zenshp the laws Of which the service OF the slave
was due The emgran from STATE 10 an0ihc. might be
considered prospertiyely The citizen resident OF The
State to itch he renewing; and should b" protected in
the enjoy rights he acquired IN the State from
which he fmratcd and which recognized and protected
oy ians nf u" S!lic = "ich he is going But ms
right conceive cannot be derived rom any provision vi
positive law.
The ncx, relied upon Is tatard re- The People q
Illinois ia ls42 II was indictment for secreiiag W."
Of color owing service resident OF louisiana The
indicmcn, under the ll0h section of the Criminal
Code which provides that I'll any person shall arbor or
crec any negro muao person OF cnoI the same being
slave O.ng service or labor TO any other per-
sons wicrh, they reside in this State any other STATE
or Territory. District whin the limits and under the Ju
risdctinn OF the Cntcu States snail IN any wise hinder
prevent tc lawful owner or owners ct such slaves or ser
from retGking Them in Lawful manner every such
person offending shall he deemed guilty OF INSIDE
rneano and fined exceeding five hundred dollars OF I'M
prsonrd exceeding six months"
1t appeared that the woman at color was save, owned
py resident Of Louisiana, and that while passing with her
mistress kentucky Louisiana through the State OF
Illinois, she made her escape IN the tater State ana was &C.
GREETED by the defendant.
There we're several questions raised in The which it
unnecessary now 10 notice The Indictment. which
demurrrcd 10, sustained b. the Court Tie main OBJ.
lection that the section of the code under which
found violation OF the sixth article OF The Con
Of The State of Illinois which declares that Nclther
slavery involuntary Srvtiuie snail hereafter be miro
duced into this State, otherwise than IN the punishment Of
crimes whereof the party shall have been duly con"icet
The Cuur; in answering this objection say The only
question: therefore, is the right OF transit with slave; ioi
slave upon entering territory although Tor mere
tran another STATE becomes free under the Cons'itu
tiun then defendant in is guilty of concralEg
such person as Is described in the law and in the ndct
nen he i9h section OF lie criminal code for viola
ton Of which The plaintiff is indicted does most distinctly
recognize existence Of The institution OF Slavery In some
Of United States and Whistler the Constitution and
Laws Of this State have or have not provided adequate
remedies enforce within its jurisdiction that obligation OF
servicr provided 10y this penal anctcn that shall
harbur conceal slave within this State who owes such
Of il. Every State Government may may
not, IL chooses recognize and enforce tins law :" comfy
And this this State has expressly done 80 ii we
should therefore, regard Ourselves distinct and separate
from States STILL by the law o nations
(Fallel, Il 9 ch TO- 1872 1885, 1884, the citizens Ul ore
Government right OF passage through The territory OF
another peaccahly for business pleasure and that too
without tho ucrs acquiring any right lie person or
property, tVaucl b 2s. l07 1922 could deny them
this international right without violation ol oar duty
Mach less could disregard their constitutional i2hi
citizens OF one of the States 10 all The rights mmunes
and privileges of citizens .. the several States Ii would he
startling indeed should deny neighbours and kindred
that right OF Tree and sale plssage which foreign
lions wnud h,dY dare deny The recognition .! this rlght
violation Constitution 1t s an Introduction
Of slavery ihis State cnn,rEded In Argument
and The slave does become free by The Constitution OF
Illinois By coming into the Stale for thu purpose Of
passage through it,
These decisions. whether founded upon positive law
not breathe the spirit of the Constitution of the United
States, which was adopted compromise between con-
hicng parties and they address themselves the
Of every honest who is unnfucnccl by fnalcie