Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-11-20
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
JUDGMENT IN THE NEW YORK SLAVE CASE.

from Virginia to Texas, of which we stated the par
tculars on Friday last. The opinion Of the Judge
lberates the slaves, and as the case is new and
important one, we copy the Opinion at length, as
follows:
This before upon writ Of habeas corpus,
issued the respondent requiring him to have the bodies
Of eight colored persons lately taken from the steamer
City of Richmond, and confined in house in this
city before me- together with the of their mprson
ment and detention.
The respondent has returned to this writ that said
eight coored persons the property of his wife, Juliet
Lennon who has been their for several past
she being resident of Virginia slayehoding State and
by the constitution and laws Of that State they have been
and still bound to her service slaves that she now
with her said slaves property aasitu from Virginia
to Texas another slavehodng State and by the constu
ton and laws of which she would be entitled TO said
slaves and 70 their service that she had any in
tenton OF bringing and did not bring them into this
State to remain reside but was passing through the
harbor of New York, her way from Virginia to Texas,
when she compelled by necessity to touch land,
without intending remain longer than necessary
And she insists that said persons not Free but
slaves aforesaid, and that she is entitled their pos
session and custody.
To this return the relator has put in general de-
murrer
to me- that there could be dispute about the facts
there would be delay difficulty in dsposing of it.
But upon the argument the counsel for the respondent
cited several which satisfied that this could
not be decided until those had been carefully examined
The principle which those tend less for
chilly sustain is that if the OF the avesis merely
passing from home with them, through free State into
another slave State without intention OF remaining
the slaves while in such free State will not be allowed
their freedom As that is precisely the state Of
constituting this CASE it becomes necessary in
qure whether the doctrine of those cases be main
tanned upon general principles, and whether the law Of
this State does not differ from the laws Of those States
where the decisions were made.
shall FIRST consider whether those cases can be sus-
tanned upon general principles.
The first Of the kind which occurred was that of
Sewals slaves which decided in Indiana, in 1929,
Judge Norris and will be found reportedn American
Jurs 404 The return the habeas corpus stated that
Sewa resided in Virginia. and owned and held the slaves
under the laws Of that State that he emgatng with
them to Missouri and his way passing through
Indiana when he was served with the habeas corpus.
It. however appeared the hearing that Sewall was
going to Missouri TO reside, but Illinois, State
whose laws do not allow of slavery The Judge for this
discharged the slaves This therefore,
in point and would be entirely irrelevant to the present.
were it for portion of the Judges opinion which
called for by the before him. but applies d
rectly to the now before me:
By the law he says of nature and of nations Vae
1907 and the and legal consequences resulting
the civil political relations subsstng between the citizens
well the States of this Federativc Republic,
doubt but the citizen of slave State has right pass upon
business pleasure through any Of the States attended by
his slaves servants and while he character and
rights citizen OF slave State his right retain his
would be unqueoned An escape from the upon
the Of his MASTER while journey through free
State should be considered escape the State where
the had right ocitzenshp and by the which
the service Of the slave due The emgrant from State
10 another might be considered pospecyey
resident Of the which he remoyng should be
protected the enjoyment Of those rights he acquired the
State from which he ated and which are recognised and
protected by laws the State which he is going But
this right conceive cannot be derived from any provision of
positive law"
a Scammons Rep. 46l, and which decided in the
State Of Illinois IN 1913. II Indictment for Sc
GREETING woman Of color owing service to resident Of
Louisiana The Indictment under the li9th section
Of the Criminal Code which provides that
If any person shall harbor or secree any negro mulao
person Of color the being slave owing
service labor any other persons whether they reside
this State any other State, Territory District within
the limits and under the jurisdiction Of the United States
shall in anywse hinder prevent the lawful
er Of such slaves servants from taking them in lawful
manner every such person offending shall be deemed gull
~ Of misdemeanor and fined not exceeding five hundred
dollars, Or imprisoned not exceeding six months"
II appeared that the woman Of color slave,
cd by resident OF Louisiana and that while passing
with her mistress from Kentucky Louisiana through the
State Of Illinois, she made her escape in the latter State
and was secreted by the defendant.
There several questions raised in the case which
is unnecessary TO notice. The Indictment which
demurred TO, sustained by the Court. The main
objection to it that the section Of the code under
which it found violation Of the sixth article Of
that neither slavery involuntary serytude shall
hereafter be introduced into this State otherwise than
the punishment Of crimes whereof the party shall
been duly convicted"
The Court, in answering this objection, say:
The only question therefore, the right transit with
slave for If the slave, upon entering territory although
for transit another STATE becomes free under the
Contribution defendant error guilty
eang such person described in the Law and in the
dctent The 149 section Of the criminal CODE for viola
ton Of which the plaintiff indicted does most distinctly
~
United states whether the and
this State have have provided adequate remedies
enforce within ts jurisdiction that Of service II has
provided by this penal sanction that shall hsrbor
cea within this who service Of it.
recognise and enforce this Law of comfy And this
this State has expressly done so.
We should, therefore, regard ourselves distinct and
separate nation from States, STILL by the Law Of
nations tvattel b. th TO- 1885, 134) the citizens
Government have right Of passage through the territory
another peaceaby for business pleasure with
out the acquiring the person opopcry
Natte b. 2s 1875 1881 could deny them this nierna
tona right without violation duty Much could
disregard their constitutional right citizens Of one Of the
States 70 all the nights mmunies, and privileges Of citizens
Of the several States. IL would be startling indeed II we
should deny neshbo and kindred that common right or
free and safe passage which foreign nations would hardly dare
deny The recognition Of this gh no violation Of our
consultation. II il not introduction Of slavery into this
State contended in Argument slave does not
become free by the constitution q Illinois by coming into the
State for the mere purpose Of passage through it,"
Another cited by the respondents counsel was the
Commonwealth against dres, (l8 Pickering's Rep 1893
In this case the brought her slave with her from
New Orleans to Boston, a visit to her father with
whom she intended to spend five six months and ther
return with the slave 10 New Orleans The slave ben,
brought up habeas corpus the court ordered her dis
charge The case was fully argued, and Chief justice
Shaw closes very elaborate opinion with these words