Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-11-16

tCiSiOE Or .UDGE I

pea hs If inhl co!orcd persons lately taken from The
steamer City CT Richmond, aud now confined in house in
this City, before me- together win l' cause Vi e PfiS
onmcnt and detention.
The respondent has returned this writ mat SAID eight
coloed persons the property OF his WIFE, 'uet
40 h, been their owner several past she being
esient of Virginia. savchoding State aud that oy inc
Constitution and laws of that Suite they have neen ann sun
are bound 10 her service as slaves mat sme Is now WV" M
sajd slaves or property in trdnSu from Virginia 10 texas
another slavehodng State and by the Constitution ana
NJ which she would be entitled To said slaves and 10 e
service; that had any intention OF bringing aha
dd mol bring them into this State 10 remain or reside ou
was passing through The haboT OF New foIs on he' wa!
from Virginia Texas when she was compeilea ~ hects
~ 10 touch land without intending TO remain longer 'a
vas necessary And she insists that said persons are ho
,e but are slaves aforesaid and that she IS entitled 10
their possession and custody.
70 This return the relaor has put in general GtmhfieF
certainly supposed when this case was first presented
10 me- that there could be no dispute about me iacs
there would be delay difficulty in dsposins OF H. But
upon The argument the counsel for the respondent cited &C.
veral cases which satisfied me that this could not De
DECIDED until those had been carefully examined
The prrc2Ic which those tend more Or less lo!cby
IN sus,au is ha if an of slaves is merely passing
from home with them, through Tree State, into another
slave State without any Intention OF Remaining 's slSes
while in such free State will not be allowed 10 assert lt
eron As that is precisely the state Of Facts constituting
this case becomes necessary inquire whether The Coo
ne of those cases be maintained upon general pnc
pies and whether the law Of this State does not diier from
The laws those States where the decisions were made.
sn first consider whether those Cases can be sustained
upon general principles.
TIRE first cnse Of The kind which occurred that OF Sc
1coRs slares which decided in indiana in lS29 BY
Judge Morris aud will be found reported IN Am Just
sO4 This The a5cas corpus stated that Sc"c ro
sided in Virginia and owned and held the slave under tae
laws of thai Stale; that lie was emgrang win Them 20
Missouri and on hls way was passing through INDIANA
when lie was served with The habeas corpus.
IT, however appeared the hearing tina! Sewal was not
going TO Missouri reside, but 10 Illinois, State whose
laws do not allow slavery hc Judge for this reason dis
charged the slaves This case therefore, is in point,
and would entirely Irrelevant 10 the present. were 1t not
for portion Of the Judges opinion which was no" called
fba haflrp bu
now before me.
"By tho law i" he says and of nations (vattd
1907 and tho necessary and legal consequences resulting
the civil and political relations subsslns between the
citizens well the States of this Fedcravc Republic
huvc doubt but the citizen OF Slave State has r9hi
pass, upon business pleasure through any oil inc
States attended by his slaves servants; while he retains
the character and rights OF citizen OF Slave State, his
right to retain his slaves would be unquesoned in escape
from the attendance upon the pei his while on
journey through Free Stale should br considered as an
escape from the where the had right of CHI
zcnship and by the laws Of which the service OF The slave
due The eigrant from STATE 10 another might BE-
considecd pTuspectvey the citizen or resident OF ne
Stale which he cmoying and should bc protected III
the enjoy OF those rights he acquired in the state rom
which he emgracd and which recognized and protected
by the laws of the State which he IL going But this
right conceive cannot be derived iru any PROVISION o.
positive law"
The mex, case relied upon is Willard The People, q
ScnmmOns Rep. 4Gl and which was decided in the Stale
OF Illinois in Si3 Ii indictment for recrcting "u
If color service 10 resident Of louisiana The
Indictment under the l49th section Of he Criminal
Code which provides I'll snail latpor or
any negro, mulao Of colu tho same being
slave owing service labor TO any otcr per
whether they reside in this State in other Sutc,
Territory, District within the limits and under the I'
rsdiction Of tho United States or snail IN any wise hinder
prevent the lawful Ut such slaves
wants retakng them in Law ul manner every snCh
person 50 offending STALL be deemed guilty Of INSIDE
meano and ned exceeding five hundred dolars or i'm
prisoncd not exceeding six months"
appeared that the Of color slave, owned
by resident OF Louisiana and that, while passing with her
mistress from Kentucky to Louisiana through the State OF
Illinois, she made her escape the latter State ard was Sc
GREETED by the defendant
There several questions raised in The which IL
unnecessary notice. The Indictment, which was
demurfred TO- sustained by the Court The main OBJ
lection il that the section u the code under which il
was found violation OF The sixth article G The Con-
stuiion OF the Of Illinois, which declares that "Neither
cry involuntary scrviudr shall hereafter be intro
duced into this State Gtcrw wise than in the punishment Of
crimes whereof The party shall have been duly cons cIed"
The Court in answering this objection Say: "lhc nrIy
question: therefore s tie right o transit with slave lr II
the slave upon entering territory although for mere
tran another State, becomes free under tho Consu
on then the defendant in error MOI guilty q" conccaIng
person described in the aw nd in Ii" ndct-
ment The l49h section Of the criminal code, Tor viola
tiun of which plaintiff il indicted does most distinctly
recognize existence The Institution Of Slavery In some
of these United States and whether til" Constitution anu
Luws of this State hive or have not pioyltri adequate
remedies enforce within lis jurisdiction that obligation ci
service, has provided by this penal sanction that none tsa
harbur conceal slave within ibis State who owes such
service Of IT, Every State Government may or may
not it chooses, recognize and enforce This law OF comfy
And this extent this State has expressly done So W.
should therefore, regard ourselves as distinct aud separate
nation from scr States STILL as BY the law OF nations
Yattel b. . CHI TO- 1872 1873, l34) the citizens Of one
Government have right Of passage through the territory o!
another praceab Tor business or pleasure and tnt 10"
without The attr acquiring right over HE person or
property Vatic B. , g l07 1907 could not teEy them
this international right without violation OF our duty
NJ UGH lcss could disregard their constitutional right a.
citizens Of one M the States, 10 all The rights, nmuniea
and privileges citizens of the several SRtes II w"G! be
startling indeed if should deny our negheors and kindred
that right OF free and safe passage which foreign m
would hardly dare deny The recognition OF TINS rght Is
violation OF Constitution Its not an introduction
of slavery this State commended IN argument
and the slave does become free by tho Constitution Of
Illinois by coming into the State for the mere purpose 81
passage through ill.,
Commonwealth Ares rs Pickering's Rep 1881 In this
case the brought her slave will; her from New Or
leans Boston, a visit IL her father with whom she IN
tended 10 spend five or six months M! then return win e
slave New Orleans The slave being brought up on hh
beas corpus The Court ordered her discharge The case was
fully argued, an Chief Justice Shaw closes very cano
rate opinion with these worcs "Nor do give any rpln
ion upon the case where m slave 10 enc Slateis
bona fde removing another State where slavery s allow
ed and in doing necessarily pnsses through Tree State
where By accident necessity he s compelled 10 iouc
or land therein remaining no longer than necessary
have quoted largely from the opinions in these CAGES, IN
order that il may be understood clearly what is presented Nv
them as their governing principle The Respondents coun
sci insists il is ths hat by the LAY u nations an owner
Of slave may either from necessity or IL absence OF al IN
tention remain pnss with such slave thIn@h STATE
where slavery il tgaIzed on his way from one slave
State another anI that during such transit through NE
Free State, the slave cannot assert his freedom
admit that this il the principle of these cases and
now propose consider il. Each denies that The
right oi Transit can be- derived from the provision of 'hc
Constitution United States respecting fugitive slaves
and opinion expressed placed the right upon
the law of nations.
Writers Of the highest authority the law Of nations
agree that have right 10 with their properly
through the territories If II nation Naue CHI 9, % l23
TO lS6 Pueniorf b. g. eli 3, S. to l0) And ths right
which exists by between States wholly foreign 10
each other undoubtedly exists, at least natua! right
between the States which compose our Union.
But took further Than this. and 10 sea what inc
law Of nations Is when the property which stranger wishes
to take with him is slave
The property which the writer's the lw OF nations speak
of merchandise in1nmaie things. Aud by the law OF
these belong their But those writers no.
where speak Of right pass through tore ign country WIN
slaves property On The contrary they oil agree that BY
the law of al have property in slaves
And they also hold that where Slavery ID established
by local iaw have that full and absolute
property in person which he may have in En naniinae
thing (PupIdof b ~ II scarcely, there
fore nc said that when writer's he law If nations main
tain that strangers hava night 10 pass through country
with their merchandise property They thereby m1Iniun
/ their right PASS with tn ir slaves