Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-11-27


such provision in the Constitution. This had
been so held IN cases almost without number,
and is held IN each of the three cases cited
ly the respondents counsel, and upon which
| have before commented
As for the provision OF the Constitution in
relation TO commerce among the States, 1t has
been often held, that notwithstanding this
provision, the Suites have the power inpll-
edly reserved to them of passing all such
laws as may be necessary for the preservation,
within the State, of health, order and the well
being of society, or laws which ure usually
called sanatve and police regulations
Passenger casos Howard 5. G. X. 253
License cases 5 III. SOL. Blnckbird Creek
Marsh Company Peters $50. New York
vs., Min II Peters l30. Brown VS.. State of
Maryland IL Wheat. 4l0. Groves VS.. Slnugh-
ter IL Peters 5lll Laws regulating or en-
tirely nboishing Slavery, or iOrbiddng the
bringing of slaves into State, belong to- this
class of laws, and right TO pass those laws
is not affected by the Constitution of the
United States This view of the subject is
tnken by the three cases upon which the
Counsel mainly relies. And even if all this
were not so, npprehend that the Conslitu-
ton having undertaken 10 regulate both ex-
tcrnal aud internal commerce IN slaves, by
certain distinct and specific provisions, wiz,
those in relation to the importation of slaves
from abroad, aud the return of fugitive slaves)
hus thereby taken the element of Slavery
out of these general provisions IN relation to
commerce, aud having lcgislated separately
upon the subject of Slavery to very limited
extent and there stopped, has thereby shown
its intention to dispose separately and com
plctely of that subject, so far as II was to he
disposed OF, nud has not left TO Congress any
power over it under the general provisions
relating to commerce. For under any other
view Of the subject the provisions IN relation
TO the importation of slaves aud to fugitive
slaves would he entirely superiluous. II the
Constitution had intended TO give Congress
power over Slavery 10y the general provision
in relation TO commerce, that provision is of
itself quite sufficient by It's letter or terms, To
enable Congress to do all that they are spec
tally empowered to do by the clauses express
ly relating to Slavery; and us nn express
power takes AWAY power which might 9th
erwise lie taclly implied, think it has clear
ly done so in this instance.
IL remains for me to consider how far the
local law of New York affects this case, aud
distinguishes it from cases in Indiana and
Illinois.
with slaves, as il is claimed to exist by the
natural law: IL appears to be settled in the
law of nations, that n right To transit with
property not only exists, but that where such
right grows ont of n necessity created 10y the
uiS mayor, il is perfect right, and cannot he
lawfully refused to n stranger. (Vnltel, ,B 2,
ch. o, :. 1913. III. Preininaries, 5. IL. Pulen-
dori, B. 3, ch. 3, $, 0,) In this case it is in
sisted that the respondent came here with
his slaves from necessity, the return having
so stated and the demurrer admitting that
statement. Ii is perfectly true that the de-
murref admits whatever is well pleaded in
the return. But If the return intended to
state necessity created by the Uis major, the
demurrer has not admitted any such necess-
ity. Where the right of transit does not
syrng from the riS major, Tic same writers
agree TINT it may he lawfully refused. ub.)
But, however this may he, il is well settled
in this country, aud so far as know has not
heretofore been disputed, that II State mny
riglnluly pass laws, iii chooses to do SO,
iorbidding the entrance or bringing Of slaves
into their territory. This is so held even by
the three cases upon which the respondents
counsel relies. Commonwealth VS.. Ayres,
lS Pick. X. 22l. Willard VS.. the People, 4
Srammons Rep. 4l7 Case of Sewall's
Slaves, 3 Am. Jurist, 40l.
The laws of New York upon this subject
appear TO me TO he entirely free iom any TN.
certainty. In my opinion they not only do
not uphold or lcgaliZe property in slaves
within the limits of the State, hut they rem
der it impossible that such property should
exist within those limits, except in the single
instance of iuglliyes from labor under The
Constitution of the United States.
The Revised Statutes (vol. |, G5j lst Ed,
re.enacIing the law Of 1917, provide llIat "Nu
person held MS n slave shall be imported, in.
trOduced or brought into this State, on nny
pretcnsc whatever, except in the cases here,
nailer specified. Every such person sla
he free. Every person held MS slave who
hath been Introduce ed or brought into hi,
Stnte contrary to the laws in force at the
time shall be free" T.. l)
The cases excepted by this section nro pro
ylded for in the six succeeding scciions.-
The second section eXcepts fugitives under
the Constitution of the United snles III,
third, fourth and fifth sections except certnil
slaves belonging TO immigrants, who ma,
continue TO he held ns apprentices the sov
enill section provides that families coming
here to reside temporarily may bring will
them nnd take AWAY their slaves and thl
sixth section contains the following provision
ANY person not being an inlnhitant o
this State, who shall be travelling to or from
or passing through this State, may bring wrl
him any person lawfully held 10y him in slu
very, aud may take such person with hin
from this State; but the person so held il
, slavery shall not reside or continue in thi
: State more tlinn nine months; aud ifsuch resi-
dencc he continued beyond that time, sucl
person shall be free"
Such was and had always been the law o
: this State down to the year 1871. The Leg
} islature of that year passed an act amendin,
the Revised Statutes, in the following words
viz: The 3d, 4th, 9th, 9Th aud 9Th section
} Of Title V, Chapter 20, of the first part O
the Revised Statutes arc hereby repealed.
The 9th section ofthe Revised Statutes
and that alone contained an exception
which would have saved the slaves OF lin