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


,1 10 his freedom and that the master cannot have right
10 take him with him.
III, cases cited By the respondents counsel all rest tho
rinht of transit exclusively upon the law OF nations
AMI admit ina, he cannot have it under any other Law,
nave thus followed that view, perhaps al unnecessary
length ia order 10 what II would lead 10 olaer 10
prevent INV misauprrhe nson as 10 the Identity OF the law
Of nature and the law of nations will close my obscrva-
tons upon hs part OF the with citation upon that
point IRON Vuliel (Prelimnares g. o. lhe ia% oil ma
originally than the law OF nadfe applied 10
nations"
ought also notice here that the respondents counsel
upon the authority Of the in Illinois, insisted ha' 'n!S
:nhl Of transit with slaves is strengthened by mat clause
in m. Constitution OF the United States which dctilres
that The citizens OF each shall be entitled TO all
the privileges and lmmu'es of cilizsns in the seveIa
expressly that the right does not depend Upon any positive
,hnk this remark must have found lis way into The
pinnn Of the Judge who decided the Illinois without
dine con scraun have always undcst thai provision
Of the Constitution u lat least so lar as this
c"nceraedj that citizen mar was absent rom his own
STATE and IN some other entitled while there 10 all the
odyiltgcs Of tie citizens OF that State. And have
heard If any other or different meaning being given 10 it
would be absurd say that while III me s!seF oa's he
entitled TO all tie privileges secured 10 citizens ny inc laws
If all The several States OF bis own State io mat
would be 10 cunuunl a territorial limits, and give 10 NE
States no! only entire community but perfect confusion
laws. II am right in this view Of Inc matter Tie cause
tic Constitution relied upon cannot help he respondent 10;
if he is entitled w;e here those privileges only whc
The citizens This possess lie cannot hold Ills slaves
must also here notice other similar grouncs !:s!St-
ed upon by the respondents COUNSEL
He cites Vuilc g. ., CHI s. 81 TO prove that The goods
W an individual regards other States are The goccs o
hi. have areld7 shown that ny the law OF nature,
about which alone Va is always speaking slaves are not
goods and may add thai what Fa;tel says in the passage
20 which lie refers has connexon with the night vi transit
through foreign country. Besides in the referred 20
b. respondents counsel the Court distinctly declare ("ii
lard rs People, Scamnon's Rep. 47) that they cannot
see the application 10 This o. the law u nations III re
.aon 10 the domicl OF the owner fixing the conco' o!
securing tie right Of property in this slave and regard
obligation o comfy respect and enforce that right!
Tn. RESPONDENTS .sa also refers those provisions
Of The Constitution of United States which relate 10 III.
eiva slaves aud tie regulation OF among the
several States Win regard the first o these provisions,
which the counsel insists recognizes and gives property IN
slaves il Is sufficient 10 say that although The supreme law
vi the respect 10 fugitive slaves, ami as such entitled
10 uuncs ,ioning obedience from a il is, far every
thing else is con crned The il there such
provision in the Constitution This has been held in
without number and Is held IN eac! OF The three Gases
ccd By the respondents counsel and upon which have
before conmcnic!
A. for the provision Of the Constitution in relation
commerce among the States il has been often held that
wisanding this provision the States have The power i'm
I'll, ills reserved 10 them ot passing oil such laws may D.
necessary the preservation within the State health
order the well being .! society or laws which
ally called and nolrc regulations. passenger cases
Il Howard s. .. r. 2S3. License cases 3 10 5Oi Black
bird Creek Marsh Company, Peters $50. New York
Min IL Peters $50. Brown State OF Maryland H. Nlea
4lg Groves Slaughter Is Peters 5ll Laws regulating
nr entirely abol-hng Slavery nrbidng The bringing
pas, is not effected by The Constitution Of the
United States This view of the subject tak,n BY the
three upon which the Counsel nminy relies And
even if all tins not appreeni that the Constt
lion having md raken 10 regulate both external and inter
nal slaves by certain distinct and specific pro-
vjaJns wiz those in relation To the importation Of slaves
from abroad and OF fugitive slyes) III rchy
lken the element vi Slavery out q" these general provisions
in relation commerce. and having eeislaed separated,
upon lie subject Of slavery very limited extent and
there STOPPED has thereby shown lis intention dispose
separately and completely of that subject far il
dispose and has NOT left 10 Congress any power
under the general provisions relating commerce. For under
other view of the subject the provisions in relation 10 tie
importation slaves aud 10 fugitive slaves would be entirely
pIiluols Tie Constitution intended 10 give Con
grs mower Slavery by the general provision relation
commerce. that provision is Of itself qnllr sufficient by
is letter enable Congress do all that they
especially empowered do by the causcs expressly relating
10 SlaYcr; and as IN express power takes
which might otherwise he tacy implied, | think il has
cina " done eo IN This instance.
II remains for me 10 consider how far the local law .!
New York affects his and distinguishes il from the
eases in Indiana and Illinois.
To 20 back first 10 the right Of transit with slaves az
is claimed rA-: by The natural law Ii appears 10 be
lied in the law o nations thar right with pn.
party "ry exists, but that where such right grows
a ssiiy created by thc ris aor il perfect -.
Hn! cannot BE- lawfully refused 10 stranger tVat'c B.
,t ., 1913. h. Pe'iminaries Il Puirndori, b 3 CHI
~ in This case is insisted that the respondent
letc with his slaves from necessity The having
stated and the demurrer admitting that /, is
perfectly that the demurrer admits whatever is well
rac! in the ciu!n But If the return intended state
necessity created hy the ris MAJOR il has pleaded il bndly
Tor il ouy alleges necessity without saying wha, kind
recesy; and does ailegc necessity by the
rS major the demurrer has admitted such necessity
Where r"ht Of ransi. does spring from The us ma.
j9r the writer agrees thai it may be lawfully refused
.Qb)
But however this may &C. well settled in this country
and 80 far know heretofore been disputed that
State may ristfuly pass laws, il il chooses do 81,
othiding the entrance or bringing of slaves into its terri
tory This is held by each Of The three upon
which r.spnnicnts counsel relies Commonwealth vs.
Ayrcs, IS Pick: X: 22l. Willard vs. the People, Seam.
mons Rep al. Case Of SewalPs Slaves, Am. Jurist
40i)
The laws Of the State of New York upon this subject ap
pear be entirely tree from any uncertainty In my
opinion lhry only uphold esalze property in
slaves within Tie limits ri The State, bur they render
impossible that such property should exist within lhose
limits, except il the single instance of nsses from labor
under the Constitution Of the United States
The Revised Statutes (v0 !, Csc, st e.. re-cnacng
the law Of ISL provide that mo person held slave
s1 be imported introduced brought into this STATE On
preterce whatever except in the hercuacr spc
c;lel Every such person shall be free Every person held
slave who bath been introduced brought into TN.
State contrary 10 lie laws III force at the tme shall be free
IS. ~
The excepted by this section provided for in he
six succeeding sections. Tie second excerpts fuc
lives nrdcr he Constitution II the United Siles: lr
.u! and fifth sections except certain slaves belonging 10
Immigrants, who may continue 10 be held apprr
the enlh section provides tina. families coming here
temporarily may bring with thc'u and away their
slaves; and lie sixth section contains Tie following proy
sion:
ANY person not being an nIabant Of this STATE ,.ho
shall be travelling 10 from passing through this State
may bring with him any person lawfully held by him in
slavery aud may take such person with him from this State
hot The held IN slavery shall not reside
in this State Than nine months and il such
BE- continued beyond that time, such person shall be free
Such and had always been the Lave OF this State
down the year lS4l. The Legislature Of that year pass
Cd mcndnG the Revised Statutes in the following
words viz: "lhr 8 18th, 5th 9th and 7th sections Of Tale
Chapter 20 OF The Revised Slaiucs hereby repealed"
The 9Th section of The Revised Statutes and that alone
contained exception which would have saved The slaves
al the respondent from the operation OF The ls section
The Legislature, by repeating that section and leaving the
ls in fall force have regards Tho rights of these people
and of their MASTER made them absolutely free; and r,a
merely by the Legal ecc OF the repeating statute but by
the clear ard deliberate Intention OF the Legislature il
Impossible 10 make this clear than il by mere
guagc and evident objects Of the acts.
1t was however, nsi-cd on hc argument thar the words
imported, introduced brought into this STATE" in the 1T
Section 81 the Revised Statutes only introduced or
Brought in the purpose ot remaining here So they did
undoubtedly when tie Revised Statues passed for an
exception followed in the Gin Section giving thai
meaning 10 the ls And when the Legislature a.rward.
repealed the 6 Section they entirely removed meaning
lea wing the first Section, and intending rag. IT, ~ mean
what explicit and unresctvcd and unqualified u-
gu,g" npni:s
Not thinking myself called upon treat this case ~
casnis or legislator hive cndeivor.d sinpy discharge