Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-11-19

,; v.:, 1. l.,1 is i:.l i:,a o.ag.
I'D ,i ccnciuLss, that inasnuci IS ii=sc writer's 10
where expressly speak OF rig: C pass Though foreign
cou:.ty "::! ."c& r. property. 10 s@rl iGht tSsis
Without sio ping inquire, will say that all This mag
be correct applied governments uhoy separate and
dis!ac: trom zach otter because, from the naiIe Of
things they can lave no aw bu, The law Of nations which
10 them il what the "ccmmun iaw" TO Eneland differ
ing wildly in their domestic relations respecting the rights
OF property ana 10 nation having The light 10 raise
standard 70: the rcs They only be governed by The law
nature But whilst this may be correct dS between the
United States as nation and England between Eng
lam! and France Il is wholly nappcabe TO the condition
and r.arons subssting the several States
sing this Union VIII any pretend that the relations
between Virginia mud Massachusetts upon the subject of
slavery arc the same as those Virginia and Fuce2
Surely not Tho necessity the for tho law observed
by independent governments docs exist in the OF
the several States this Union and hence the law Is not
applicable.
TINT in many things these States arc sovereign
and independent of each other that they have many rights
with which even Federal government has right 10 in
ereo-s powers being specific and limited; but TO dlstln-
ous the relations thereafter to suhss between thcse
reign States from those existing between the independent
governments OF world and for other purposes the
situon OF the United States adopted This lnstru-
III
tween themselves what the law nations and of nature,
they being one and the thing is 10 the world Judge
Payne admits that the right of property in slaves was
10 he found in the Law Of naure law of nations would
protect that property possession Of its owner, whilst
in transu through strange state. That is tho law OF
lions w thus proec, whatever the law OF nature reco2n
yes as property, We have shown The necessity which called
for the recognition of these laws by nations and that no
such necessity existed in the relations between these States
nasmuch as the written constitution supplied, these
States among themselves the place OF BOTH Then, II the
guarantees the right Of property in slaves in
any portion OF this Union, il intended TO protect the
same in the possession of the owner, when In ranstu
through any of the States. None will deny that
the Constitution does recognize and guarantee such right
then the right Of the owner take the through free
State in passing slave State another follows
according 10 Judge Puynes own reasoning.
IA If not entirely satisfied with his reasoning upon this
point the Judge then remarks
al remains for me consider how far the local law VI
New York affects this case, and distinguishes from the
cases In Indiana and Illinois,
Upon this We shall make remark, because whether the
statute of York justified the decision or not il was
and II dill, is the species of multi
fcaiiun.
We think that no who has read this opinion, could
fail 10 have observed the evidences Of predeermnaon 10
come 10 tho conclusion and decide this case has been
DONE notwithstanding the biooing Of trunips and great
preparation for thorough investigation. II exhibited BY
seeming fondness dwell upon such quotations this
THAT by nature all ree"Bnd others like IT, equal
y irrelevant He gets the decided in Illinois by
Ing that the Judge decided that without due
eidrratiJn."
When pressed upon the pon, that The rights Of the own
Of these slaves secured, because their situation
was one of necessity he adrocate well Judge
le had 10 admit that
"Wh,n such RICH, grows ont of necessity created
by the pis major, it is perfect right, and cannot
be lawfully refused 10 srunger. In this case II
is insisted that The respondent here with his
from necessity; the return having stated, and
the demurrer admitting that statement II Is perfectly
that the demurrer admits whatever is well plead
ed in The return But if The intended 10 state
Necessity created by the pis major il has pleaded badly;
for oiy alleges necessity. without saying what kind OF
necessity; and does not aege necessity created by the
rs major, the demurrer has not admitted any such necessity
What right had he infer that this necessity not
created by major? They had put 10 the plea of
cssiiy will remembered In tho strongest terms viz
that the "was compelled by necessity" How COM
PEELED what constituted the necessity i, not incun-
bent upon the respondent TO say unless Tho fact had been
denied This the counsel for The did not do, but
admitted It's truth by general demurrer. We do mol care
whether It true In point Of fact not It had been adj
mtted BY the counsel and the Judge had right 10
sumo the contrary And be could only do 80, by becoming
both advocate and Judge.
We have said this much, perhaps not without some
feeling bu is only that feeling which avery Indignant
South"rner and friend Of the Unsn has, when he sees
ross injustice done the citizens OF eeclion OF
this copftderacy by those of the other
We hare rot down uught in malice, treated this
subject capous queruous spirit, but We deem il our
duty, is Of every journalist to speak plainly when we
the bonds wc bind this Union together being severed
by destroying that confidence md atcrna feeling which
should ever characterize the relations between the citizens of
the States.
This decision ia much be regretted aadc from It's per
sonal consequences, which peculiarly pantu but we
have snace say present. We shall probably
recur 10 the subject tomorrow.