Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-11-19
RICHMOND ENQUaitE b
rHIRsDAy MORNING. NOVEMBER Is, 1852

u,
The recent decision by Judge Paine In the slave case IN
New York is unfortunate only in its personal cnnse
and the important principle thus attempted TO be
tablished bur il is unfortunate to time. The puSc nd
has been Tor long time intensely excited upon his delicate
subject until is TO fear that the patience aaa
lobcarance of the South has been well nigh exhnnstcuo'
,bs question is one -sdet-he South alone is the loser The
Soph has submitted 10 acts of Injustice after another
hopnp that each would be the last The recent aspect ei
thngs gave ground hope that We would nave test d.
leas: for time from this unpieas source OF agtatioh
But if this decision shall be sustained and approved Of by
those whom we should be able regard a. our Northern
brethren and friends without restitution remuneration 10
The partIes who have been thus deprived OF their property,
and the privilege Of carrying the question To higher 1u'
nal he Supreme Cour denied lhcm hse is reason 10 ap-
prehend that II will reopen all those wounds that we had
fony hoped were bo a confidence
the comfy and of justice that should eharaceli"e
the relations between all the parts Of this ccGledeiacy ah
lead TO acts Of retaliation We do hope that The riends Oh
the Union in the North land know there are many there
will repudate this act and take the necessary
steps satisfy the South that the principles aud guarantees
of the Constitution will be respected and the lights secured
| thereby TO Shareholders protected
This decision affects the suey and thereby the ralucs
slave property throughout entire South Ii 10 be
ger olong his slaves In taking them from Virginia TO Missou
or elsewhere the way OF the Ohio river because the bout
may touch point in Ohio Indiana or Illinois So IN
bringing from Texas Louisiana to North Carolina or Viz
gna because he may from eeessty have TO touch al New
York other Northern port Such state OF things
must cripple, If destroy tho commerce between the
North and the South In hIs however, former must be
the ooser whilst believe 1t would benefit and build up
! the South.
Blu, it is purpose this me to discuss the mer-
Its of this decision did 30, hastily yesterday, ana
shall take occason 10 refer TO again when we have more
time Our purpose is only give in support OF The
positions taken article of yesterday extracts
from the letter Of Mr Webster Secretary Of State to Lord
Ashburton the British Minister in 1872 This letter was
written as all will remember by The direction of the Pres
dent in support of the claim made by our government to
indemnity from Great Britain for slaves which, their pass
age over the Ocean between the United States and te
Bahama Islands, wee by stress of weather. driven into
British ports and then ee through the interference OF
the local authorities In some Of these cases there were
conflicting in regard TO the facts in other Cases
the clms were paid We havc extracted from Mr.. Wcbsers
letter. instead CT from Mr. Cahouns und Others because Mr.
WIS education and sympahcs all supposed TO be in
opposition to slavery. In this letter he says
n the Southern States Of this Union. slavery exists by
the laws OF the States and under the guaranty OF the Con-
sti,u,on of the United States and il has existed in them
10 be British Colonies In this of thines, II will hap
pen that slaves will be board coasng vessels, a.
handp attending the families of their owne's or
for the purpose OF being carried from port TO port
"Thc maatime law is fall OF instances OF the Application
of great and practical rule that which is the clear
suit of necessity ought 10 draw after It no penalty and no
hazard."
II may be said that this is applicable only TO where
the port was entered from necs,it. The of Mr. and
Mrs Lennon OF necessity SO alleged by them,
and no, denied by the slaves their counsel but upon the
contrary, admitted oy all The rules Of pleading.
| But Mr.. Webster says:
"Your Lordship observes that have spoken only Of
American vessels driven into British porls by the disasters
of the seas or carried in By unlawful force. conne my
remarks these cuses because they the common cases
But, my Lord the rule OF law and the comfy and
practice OF nations, 20 much further than these OF
necessity and allow 10 merchant vessel coming into
any open port of another country rouna-y for ne Pur
pose of apfui trade, bring with her, and keep over her
10 very considerable extent the jurisdiction and authority
Of the laws OF her country ecluding to this erten by
consequence the jurisdiction Of the local iap"
Here Mr. says he confines himself to OF vessels
driven into British ports By the disasters Of or carried in
oy unartu force because they are the ease,,m-
plying there other where the necessity might
not eeat-perhaps The necessity OF convenience
Aud then he goes far say that the rule Of lar and
The comfy of nations will protect them In those rights
cured by the laws Of heir country when they sh, come
voluntarily into foreign ports for the purposes Of larf
trade NJ will deny that il was iawl! for Mr.. Lem
mon TO avail himself Of the and trade of ~ fok,
10 ship his negroes Texas therefore, might have poi
UNFAIRLY the of New York for that pupvsc
without forfetirg his right to own and hold them.
Again, Mr. Webster says:
four urdsip will please bear in mind that the propo
sitiUn which endeavong 10 support is that by the
comfy The law Of nations, and the practice OF modern
times merchant vessels entering "pen nos OF other nan
rith Me and retain for their protection and gorsrn
men The jursdiction aud a,rs Of their oHn country Al
ths repeat Is PRESUMED tu hr allowed because me por
open because trade is rt'ed and oecduse unGer cs
circumstances such permission or dNoccncc IS according
general usage.
If such the law Of navn governing the relations he
governments nhoy separate and distinct how muct
moro are they called for BY that comfy which should cha!
cterze these United Sates Let the friends CT this nor
answer
In conclusion, Mr.. Webster says:
"f therefore vessels United States, pursuing law
fol voyages from port 20 port along their own shore are
driven by Of weather. or carried ny unlwiul orc
into Ems ports The government n the United States can
not consent that The local authorities in those ports sal
take advantage Of such msortunes and enter them tor th
purpose Of interfering with The condition Of persons
hinps on board, as established by their own laws"
Ii the government will permit this injustice 10 be dom
our citizens by another government surely she would no
pemir the citizens OF section Of this Union 10 pacc
| Il upon those of The other II, when engaged in Lawful
trade vessels entering port Of foreign government
carry with them and retain for their protection and govern
ment the jurisdiction Of laws, SO that the loca au
ortes have no right interfere with the condition OF per
sons or things board how much stronger the right
the citizen Of Of these States 20 such protection in tha
which is recognised property b. the laws OF his STATE
the port of another State engaged In lawful trade
And oe remembered that the trade iE This case, was pre-
cisely like that which gave rise r. Webstc letter. Ant
il m. .h be remarked that far the lew Of New York
concerned matters not ho,r slave is brought there
whether by irresistible force rountar and 5 evident
that If they should be drrcn into port by stress of neaer
than with Judge Paine the mode would make no difference
II was left for this Jurs believe 10 discover that pro
perty in ave could be protected by the law of nations
Mr. Webster (of whose legal abilities need not speaE il
treating OF this merry species of property places its right
nrotec,ion upon the law Of nations And Lord Ashbnron
n his reply 10 Mr. Webster where conrovcr,s this point
/ but, upon the contrary, he says:
"Upon the grea, general principles affecting this case, W
. do not differ"
i Yes the British Minister and the American Secretary
State, with their governments were long way oeh!n
Judge Paine in their Investigations Of the laws Of nations
i He says the Judgc decided the Illinois case without du