Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1852-11-20

the condition OF ard securing The light OF prop
,tv IN this slave. and regarding The slave ~
a bari of the wealth. of Ipiiisiaaa. aud our
obligation of comfy t respect and cniere,d
hat right
The respondent : CO lnsrl as.' refcf' IN thepo
nroyisions oi the Cons,i ulion # The bbIie1
States which relates 10 lagiise slaves ana 10
the regulation of commerce among tie srXoi 81
States With regard 10 lie i ST ol tlese pro
visions which the counsel insists recognizes
and gives property 10 slaves. It's sufficient 10
saw. that although the supreme law oil the land
in respect To fsgitre slaves, alid as such cut
tied to unqaeslonipg obedience from all, 4 =,
so Ear as everything else IS concerned, the SAM
as If there were 10 snch provision IN the Con
sfiiuion This has been SO held IN cases with
out number, and is held IN each Of the ihe e
cases cited b. tie respnn1eol's counsel and
upon which have before commented
As for The PRO sisi1n Of the Constitution II
relation 10 commerce among h Ssstcs, Il has
been often hold dial NOW ihstandng ms pro
,isian, the Siaies lsyt tle power implicitly r.
served to han ofjos>i9g all sch laws asfua3
be necessary for the preservation within Lie
State, oil heAllh, order. and h wsIl being ol
society. or laws bich arc usndly called san
alive aud police regulations tPassrgor cases
Z Howard ) &. Il. 2s3 Llceu- cases ID.
sol. BlackbirI & eek Marsh Company Pc
ters $50. New York Is. Milan / Peters 80
Brown vs.. State Of Maryland = Whoa 40
Grove vs.. Slaughter IS Peters NIL Laws
regulating or entirely abniishng slavery
or iorliddlnP he lfine oi slaves INTO aStale,
belonging TO tins class of law, aud 4 right To-
pass those laws Is mol effected hy the Constita
lion Of the United States. THIS view OF the
subject is ,nltcn by tie ihree cases upon
which the Counsel 9naaly rciics. Ard even
ii all this were not -. IapprtheodIhgi The Con.
silluIion having undrrlakeu 10 regulate boih
external and internal commerce II sla,e. by
certain distinct md specific provisions On,
tiose in rclotion 10 lhe impoi t3lion Of slaves
from abroad, and de retnrn Of fugitive slopes)
has thereby taken the lemcnt Of slavtry "ul
oithese general provisions ~ relation to CON.
mcree; AM having legi,la'ed separately upon
the subjecl al slavery 10 n very hnlcd TX
tent mud th,ic stopped has ihcr,hy shown ! e
intention In dispose separately nnd completely
of that subject far rs il Nsts 10 he ii posed
al, and has mol left 10 Conere.s my power
over 1t under the gencral pro-, I,lous lining IL
commerce. For under any olhrr,iew of lie sub
lect. the provisions IN relation 10 the inpnna.
ton of slaves aud To fugitive slaves. would be
entirely suporAueus lfthe Constitution had
intended TO give Congr IS pow e. over slavery
by the general provision IN rclaf,an To co.n
merce, that provision Is of llsaf quite sufficient
by IFS letter or terms 10 enable Congress 20 Il,
all that thry ale especially empowetel 10 dc
by the clauses expressly relating 10 slavery
and as an express power takes aAoy pow T.
which might Otherwise be tacitly implied,
think 1t has clcaly done So IN tho astlacr.
Ii remains for plo 10 consider how lar The L..
cal law oi New York affects ais c rsr aud dis
tinguishes il from tie cases IN iudiour aud II
linois
To go back, Gst to tie nght 81 uoss
with slaves, as it is claimcd To exit Is the nat
ura law: 1t appears 10 be settled IN the law
oil nations that isIlt TO transit y tlr property
not only exists but ihat here 81 ca hight gov,
out OF a necessity creotcd by the rjs meyer, il
IS perfect right, and cannot lie lawfully re
iGsed to a stranger. tVanel, b. , ch. O. =
1913. Id. Pr,lminaries, =. Il. PuA,ndarf i
3, ch. B, S. o. Ia this case il is insisted that In,
respondent came here with his slaves from nc
cesslty. the return havirg 50 stated aud Tia,
demurrer admitting that slulcm, nj. Il is per
ieeily true that HE demurrer admits Whatc,c
Is Well pleaded ia the retnrn But il the fe
tnrninended 10 STATE n necessity creoled hy rh
ois major, il has pleaded il bodl, ion i ool,
alleges a necessity iihoul saving " bat kind o
necessity; aud il does not alhg,.a necessity ere
nted by the RS maloy, The demurrer has -
admitted any such necessity. Where ia,
right oftronsit does not spring i,om the r..
mayor the same wljtcr agrees Jhn il may ht
lawfully refused tI)
But however this may hc, i Is Well scttled
IN this country, and SO Far as kuow has no
heretofore tcen disputed that a State ma,
rghifdly pass laws if II chooses 'odo So So
bidding the entrance or bringing Of slave IN,
ITS territory. This is SO held even by each o
the three cases upon Witch the res pondcnt
counsel relies. (Commonv cahhvs Avrcs, i
Pick r. 22i. Wizards vs. the Peop'e.
Scammons Rep, Al. Case of Sewalis Shv
es, 8 An. Jurist. d0l.)
The laws of the State of New York npo
this subject appear TO me to be entirely fire
from any uncertainty. In my opinion they 10
only do not uphold or egalize a properly il
slaves within the limits OF the Statr. hut the
render ii impossible that such prope' ~ shoul,
exist within those limits, except in the single