Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-11-27
From the New York Trbure.
SldrCS FfCe-DstislOn Of Judge Payne.

PAINE, J.-This case came before me up.
on the writ of hHheus corpus, issued 10 tho
respondent, requiring him to have the bodies
of eight colorcd persons, lately taken from
the steamer City of Richmond, aud now con-
fined IN house in this City, before me, To.
gciher with the cause of their Imprisonment
aud detention.
The respondent has returned TO this writ,
that the suid eight colurcd persons are the
property of Ills wiic, Juliet Lennon, who
has been their owner for several Yeas past,
she hrug u resident of Virginia, slayehuld-
ing State, aud that 10y the Constitution and
laws of that State they have been, aud sill
are, bound TO service as slaves; that she Is
now, with her said slave or property, in tram
siia from Virginia to Texas, another slave
holding State nnd by the Constitution aud
laws ol which she would he entitled to said
slaves aud to their service; that she never
lnd any intention of bringing, aud did not
bring them into this State To remain or re-
side, hut was passing through the halhor of
New-Iork, on her way from Virginia 10 Tex
ms, when she was compelled hy necessity TO
touch or land, without intending to remain
longer than was necessary. And she insists
that said persons nre not free, but are slaves
as aforesaid, and that she is entitled to their
possession aud custody.
To this return the reluter hns put in n gen.
cral demurrer.
certainly supposed, when this case wns
first presented To me, that, rs there could lie
no dispute about the facts, there would be
no delay or difficulty in disposing of it,
But, upon the argument, the counsel for the
respondent cited several cases which satisfied
ne that this case could not he dedecidcd un.
Ill those had been carefully examined.
The principle which those cases tend more
or less forcibly TO sustain, is that if nn owner
of slaves is merely passing from home with
them, through n free State, into another
slave State, without any intention of rcmain-
ing, the slaves, willie in such free State, win
not hc allowed to assert their freedom. As
that is precisely the state Of facts constituting
This case, il brcomcs necessary TO inquire
whether the doctrine of those cases can
he maintained upon general principles,
aud whether the law Of this State does not
differ fiom the laws Of those Suites where
the decisions were made.
shall first consider whether those cases
can lie sustained upon general principles
The first cnse Of the kind which occurred
was TINT OF Selodirs Sidres, which was deci.
dcd in lndtann, in 1929, 10y Judge Morris,
aud will he found reporlcd in 3 Am. Jurist
4Ol. The return TO tie hnbens corpus stated
that Sewell resided in Virginn, and owned
aud held slaves under the laws of that State;
tllul he was cmigrating with them to Misso,i-
ri, md on his way was passing through Ins
dlNnn, when he was served with the hubeas
corpus.
IL, however, appeared on the hearing that
Sewell wns not going to Missouri TO reside,
but TO Illinois, State whose laws do not
allow of Slavery. The Judge for this renson
discharged the slaves. This case, therefore,
is not not in point, and would be entirely ir-
relevant TO the present, were il not Tor per-
ton of the Jupge's opinion, which was not
called for 10y the case before Him, hut np-
plies directly To- the case now helure me.
"By the law" he saya, "of nature and Of
nations (Nnltel, 1907 aud the necessary aud
legnl consequences resulting from the civil
aud political relations suhsisIing hetwecn the
citizens MS we'll MS the States of this Fedora.
tive Republic, have no doubt the citizen
of n Sluve State has Il right to pass, upon
business or pleasure, through amy of the
Sintes attended hy his slaves or servants aud
while hc retains the character and rights
OF u citizen of Slavc State, his right to
retain his slaves would he unqueslioned
An escape from the attendance upon the
person OF his master, while on Journey
through Free State, should he considered
MS nn escape from the State where the mas
ter had n right Of cilizensLip, aud by the
laws of which tho service of the slave was
due. The emigrant from one State 10 an
other might be considered prospectvey rs
Tie citizen or resident of the Sinte 10 which
he was removing; aud should he protected
III the enjoyment Of those rights lie acquired
in the Slate from which he cnigrnled, aud
which are recognized and projected by The
laws of the State 10 which lie is going. But
this right conceive cannot be derived from
any provision Of positive law"
The next case relied upon ia Hiiiard VS..
The People, "A Shcammon's Rep. 46l) md
which was decided in the Stnte of Illinois in