The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-11-25
From tho y. \. Tribune.
NEW YORK A FREE STATE.

court for deciding that New York is not slave
State: but in view of the tendencies now
predominant all around us and of which il
would be vain TO affect ignorance we do thank
| Justice Paine for the decision he has rendered
| this morning. Ii our readers had perused the
| opinion of Justice Grier, of the L. s. Supreme
| Court rendered recently in Philadelphia they
would heartily unite in our tribute. New York
| is not yet slave State let us he thankful for
that A Shareholder who sees fit to bring his
! human chattels here. must get them away by
craft, or force if at all there is no law 10 help
| him, and those who are chattels are free from
| the moment at which unless as fugtiyes) their
! feet press our soil Thanks thanks, to Judge
{ Paine, that the Law, in his hands at least is
| still the shield of Right, the foe of Fraud and
| Oppression See his opinion herewith given
SUPERIOR COURT.
| The People &c ~ rek Louis Napoleon u.s. Jonathan
Lennon, Respondent.
PAINE, This case comes before me upon
a writ of habeas corpus issued to the respond
ent, requiring him to have the bodies of eight
| coOred persons, lately taken from the steamer
| City of Richmond, and now confined in house
in this city, before me, together with the cause
Of their Imprisonment and detention
The respondent has returned to this writ
that said eight colOred persons are the proper
ty of his wife Juliet Lennon, who has been
their owner for several years past, she being a
resident of Virginia u slaveholding State, and
that by the Constitution and laws of that
| State they have been and still are bound to her
service az slaves that she is now, with her said
slaves or property, IN rdnatu from Virginia
to Texas, another sayeholding State, and by
| Topot;t,ti,n npI Ia Of, bi.b ha yro,ll
| be entitled to said slaves and to their service
| That she never had any intention of bringing
| and did not bring them into this State to re-
main or reside but was passing through the
harbor of New York, on her way from Vr-
ginia to Texas, when she was compelled by
necessity to touch or land without intending
to remain longer than was necessary And
she insists that said persons are not free but
are slaves as aforesaid, and that she is entitled
! to their possession and custody.
To this return the reator has put in q gene
raj demurrer.
certainly supposed when this case was first
presented to me, that rs there could be no dis
pute about the facts, there would be no delay
or difficulty in disposng of it, But upon the
argument the counsel for the respondent cited
several cases, which satisfied me that this case
could not be decided until those had been care
| fully examined
The principle which those cases tend more
or less forcibly to sustain, is, that if an owner
of slaves is merely passing from homo with
| them, through free State into another slave
| State, without any intention of remaining, the
slaves, while in such free State, will not be
allowed to assert their freedom. AS that is
precisely the state of facts constituting this
case, it becomes necessary to inquire whether
the doctrine of those cases can be maintained
upon general principles and whether the law
Of this State does not differ from the laws OF
those States where the decisions were mado.
shall first consider whether those cases can
be sustained upon general principles.
The first case # the kind which occurred
was that of Serials S'l,' which was decided
in Indiana, in 1929 ~ JIdge Morris, and will
be found reported n 3 American Jurist 4Ol
The return b. the hat~a- corpus stated that
Sewal resided IN n Zni4, and owned and held
the slaves under :hr avs # that State that
he was emf grat.nz with them % Missouri and
on his way was passing through Indiana, when
he was served with the habeAs corpus
It however appeared On the hearing, that
Sowall was not gong to Missouri 10 reside but
to Illinois, a State Whose laws do not allow Of
slavery. The Judge for this reason discharged
the slaves This case therefore il not in point
and would be entirely irrelevant to the present
were it not for u portion Of the Judges opinion
which was not called for by the case before
him, but apples directly 10 the case now before
me-
by the law he says "of nature and Of
nations, (Vattel, 1907 and the necessary and
legal consequences resulting from the civil and
political relations suhsisting between the cit
zens as well as the States of this Fcdorativc
Republic, have no doubt but the citizen of q
slave State has n right to pass upon business
or pleasure, through any of the States, attended
by his slaves, or servants and while he retain,
the character and rights of citizen of slave
State, his right to retain his slaves would bt
unquestioned. An escape from the attendance
upon the person of his master, while on a jour
ney through a free State should be considered
~ an escape from the State where the master
had right of citizenship and by the laws o
which the service of the slave was due. Tn,
omigrant from one State to another might b,
considered prospectyely as the citizen or resi-
dent of the State to which he was removing
and should be protected IN the ENJOYMENT Of
those rights he acquired in the State from
which he emigrated and which are recognised
and protected by the laws Of the State to which
he is going. But this right | conceive canno
be derived from any provision of positive law
The next case relied upon is UiHdrdvs. Tn,
People "a Scammon's Rep, i6l,) and which
was decided in the State of Illinois in 1913
1t was an indictment for secreting a woman Of
color owing service to o resident of Louisiana
b The indictment was under the ll9th section
of the Criminal Code, which provides that II
any person shall harbor or secrete any negro
mulatto, or person Of color, the same being q
slave or servant owing service or labor Il
any other persons, whether they reside in thi'
State or in any other State, or Territory, OF
District within the limits and under the juris.
diction of the United States, or shall in any
wise hinder or prevent the lawful owner OF
owners of such slaves or servants from retaking
them IN lawful manner, every such person 81
offending shall be deemed guilty of misde.
meanor and fined not exceeding five hun.
drod dollars or imprisoned not exceeding sS
months
1t appeared that the woman of color was q
slave, owned by resident OF Louisiana and
that while passing with her mistress from
kentucky to Louisiana, through the State OF
illinois, she made her escape in the latter State
and was secreted by the defendant
There were several questions raised in the
case which 1t Is unnecessary now To notice
The Indictment which was demurred to, was
sustained by the Court The main objection
10 it WA, that the section of the code under
which it was found was n violation of the sixth
article of the Constitution of the State of ILL
nos, which declares that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall hereafter he intro.
duced into this State, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted
The Court in answering this objection say
The only question, therefore, is the right OF
transit with slave, for if the slave upon en-
tering our territory although tor mere transit