Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1852-11-20
T,he Aeml,.om siave Case in y. YORK.

4
The drcisiou Of Judge Pane IN the slave
case Of Jenslban Lennon. is the most impor-
i1utesrr rendered inlli.country. IN Is bear
lug upon HE property rights Of slave holders.
anI IT. aJmeasaroment Of The amiy and fra.
terna feeling - bch subsis brtwern tie North
crn and Southern States Of the oouIedeacg.-
! For tn first time, in the progress of tlIs gov.
ernmcpt, il hts been determined that II the
owner Of slaves attempt to pas, With bis laH-
/ fully acquired property, through the territory
/ Of free State, lie foeflls that property. For
the first time in 10 history Of civilized nat
Il Las been IN eff ct decided that a part Of The
common wealth Of ono Slatc,neecssarily or =
cidentsdy THROWN Withintbe limits Of another.
may b. seizcd uron ami eonliscalcd. and this
not more in conformity vith positive statute,
IN violation Of the hw Of nations, than from
false construction Of the general principles Of
international comfy.
The facts Of this case are correctly reciled
in The opening remarks Of Judge Paine, A
citizen Of Virginia desiring to remove INTO the
State Of Texas, pursues that route which he
deems preferable He has no other object than
To reach his destination. 1t is mol his purpose
to put himself under the protection, or bring
himself within the jurisdiction, Of any intermc
date State Heisa citizen Of Virginia until
he becomes citizen of Texas. Tie right Of
transit is guaranteed to him by tie comfy Of
nations and he asks nothing more. In This
state Of things, he is seized upon 10y the authori.
ties Of the State Of New York, " no undertake
to pass upon his right to property which &C
crued to him under he laws of Virginia, was
held under the protection Of that common
wealth, and WIS being transported into State
having similar laws and ailording like protec-
ton
Tae opinion of the Court itself cmbodies CT.
ta,ons from Vattcl, and precodents and dlcta
from The Courts Of other States, in direct con
nct with the reasoning and conclusion which
it adopts. VaiteLin bis universally recognized
work upon the Law Of Nations, page 162
Sec l0o) says "fhe property Of an individual
does not cease to belong to him, on account
''of his being in foreign country, and it ttill
is a part Of the totally of the wealth Of his
"nation." Again page 10, Sec 1922 the
s1me writer says: "Property cannot deprive
"nalons Of the general tight of travelling over
"the Garth in order 10 have communication
with each other, for carrying on trade, and
''other Just reasons. The master Of country
may only refuse tie passage on particular
"occasions, where he finds it prejudcial or
dangerous H ought then to grant it for
"awlul causes, whenever he can do it without
Inconvenience to himself And he cannot
''lawfuily afx burthensome conditions to a
''concesson which he IS obliged to perform,
land which he cannot refuse who would dis
"charge his duty and not abuse bis right OF
"prcpertyn "Butil he
"passage raises the apprehension Of some dan
'ger the State las ght to reqnIre sureli $
lie y no would pas cannot refuse them, pas
sage beng due to him, only SO far as is at,
tended With ooiuconverienee.'
These quotations from the highest authority
establish that The Frrl eny Of a citizen It m
porouly absent from his State is part of the
wealth OF the Stare: That the night Of tral sit
with property exists by the comfy of nati, MS
and That the most that can bc done by the su.
prone Power Of the Suite through which tran.
sit is demanded, Is, when danger or inconvc-
nience is appreEcnded, 10 require surelies =
Undrr particular circumstances the power TO
forbid entirely and torcibly exclude would
doubtless exist; but it does not appear thai the
power Of confscating or destroy ing the prop
erty have ever been claimed as a rght-nor
any adjudication upon the validity of the title
by Which IT VAS he'd attempted. These seem
to be The principles OF law between distinct ma.
,ions-not bound together by any government.
tai conpactnor even treaty Of peace ana com
mcrce. but recognizing the law of ns,ions.-
How much more strongly mustihcy apply to
States united by bond OF civil onon-pledg.
I'd to a common defence, and bound blythe let
ter Of the constitution to promote the com
mon weiare'
In Sc,caHs CASE, in Indiana, Jud se AIorri.