The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-11-17
Judgment In the new York slave Case.

Saturday delivered his opinion in the habsas corpus case
OF the eight slaves in iransu from Virginia TO Texas
The opinion liberates the slaves and The case 10
new and important one, give the opnon at length as
follows:
This before upon writ Of hatsas corpus
issued The respondent requiring him 10 have the bodies
OF eight coored persons lately taken from the steamer
City OF Richmond, and now confined IN mouse IN ms
city before me, together with the cause oil ther mpfs
0nment and detention. !,
: Thu rsspondant has returned TO this writ that said
eight cooTed persons the property oil his vile, Ju
LEI Lennon, who has been their owner Tor several
years past she being resident OF Virginia, slavehod-
ing State and BY The constitution and laws Of ina, s.as
slaves that she is now with her sad slaves or prop
cry IN ransiu from Virginia TO Texas, another slave
holding State. and by the constitution and laws OF which
abe would be entitled said slaves and 10 their service
that she had any intention of bringing and did not
bring, them into this Stale 10 remain or reside, but was
passing through the habor OF New York, on her way
from Virginia 10 Texas when she compelled by ne.
cessy to touch or land, without intending 10 remain
longer than was necessary. And she insists that said
persons not free. but slaves aforesaid and that
she is entitled 10 their possession and custody
Toths return the relaor has put in a general de-
nurrer.
me, that there could be dispute about the facts
there would be delay difficulty IN disposng OF IT,
But upon the argument he counsel ior me respondent
could not be decided until those had been carefully ex-
amned.
chilly 10 sustain is that if the owner OF the slaves is
merely passing from home with them, Through free
State, into another slave State without any intention OF
remaining the slaves while 10 such free State will not
be allowed TO assert their freedom As that is precisely
the state OF facts constituting this becomes
say inquire whether the doctrine OF those cases can
be maintained upon general principles, and whether the
law OF this State does differ from the laws of those
States where the decisions were made.
shall first consider whether those cases can be sus
taiaed upon general principles.
The first case of the kind which occurred that OF
Sewalrs slaves, which decided in Indiana, in 1929,
BY Judge Morris and will be found reported in Amer
lean Jurs 404. The return to the habeas stated
that Sewal resided in Virginia. and owned and held the
slaves under the laws of that Stac that he emga
ting with them to Missouri and on his way passing
corpus.
Ii, however, appeared the hearing that Sewall was
not going to Missouri TO reside, but 10 Illinois, State
whose laws do not allow OF slavery The Judge for this
discharged the slaves. This case, therefore, is
not in point and would be entirely irrelevant to the pres
ent. were il not for portion OF the judges opinion,
which not called for by the case before him, but APP
plies directly to the case now before me:
"By the law he says of and of nations, (Vat
e 1907 and the aud legal consequences result
this citizens well as the States of this ederatve repub
lie, have doubt but The citizen OF slave State has
right pass uPoa business or pleasure through Of The
States attended by his slaves and while he
retains the character and rights Of citizen OF slave State
his right retain his slaves would be unqnestoned
from The attendance upon the person OF his MASTER
willis on Journey through free State should be consid
right oil citizenship, and by the laws OF which the service
oil the slave was due The emgrant from State
other might be considered pospectvey the citizen
resident Of the Stale to which he removing aud should
be protected in the enjoyment of those rights be acquired
In the State fiom which be emgraied, and which
ognised and protected by the laws OF the State which he
10 going But this right conceive be derived from
any provision OF positive law
The next case relied upon Willard agt The People,
a Scammons Rep, 46l) and which decided in the
State OF Illinois in ls43. II was indictment for
creing woman OF color owing service TO resident of
Louisiana. The indictment under the l49,h section
OF the criminal CODE which provides that
If any person shall harbor any negro,
xs
they reside in this State other State Territory,
United States, shall snywse hinder or prevent the
lawful owner owners OF such slaves from
taking them in lawful manner every such person 50
not exceeding i've hundred dollars, or Imprisoned not
ceeding six months"
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 secreled by the defendant
There were several questions raised in the case which
II il unnecessary 10 notice The indictment, which
was demnrred to- was sustained BY the court The main
objection TO II that the section OF the code under
which was found violation OF the sixth article
OF the constitution Of the State of Illinois, which declares
that neither slavery nor involuntary servude shall
hereafter be introduced 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 entering territory, al
though for mere transit TO another State, becomes free
under the constitution, then the defendant in is
guilty of concealing such person described in the
law and In the indictment The Ii9h section Of the Grim.
na code, for violation OF which the paint is indicted
does most distinctly recognise the existence Of nsu
OF slavery OF these United States and whether
the constitution and laws this State have not pfo
vided adequate remedies enforce within jurisdiction
that obligation Of service, IL has provided by this penal
sanction that none shall harbor or conceal slave within
this State who owes such services Of t. Every
government may not, II CHOOSES recognise and
enforce this law OF comfy And to this This State
has expressly done
and separate nation from sister States still as by the
law OF nations, Yae g. q CHI TO- S. 1873 I3I) the CHI.
xens OF one government have right OF passage the
territory OF another fesccaby for business pleasure and
that too without the lstes acquiring any right
properly Vaue, b. 1Oi 1877 we could not
deny them this International right without violation of
duty. Much less could disregard their constitu.
onal right AS citizens OF OF the States all the rights
mmunles and privileges Of citizens OF the several States
IL would be sarng indeed u should deny our neigh
bors and kindred that common right Of free and pas
sage which foreign nations would hardly dare deny The
recognition Of this right Is violation OF
not an Introduction OF slavery Into this State
commended IN Argument aud the slave does become free
by the constitution OF Illinois by coming the
the mere purpose OF passage through a."
Another case cited by the counsel was the
Commonweal against AYES, us Pckerings Rep 1893
In this the brought her slave with her from
New Orleans 10 Boston, visit TO her father with
whom she intended TO spend FIVE months, and then
return with the slave TO New Orleans The slave being
brought up habeas corpus, the ordered her dis
charge. The case fully argued, and Chief Justice
Shaw closes very elaborate opinion with these words
Nor do we give any opinion upon the case where an
owner or slave in one State IL bonn III, rs,novng NJ
ufR M hef Ia all