The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-11-22
MR.. LEMONS STATEMENT.

This statemen. develops a degree OF unheard
Al yilIsiny. 1t seems to have been, from the
Srs,. a concerted scheme to rob him Of his
property. Is it possible tina, swindling can be
carried on, in open daylight at such a rate,
AID that there is nc punishment for the offend
ers
The statement of Mr.. Lennon leaves very
disagreeable impression upon our mind. with
.resardto the good faith of the clerk, Mr.. Ash
mead. As he is the officer Of a ship trading to
"A Southern port, it becomes him to clear il
CD, as We have no doubt he can.
As this case has created, and is still crea
ting, tue NEST intenss excitement throughout
til. South. we take the occasion to lay before
or readers the opinion ofJudge Grier, of the
u. S. Circuit Court. sitting in Philadelphia
lesf month, ia the case of Cecil Oliver and
others against David Kaufman and others
Kaufman, it will be recollected, was Mary
lander, and was carrying his slaves AroHgh
Pennsylvania. when they were Pounced>upon
by the abolitionists, who wished 10 play the
same game that they have played upon Lem
mon. Judge Grier disposed of the question,
now in dispute, in the most summary manner.
These are his words
1t has been commended that these slaves be-
came free by the act OF the plaintiffs, in volun-
tarly bringing them into the State ofPennsyl-
..ania.
This question depends upon the law of Ma
r, land and not of PenDsy lvana. The Court
e.n not go behind the status Of these people
vhe re they escaped. We know of no law, or
Sec;s ion of the Courts of Maryland, which
treats q slave as liberated, who has been con-
ducte6 by his master along the national road
through the State of Pennsylvania. On this
subject Lord Mansfield has said some very
pretty things, lin the case of Somerset,) which
are often quoted as principles of the common
law. Blu. they will perhaps be found, by ex-
animation e. later cases, to be classed with
rhetori cal faurishes rather than legal dogmas.
Since the farmer trial of this case, the point
has been decided in the Supreme Court, as
think. Huf, however that may be, the yont is
ruled in favor oEthe plaintiffs for the purposes
of the present Gaze, as we desire to have your
verdict on the iTxcts of the case, which are so
much contested.
Here, then, was precedent, which it seems
had no effect upon Judge Paine. The law un-
der which he committed the robbery is Stale
law, passed during the administration Of Gov
ernor Seward, in the year 1S4l and the clause
operating III this case declares that, "every per.
son held as sisve, who hath been introduced
Of brought in this State contrary to the laws
ia force at the time, shall be free" That this
law rs palpably unconstitutional, interfericg.
as it does, with the rights Of property, there
eanaot be doubt. Judge Paine took the mon.
strous ground that the constitution of the
United States, being silent upon the subject,
it therefore recognises no property in a
slave. 1t is SILENT also, with regard to pro-
perry in everything else-in houses, lands,
ehattels, focks, herds, horses, mules ana asses.
1t is 6. On, because the assertion Of property
in such things would have been useless as.
sertion of palpable truism. 1t was a matter
Of notoriety 10 all the world, when the consti-
tuition was passed, that slavery was a fixed
and tangible fact-a fact which there was no
disputing-a fact so no torious, that the state.
meni oft was to be avoided, lest even that
should imply the shade of doubt. Yet these
palpable facts Mr.. Paine chooses to ignore. Ii
would have been better to have declared at
once, that his decision was based, not upon the
constitution, or the laws Of New York, but up
on that precious system know as the Higher
Law"
We are happy to learn that an appeal to the
Supreme Cour, Of the State of New York,
and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the
United States will be taken.