Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1852-11-19

other persons whether they reside IN ms
State. or in any other State, or Territory
or District, within the hints and under
1.-The jarisd ction Of tie United States or
shall n any wise hinder or prevent the la"in
owner or owners OF such slaves or servants
from retakiug them III n lawful manner. every
such person 50 offending shall be deemed gull
~ Of misdemeauor, aud fined not exceeding
five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceed
ing six mouths"
IL appeared that The WON Of color was
Save. owned hy resident Of Louisiana. aud
thnt, while passing With her mistress from Ken
lucky TO Louisiana through The State OF Illinois,
she made her escape IN tie latter State and
vas secreird by the defendant.
There ere several questions raised IA the
case which II is unnecessary now TO notice
The indictment, which was demurred to, was
sustained by the Court The main ol.jeclo
10 II was that the section Of the code unde
which 1t was found was a violation Of the sixth
article Of the Constitution Of the State Of llli-
nos, which declares that Neither slavery nor
lmvoluntary servltadc shall hereafter be intro
duced iuto lIds State. otherwise than in the
punishment Of crimes whereof the party shall
have bcend duly convicted"
The Co1a IN answering hi, objection say
!" The only question, therefore, is the right oil
transit with slave; for If the slave upon en-.
laering our territory, although for mere tran
SIT 10 another State, became free under the
| ConstiutioD. then the defendant in error IS mol
guilty of couceaIlng such person Is de
hcflbed in the Inv and IN the ndictment. The
li9.h section Of he criminal code. for yio-
iation Of which the plaintiff is indicted, doc
most distinctly recognize the existence oil
qbc iusttulior Of slavery in some Of these Uni
ted Suites, and whether the Constitution and
| Laws ofth State have or have not provided
adequate remedies 10 enforce within its juris-
dicuon that obligation Of service, it has provi
died by this penal sanction that none shall har.
Dor or conceal slave within this State, who
owes such service out Of II. Every State or
Government may or may not, as it chooses, re-
cognlze and enforce the law ofcouity And
to this extern this State has expressly done so.
| If Ne should, therefore, rcgor Ourselves asa
distinct aud separate nation from our sister
States, sill as by the law Of nations (Vattel
| b. 2 CHI. 10, =. 1872 1873, 1884, the cilizcns OF
one government have right OF passage through
the territory of another peaceably for business
or pleasure, ahd that too wi,houthe latter $ &C
qplllng any i2ht over the person or property,
! lVattcl, b. ., $. 10Y, l09,) We could not deny
them this international right without a violation
-four duty. Much less could we disregard their
constitutional right as citizens of one Of the
! States To all the rights, lmmuuities and priv
eges Of citizens ofthc several States. 1t would
be startling indeed if we should deny our
nel9hbors and kindred that common right of
tree and safe passage which foreign nations
would hardly dare DENY The recognition of
this right Is no violation of our Constitution.
1t not an introduction of Slavery into this
State, as was contcnded in argument and the
slave does not become free By the Constitution
of Illinois by coming into the State for lhe mere
purpose OF passage through ii.
Another case cited byi the respondents conn.
sci was the Commonwealth vs.. 1rcS(1S Pick
erings Rep. 1881 In this case the owner
brought her slave with her from New Orleans
10 Boston, visit to her father, with whom
she intended to spend FIVE or six months. and
then return with the Slave to New Orleans.
The slave being brought up ON habeas corpus
The Court ordered her discharge The case
was fully argued, anu Chjf Justice Shaw
closes a very elaborate option with these
words Nor do We bvc any opinion upon
thc case WA''" IN owner OF slave in one
State Is to"a jtde removing To another State
where slavery IS allowed, and in so doing ne
cessailly passes through free STATE, or
where by accident or necessity he is compelled
to touch OF land therein, remaining no longer
dian necessary"
have quoted largely from the opinions i
these cases IN order that ii NAV be understood
clearly what's presented by them as their
governing principle The respondents coan
sci insists it is this: That by the law ofnations.
an owner OF a slave may, either from necessity
Lon Il. I