Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-07-26
From the Pennsylvania of July 20.
The Rights OF the south.

SOiOuCI w Httlcf WIOtRS luuSt Dc IcufcsStuJ III
less two astounding propositions are to be pro-
mulgated. The first, that citizen Of slave
holding State cannot pass with his slaves through
the territory of Pennsylvania without losing his
property in them, though he may have no inten-
ton of residing or even sojourning within her
limits; the second, that diplomatic representa-
tive from the United States TO foreign country,
his way to the seat of his mission, has not, in
Pennsylvania, the privilege of passing through
her territory with slaves belonging to him; but
that his property in them can be disregarded, as
it could not be disregarded in any foreign land
without occasioning just cause OF war for such
violation of international law.
The latter question could not be decided against
Colonel Wheeler's right of protection, without
paralizing essential functions of our National Gov
ernment The States of the Union are to one
another, and even to the United States, foreign
nations, except for federal purposes alone. No
thing is better settled than that diplomatic
functionary and his servants are exempt from the
jurisdiction Of the local law of any State coun
try through which they may pass on their way to
the seat of his mission. The personal status or
condition of the servants Of Mr.. Wheeler was,
therefore dependent in no manner on the local
Law OF Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvania, like Can
ada, had been without the limits of the United
States, this act of lawess outrage could not have
been perpetrated with impunity. If the slaves
who accompanied him were his property when
he left his home in North Carolina, no foreign or
other law could deprive him of his rights, without
his own consent, or that of the Government of
the United States.
But the first is the more interesting, and by far
the more important question. II is, at the pres
ent crisis a question of pervadins interest in all
parts of the Union. The Constitution of the Uni
ted States not only provides that-''No person
held to service or labor in one State, under the
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
sequence ofany law or regulation therein, be dis
charged from such service or labor" but also
contains a provision that ''the citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all privileges and immu
mites of citizens in the several States" The
provision last quoted is peculiarly applicable to
persons passing travellers through the territory
of the State, or soiourning within it so briefly as
not to depend upon her laws for the determine
ton of the character Of their personal status. Per-
sons thus in transital, are by this clause of the
Constitution, distinguished from two other classes
of persons-frst, from those who come into
State with an intention to reside within her
limits and who thereby instantly lose the citi-
zenship of the State which they have left; and
secondly, from such soiourners in the State into
which they come, as acquire relative citizen
ship, and local allegiance, which may
qualify the definition of their privileges and inn
munities' 81 under the Constitution. In the case
of persons in transit, the words of the Constitu-
ton have thus peculiar and appropriate signf-
cation. Thus regarded, their definition must be
adapted to the constitutional exigency which gives
rise to the clause in question. The privileges
and immunities" of citizen, include of course
the right of property--the most sacred of all priv
ileges-and that which, among civilized States,
is the most valuable subject of immunity. This
clause of the Constitution, therefore, entities a
citizen of Pennsylvania passing through North
Carolina, to that protection of his property which
shall the intended protection.
The North Carolinian nesing through Pennsy-
vania, is entitled to the - protection of his pro-
perry. The Abolltionists, it is understood, con-
tend, that "the citizens of each State" receive
in respect to their rights of property call prvi-
leges and immunities of citizens in the several
States, when the citizen of one State passing
through another, is protected as to such property
citizen of the latter State is by her local iu-
risprudence entitled to hold and enjoy. For ex-
ample, they contend that if the law of North Ca
rolina prohibited property in horses, Pennsylva-
Man travelling through that State on horseback
would lose his property in his horse So they con-
tend that North Carolinian travelling through
Pennsylvania on his lawful business, with his
slave, without intending to become resident or
even temporary solourner, loses his property in
the slave, because the ownership of such property
is prohibited by the law of this State. This in
depreciation of the Constitution is as absurd as
any of the familiar instances in legal text books
Of constructions of laws in disregard of their SUBJ
ject matter, their effects and consequences, or
their reason and spirit. The literal import of the
words of the Constitution does not require or ad-
init of such construction. The privilege of the
Pennsylvania within our State, is to enjoy his
property in his horse. Within the limits of North
Carolina, while passing through her territwy, he
has this privilege, to the same extent, and with
the same immunity, as the North Carolinian there
enjoys his property in a slave The object of the
Constitution was to prevent confscation, seizure,
spollation of property, or less of mems rights
thFOuph and loca1 lax hat
might be passed for purposes of unjust outrage
upon travellers from State to State. To hold that
the Pennsylvanian's privilege of ownership of his
horse was without protection immunity, be-
cause Carolinian could not own a horse, would
be mere juggle upon the words Of the Constitu-
ton. According to the meaning of the Constitu-
ton, the citizens of each State, travelling with
property which they own according to the laws Of
their State, are entitled to all privileges and
immunlties of citizens in the several States, as to
property owned by the latter, according to the
laws of their respective States.
This clause of the Constitution was intended to
carry into effect principle Of international COM
there had been no union of the States, would have
been cause of war between them, if not settled
by treaty, was thus guarded against in such
manner as to prevent any cause of war from ars-
ing. But it was thus guarded against i'm man.
ner altogether Intellectual and futile according to
has of late been illustrated in our controversies
with Great Britain, in cases Of slaves in American
vessels, driven by stress Of weather into British
ports. Where the right Of property ofthe owners
in these slaves has been disregarded by the British
local authorities, and the slaves under their sane
ton, have been allowed to go at large, our Gov
eminent has, in every instance, insisted upon in
identification to the owners Of the slaves for the
wrong Under the late commission at London,
for the settlement of unad justed Claims question
upon the right of the owner of slaves to such
an indemnifcation On difference of opinion
between the American and English Commissioner,
the umpire decided in faror Of the right of The
Stare ouner. The argument of the American
Commissioner, Judge Upham, has been referred
TO as production of uncommon learning and
ability. decision involving the same prn-
ciple has, we believe, lately been made by
the court of highest authority in Prussia
Suffice it to say here, that the principle is one
upon which the position of our Government is
unequivocally defined. II would be a cause of
war between Great Britain or France, if, under
such circumstances were involved in the deci-
sion under the late commission, indemnity should
be refused. Now, under the Constitution of the
United States, the right Of Pennsylvania to
travel with his property through North Carolina,
OF tho riuht If North Corol;n;ap IN travail -