The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1855-02-21

Tar Hor. HEsRE 4. wpsE, Democratic
candidate for Goyernor q virsinis, addresssd he
citizens At Richmoad last night, "a : speech Of
more then three hours length, q the African
Church. ne audience wasshe largest w renem
took up the same subjects on which he spoke the
day before at Hanover Courthouse, concluding
WIN that OF Know Noshneism, which we left him
discussipe At Il o'clock. He was listened to with
marked atsention and respect. hsw was frequently
interrupted By applause.
The SLAVE CASE DIsP0 Ed oF.-Sylvia
Ann Oliver charged with havin, returned to this
city contrary 10 law after havi q been in q free
State, and w. Church, charged nth having brought
her back, IN violation Of an act of Assembly, ap.
pearcd before the Mayor yeste day, to hear the
decision of his honor In their respective cases.
Mr.. Church, II will be remembered, purchased
Silvia in this city at cost OF 5000, and sent her
to the State of New York, where she remained
one year and then returned, claiming to be bis
slave. The case having been heard and argued.
the Mayor yesterday. gave hi. opinion of the law
He said the case was an important one to the
Commonwealth and the party before him. There
was no difference between the counsel for the
defence aud himself in regard to the law of
emancipation There was but one mode 10 this
Commonwealth tor slave to acquire freedom, and
that was, by will deed, in conformity with the
act Of Assembly. s .s- f-as-s =
In such cases. the Commonwealth was party to
the act and he would not agree that it was not her
right TO interpose between parties to prevent an
indirect violation of the law. But because the act
patton in the State II did not follow that master
might not lose his right Of property In slave by
taking him to free State for emancipation and
there leaving him until, By the laws of that State
| the slave became free. His honor referred to
Lewis and Fuertons case, decided In the Court of
| Appeals, and fully concurred in the opinion ex
| pressed By Judge Roane on that occasion.l II a
master carried bis slave to tree State with the
| intention OF bringing him back, and that slave
should be taken from his control by habeas corpus
and set at liberty Ii that slave ever returned to this
State he would not hesitate set aside the judg-
ment Of the Court In the free State, and return the
slave to his owner. for man can lose his right of
property In this Commonwealth, oy the decision Of
| a Judge ia another State. On the other hand the
| master, by removing from State TO mother
may conduct himself as to lose his right Of pro-
| perry 10 his slave on returniug;to Virginia. Here
he referred to the case of Hunter and Fulcher,
| where the master removed TO Maryland, remained
| several years with his slaves, and by the laws of
that State, lost his right OF property returning
| to Virginia This case, said his honor, is conclu-
sive that the master may iose his right OF property
by his own acts decided by the Court of Appeals
The case of Foster as Foster was next noted, the
history Of which Ia known to most of readers.
Foster, it viii be remembered took his slaves to
New York, and there emancpated them, after
which he brought them to Virginia, where they re-
manned with him till bis death, the deed of eanci
patton never having been recorded in Virginia
The Court looked to the act and Intention OF Foster
and therefore decided the negroes entitled to their
freedom. There can be no difference of opinion
| among lawyers OF Virginia on the law of enlanci-
patton. II slave were to runaway from his master
aud remain 10 free State twenty years. andthen re-
turn there can be no doubt that his owner would
have perfect right to claim him. .T
His honor had no difficulty about the law, but
about the facts, at fret presented to him When
this case first came up the evidence made it prima
facia one of emancipation, for of the leading
witnesses declared that but for believing that Silvia
wss to have been emancipated, he would have had
nothing 10 do with her. If these facts had been
established then there could have been no difficult
tv about the law, since the decision OF Foster vs.
Foster" But Mr.. Church has since proved that
he did not design emaneipating Silvia when he
bousht her-that he sent her to New York to be
educated, with the intention of bringing her back
His Honor would not undertake to send her out of
the State as a free negro returning liz violation of
law, and would therefore discharge both parties at
present. ...
The Mayor passed just censure on the policy OF
sending slaves to the North, to be educated and
brought back to take their position with the slaves
of the South-to teach them the doctrines they
have been taught, and to instil in them principles
autsgonistic to the institutions of Virginia and the
South.