The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-31

hour obliges US to omit our report, which will,
however, appear in to-morrow's HERALD.
The defence of Commander Ritchie was read yes
terday before the naval court martial at Philadel
phia. We give synopsis Of Il in another column.
The Judge Advocate was allowed the privilege Of
reading his reply to the defence-an unusual priv
lege in courts martial.
The public will find in another part of t0-day's
paper a report Of the most important debate THAI
has taken place in the Virginia Legislature for the
asst twenty years. There is every reason to fear
that collision will take place between Virginia and
Pennsylvania, growing out of the arrest Of citizen
of the former State and his Imprisonment upon a
charge of kidnapping when he was in pursuit Of or
had arrested slave Of which he was the owner.
The Committee Of the Board Of Alderman having
under investigation the contesting claims OF Alder
man Drake and Nicholas Seagrist to a seat in the
Board from the Twenty second ward, met yesterday
afternoon to hear the summing up Of counsel for
testants. The case on behalf of both claimants was
argued at length, when it was handed over to the
committee for their final adjudication. The comm.
tee, it is understood, will report speedily.
Threatened Civil War Between Virginia and
PennsyIvania.
We give place in another part of the HERALD
to the debate in the Virginia Legislature on
the subject of the arrest, some months ago, Of
James Parsons, Jr., o citizen of Virginia, who
was in pursuit of fugitive slave, by the local
authorities of Pennsylvania. We also publish
reports from a commirtee-majority and mi
nority--of the Pennsylvania Legislature, on the
proposed right of transit Of slaves through
that State. The subject is one Of profound in
terest, and the proceedings Of the two legis-
when the rights of the States must be thorough
~ tested in this matter Of fugitive slaves and
the legal privilege of transit claimed by the
South through the territories Of the North
Aside from the mere legal bearings of the
matter, it is remarkable indeed that there
should be conflict between members of the
federal Union on the subject either Of the sur
render Of slaves or of transit through each
others territory The common courtesies Of
life, good neighborhood between members of
the same general family, without any special
constitutional or legal guarantees, should have
been Sufficient to induce the State of Penn
sylvania to aid the people Of Virginia to
SuloiSC lbS lISuto VI LEI AlhLCuc w 5uSE
property as is recognized in the latter
State. We can imagine nothing better
calculated to SOW the seeds Of permanent es-
arrangement than even to confne neighbor
strictly to his legal rights to deny him those
rights under an assumed condemnation of their
immoralities, is an offence against justice, the
obligations Of law, and the comities Of good
neighborhood.
But we must take things as we fad them,
and call them by their right names. The fede-
raj constitution provides for the surrender of
fugitive slaves to their masters on proper de-
mand. 1t is not too much to claim that the
object of this provision was two fold--to give
to the STAKEHOLDER legal right to claim his
fugitives from labor, and to impose an obliga-
ton upon the free States-indeed, upon all the
States--to make the surrender. In order to give
effect to this constitutional right and obliga.
ton the act Of 1898 was passed. That act, in
process Of time, became powerless, by reason
Of the refusal Of citizens Of the free States to
discharge their general obligations-to act in
good faith towards the Shareholders in the mat
ter Of escaped slaves. The supplementary act
of 1850 was finally passed, the necessity for
which arose entirely from the bad faith of 7
North. We had substantially refused to me
and discharge our solemn constitutional OBJ \
cations. We became technical. We refused
to surrender slaves, and interposed every spe-
cies Of factious obstacle to the enforcement I
the law.
So far has this work of reputation and bad
faith and offensive intermeddling been carried
that no means have been spared to render the
pursuit and capture of q slave work Of vast
expense and personal annoyance to the pur-
suer. States have entered the field with dis
tinct projects to obstruct the execution of the
laws Of Congress. In the present instance, the
State of Pennsylvania not only prevented
citizen of Virginia from retaining his proper
ty, but pursued him a. a criminal, indicted him
as an abductor, and now holds him for trial.
This is species of notification which has
grown into an enormous national disgrace; and
we rejoice that Virginia has at length deter
mined to assume the responsibility Of her citi-
zen and conduct his defence.
The question involved in this controversy is
one which has broader bearing than that
which is connected with the rights Of James
Parsons, Jr., citizen Of Virginia, now under
indictment for crime in Pennsylvania. 1t has
an enlarged political feature. 1t involves the
integrity of the constitution of the United
States and the power Of the federal courts to
execute the laws of Congress. That constitu-
ton has given the right Of capture to the slayg-
holder, and it is absurd to claim that such a
right does not imply the security Of the pur.
suer from the operation Of State laws. Tie
legal basis of this action is laid in the
organic law the statutes of Congress
merely point to facilities to enable him
to execute his rights, The criminals in
the case Of Persons are the authorities
OF Pennsylvania, who, by obstructng Parsons
in the capture Of his slave. were obstructino