The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-11-05


VIC State Of New York
Sm- am prompted by my citizenship under the
ssnsttu.ion OF this state as well by your position
~ chief magistrate of the commonwealth, under
sencurrsn. resolution of the Legislature, passed
FEBRUARY "a 1856, 10 address to yen such ccnsidera-
tons as entertain ia respect to the law and facts
Of she case mentioned in the resolution to which
have referred You may remem Der that it is coach.
"a in the following language
Resolved, Tina. OadeB gofmsp. he present Attorney
General be- and heI eby IL, authorized and directed TO
sosher with such council sne 'sovernor may deem
Ysppor him, 70 defend Tho intel OF
Ms state, involved appeal broc2nt on, prose-
Guted. by direction OF n. Legislature ~ Virginia from
decision by ono OF the Justices d tue supreme Ooar OF
xhis State, Ia the Lennon siave case.
am informed that the case is ia readiness for
argument At the next November general term OF
The Supreme Court, 20 be held a. the CRY Ban in
shis city. Before proceeding to examine the case,
deem it yell correc. an error Ia the resolution
ssted above and 10 state the case az con cisely as
may be able
The Lennon slave case, 80 called IN the above
iaton, comes before Suprcme Cour. no: on an ap
peal, in strict legal parance ncr from decision OF
any Justice of that Court, br. certi0r0ri to a
Justice Of tue Superior Court OF the city OF New
York, whose judgment is sought thereby to be re-
ysewed ! have before me a printed case, from
which am able 10 gather the following tac.s, and
70 make the following statement
Mr.. Jonathan LENNON a citizen of the State OF
Virginia. set out on journey with eight slaves in.
vending 10 go with them 20 the State OF Texas TO
settle there These slaves were held in the right OF
Ais wife, also citizen and resident OF Virginia.
The steamship RichnoDd City, in which they were
embar ked, put into New York, having sailed rom
she por. Of Norfolk. While the vessel was lying in
The han Dor New York, coored man petit;oned for
haoeas corpus 20 bring the slaves into Court TO be
dealt with according TO law. rbe writ was granted
BY Justice Of the Superior Court of the city Of
New York. a hearing vas had, and the slaves set
~ liberty by the Justice.
A most lame and negative answer, IN the shape
Sf demurrer, was put IN by The COUNSEL OF the pc
taoner to the return made by Lennon, who alleged
ownership and citizenship in the State OF Virginia
ard claimed the right of transit OF the slaves to ths
place OF their destination. The facts oil the case be-
ing before the Judge, pro coyesso, i. remained for
hun alone to inquire Al 10 the law OF the Case This
he decided 10 be against .he riga. of Lem Lon 10
hold the slaves in the state Of New York.
propose 10 give The case, as " comes cefore tue
Supreme Court SNr &lgur;anL next week, hasty ex-
animation, and not having an intsres, OF any kidd
in she case except al citizen, have deemed IL e
climate to address my considerations 20 your Excel
kncy. The Law which mus. govern in the iina dspoS
60n OF this matter OF Lennon ana ms eight slaves, is
neither che law OF Virginia, nor toe law OF New
York, the common law, or the law o. nations-it IA
section ~ 0Dly two lines in the fourth article VI
She constitution OF the United States. The whole
u this fourth article is nothing more n0r less tnin
n species of treaty sIipulatons by and between the
several states-the sovere'gnnes, the indeoendsn-
Gies--in certain sense the Dauondlties, the high
contracting parties 10 convention or treaty trede
ciplpartIe and which was 10 inserted IN the greAt
ehate. Of the nation Al government, essential in
gredient and portion thereof defining Limiting, set
sk1g and regulating matters Of Interstate relation,
which might otherwise, IN the course OF human af-
fairs and the current events OF time, prasent vexed
questions involving the doctrine OF the common law
and the law of nati)ns The four sections OF this
article or treaty have forever obviatec the
sty Of appeal 20 those codes 70 settle regulate
matters embraced within their provisions. Such
conceive TO be their nature and object; AMI 10 II
within their compass that find authority 10 asset
fhat without the provisions OF this treaty. the fede
raj government, now eighty years old, never would
have had beng and become great 3 over among
the nations Of the eartD. In the second section,
tsurth subdivision, II 10 s)emniy stipulated thai.
No re.son held 10 service or one State under
Nc thereof efcap.nR trio another, sra 10 conse
Susnco Of any Law or regulation therein re discharged
Gou oeh labor, but shall be delv ared
es OF the party 10 whom snsn service or bor may DO
Aue
And here mark: nearly all the high co1lra ting
psIu had in their domains slaves or persons held
10 service; slavery was an institution am ing them
kpowr the statute books, and the fs,a.oa Of mas.
YER and slave az much sabject OF iegisl alton as
Mai Of husband and wife, parent AMI child. rne
night 70 runaway slave, no one an doubt, was
cared for in this treaty with much scrupuios. y
and precision OF claim az any right ever secured by
seaty between sovereignsies, however remote in IL
eatisy or diverse in language. IN h3 Isl sub
sjvsion of the second section IL i stipulated fol-
lows" rhe citizens OF each state shall be entitled
10 all the privileges and immunities OF citizens in
sbe several Sates And let IL be re marked that
This provision reaches forth 70 the proe :tion Of all
the privileges and iInmuni.ies Of citizens in what
ever state they may hao open TO be; it can mean
uoshing less tan what its plainly declare, 10
wiz, that the citizen, clothed with certain rights
sAd privileges at home. shah enjoy them
Of the copfederacy; any other construction would
make the stipulation ncongmous, subject the rights
Of citizens TO iiuctnation in their social and COM
mercal intercourse with each other often as they
passed from one State into another. III IL mean
chat the CITIZEN shall enjoy such righ.s only per
tain 10 the individuals OF the State where he bsp
pens to be- then he mus. cast away AZ the boundary
line of the State he enters one set OF rights and pr
vile yes, and be clad with another SET however de-
sira5le the one or repugnant the other may he 20
him. subject OF loss and gain and gain and loss
sordng 70 circumstances, 10 his changcful pathway
through the domnons Of thirtyone states, lar from
Homogeneous in their institutions and laws Can IL
be ~ obsardly received that In treaty arrange
nent such that entered into in this fourth article
The STAKEHOLDER who 50 vigiantly guarded his right
u recaptue VI fugitive lIWu MS hersiCc, snouiu
40 tar forget himself and his interests a. MOI 70
make any provision for the services OF hrs slave
while his attendant abroad? Would he forget TO Sc
by equally strong and explicit section In tae
treaty his right to have and TO bold his slave
in his travels in another State, no matter
whether the right 70 hold slave there
had or had no, been abolished Did he never IN
tend TO go on his travels beyond his own Stateg--
IL he dill he must leave his slave at home. Unless he
carried with him the right to his control. Tnere
can be no Doubt II seems 90 me, that this section
secures TO the citizen slavehoder while abroad every
right in that behalf which belongs or inheres 70
him in his own state. The contrary shows that he
cared for the catching Of a runaway, and nothing
Cor the keeping OF holding Of . remaining slave
an inconsistency not 10 be credited to the character
of such men as made the treaty, Il then having ~
mnoh application H. the interests OF one State OF
aposber, In the matter Of slsvehoding, whether in
the North or in the south nearly ali Of which
being at the time IN pari deiieto in respect TO the
institution Of slavery. Again liz IL not too much
Cor common credulity 10 conclude thN the states
mea who framed and the people who rA-
tiled this treaty and the constitution in
which IL was placed for their own safety and that