New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-31
TIE RIGHT OF SLAVE TRANSIT.
MINORITY REPORT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA
IFGIsI ATTIRE

The undersigned members OF tue JUulcldry COm-
mittee, being unable to concur with the majority OF
said Committee in the views and principles set forth
in their able and learned report the petition of Col
Joseph Paxton of Catawissa, praying the Legislature
to enact law securing to the citizens OF Sayehoidng
States who may pass through this Commonwealth, or
transently soOurn therein with their slaves, all the
rights Of property in said slaves guaranteed to them
by the laws Of any other States and making penal
Oense attempt by word or deed to decoy, or IN any
manner TO ALLEVIATE the said slaves from their said
owners against the said owners wee that it is due
to themselves, as well the people of the Common
wealth. that they should set forth the ground OF their
dissent
We 90 not concur with the majority that the RICH.
"of transit through PeDDsy with their slaves i
already secured TO the citizens OF the saveholdlng
Estates by the law OF nations and the Federal Con-
"stituton and that no statute OF this state anees 70
"dsturb it," Neither can we give our assent to the
reasoning and doctrines generally laid down III the re-
port Of the majority. We do not propose TO advance
any views in conflict with the vested rights of the
slavehoding States, to impugn the compromises OF the
Constitution to enter into any OF the vexed ques-
tons growing out of Congressional legislation on the
subject of Slavery much less do intend to discuss
the great moral and political ecLs of Slavery from
which this Commonwealth has been 80 happily exempt
ed by the humane and enlightened legislation OF the
past gradually removing this pernicous institution by
cautious and progressive series of acts from the soil
of Pennsylvania. We shall confne our remarks to
the points in which differ from the majority First:
We hold that Slavery is exclusively local institution,
and that il not recognized by the law Of nature the
common law or the civil law Such is the opinion of
the ablest writer's on jurisprudence.
Blackstone in his Commentaries, vol. l., page IL, says
uron the law of nature and the law of revelation de-
ponds all human laws, that is to say, no human law
should be suffered to contradict these. The law OF
England abbors and will not endure the existence OF
Slavery within this nation. slave or negro the
instant he lands in England becomes free. When
slave comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of En-
gland, he to be slave, because the law OF
England positively and notoriousy prohibits and for
bids the existence of such reatan between man and
man.
This was admitted and so expressed by Mr.. Webster
az Secretary Of the State in his correspondence with
Lord Asbburton, in the Creole case Websers Works,
vol. s. page 3l5. The Civil Law takes the same view
of Slavery and declares it to be against the rights of
nature. Just. Lib, tit. 3, Sec I'd; Natels Law OF
Nations, book Q, oh. 9. When our forefatLers mmi-
grated to this country they brought with them the
Common Law Of England, and 1t has become the
basis of our own laws.
Second: We hold it to be equally clear that the
rights of Shareholders to pass through or soourn in
this State with their slaves is not conceded by the
Laws of Nations. We have already shown that Free
dom is the birthr,gM and the natural condition Of
man. Story in his Conflict of Laws, Sec. l04, says
personal disquafcations, not arising from the law
" of nature, but from the customary or positive law
of foreign country, especially such as are OF penal
nature, are not generally regarded in other coun-
tries where the like dlsquallfc6tlons do not exist.
They are strictly territorial, so the State of Slavery
will not be recognized in any country whose institu.
Slavery is in inCiium, and when slave gets out of
the Territory where prevails, and out the powers OF
his masters and gets under the protection of another
power, without any wrongful act done by the party
giving that protection the right of the master, which
is founded on the municipal law of the particular
place only, does not continue. The fact OF a slave
being taken TO country, where Slavery or involuna
sertude is not tolerated, operates on the condition OF
the slave, and produces immediate emancipation
10 Louisiana Rep. 4s9; Louisiana Rep. ll2
Slavery exists only by virtue OF the laws of the state
where il is sanctioned and if the slave escapes from
such State to free State he is free, according to the
principles of the law, and recapture IN free
State IL authorized only by the Constitution and act of
Congress. There is no general principle in the Law of
Nations, which requires such surrender. Jones vs.
NaDsant, Mclean, sos. BY the law OF nations, no
Is Peters r. 539 ore State of Slavery, as to foreign
slaves found within its territorial doninons, when it is
in opposition to its policy and institutions IN favor
of tie subjtcts of other nations.
The state OfSlavery Is deemed to be q mere munich
pal regulation founded upon, limited to the range of
territorial laws 10 PETERS, Oil. And is well settled
with respect TO their municipal regulations that the
several States of this Unon to each other foreign
Second Wash. 29s IL appears therefore, that by the
law Of nations the STAKEHOLDER would have no right TO
PASS through our State with bis slaves, nor he eDti
tied to exercise that right blythe comfy of nations, for
il appears to be just a. well settled that what Is
called Communicates or Comfy between States or Ma
tons cannot prevail in any case, where II violates the
law of one country the law of Nature or the law God
Forbes VS.. Cochran 2; Bans and Cress 463 Ii has
been clearly shown by the above authorities, that
Slavery is against the law of nations, and We shall
presently show that it is also against the Law of Penn
sylvaniG.
Third. Il there such right recognized in the Con-
stitution of the United States The clause OF the
Constitution cited by the majority OF the Committee
under which the alleged right of transit is claimed Is
article lst section g part 3d. Congress shall have
"poyer TO regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States, ana Win the ihdian
{ Gt..l n..A Hnnla A ~
leach State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
"immuni,ies of citizens of the several states
Clief,Dustice Marshall in the case of Glbbon vs..
Ogden 9, Wharton 1885, in constituting article l, section
g. D. Sd Of the Constitution and the powers of Con-
yrcss to regulate commerce between the States says
The genus and character of the whole Government
"seems TO be that its action Is TO be applied 10 all the
extenal concerns Of the nation and to those internal
"conceIns which affect the States generally, but not
ito those which are complete within particular
State and which DO not affect other States and with
(Which is not necessary TO interfere for the purpose
of executing some of the general powers OF the
"GOvemment. The complete internal commerce of a
State then may be considered "a reserved to the
State itself II has been clearly shown that Slavery
sis local and purely the creation OF municipal reyHlC
"foR that il looked upon with dsfayor and i not
recognized by the common law, the law of nations
'tbe law of nature
This clause of the Constitution gives Congress the
right to regulate commerce. and the construction put
upon il in the report of the majority be correct then
Congress has the night to regulate in slaves
between the States and the bringing and selling of
men in our public markets. This Is certainly novel
and extraordinary construction of this clause of the
Constitution. On what authority il is based are
rot informed, none is cited. That the masters claim
TO the service Of his slave and TO species of property
in him has been recognized by courts and Judicial
tribunals cannot be denied but that right is essentially
different from his night Of property in inanimate things
and domestic animals.
His right TO the former depends upon arbitrary local
laws and is violation of mans natural rights, but his