New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-02-25
detail, Of which viii b found ia oar te,eggsqaiu

S;nce tina State Of Virginia has como hero in the
Lennon case-whioh comes on for hearing to day
TO claim tho right for her citzeos to hold slaves
in New.Yo,k, we hope the counsel havicg charge Of
tie case on behalf of the State Of New. York will
not hesitate to carry the w1 into Africa Let the
Safe Of virgini. be called upon TO show, ~ pre-
mipsry to the right of her citizens TO hold slaves
in New York, what right tho citizens Of virginis
have to hold slaves in Virginia.
That right, if any, must depend either upon
colonial laws of Virginia continued in f,roe After
Virginia became State, o, else upon provisions
originally made by the State Legislature and under
the State Constitution. Let US consider these two
points separately:
As our State Governments are restricted in their
powers by the Federal Constitution, 20 the Colonial
Governments were in like manner restricted BY Tho
law Of England. This restriction was inserted in
terms into all the colonial charters, and a. TO the
unchsrtered Colonies, Of which Virginia was one,
the commissions Of the Governors, under authority
Of which alone the Colonial Assemblies had any legal
existence, expressly restricted the enactments OF
those Assemblies to such acts as "wero not repug-
"nsnt but as rear as may be, agreeable to the Avs
"and statutes Of the kingdom of England " This
doctrine Of the restricted powers Of the Colonial
Governments has been repeatedly recognized by the
Supreme Court of the United States o. we'll as BY
the State Courts. No lawyer would contend that
the Colonial Legislatures had power for instance, to
abolish the trial by jury So. after the liberation of
all Protestant scots had become, subsequently to
the English revolution of 1859, the settled Law and
policy of the realm the Colonial Legislatures ceased
to have power to enact laws DISTINGUISHING any
Protestant or deprving him of bis right to wOrship
God in bis own way. Several colonial enactments,
and some Virginia acts among others, were ex-
pretsly declared void on that ground.
If the Colonial Legislatures could not abolish
trial by jury; if after the federation Of all Protest
ant sects had become the law Of Eng and, they
could not enact DISTINGUISHING persecuting STAT
utes against any Protestant Sect had they any
legal power to establish SIavery' Certainly not,
if Slavery was contrary to the law of Eogiand-and
that it was contrary to the law of England, was
solemnly and authOriatvey asserted and settled in
the famous case of Somerset, decided in l77l, while
Virginia was yet British colony.
The decision in SOmerset's case is sometimes
spoken Of, and that even by Judges on the bench
inclined to escape from some of its logical cOnse-
quenees, as having changed the law Of Englsnd.
Such view 10, however, entirely false. Judgments
of courts do not change the law. They are not law
Themselves, but only evidence and declarations of
the law. The Somerset case did not make nor
alter the law Of England; it only freed it from some
of the false CLOSES with which ignorance, avarice,
violence and the illegal practice of two hundred
years had obscured 1t. That decision did but
repeat though, from The altered tone of public SEN
tnent, more decsiyely and eflec,usly, tho very
declaration which Lord Holt, three quarters of
century before, had then Intellectually msde-that
the law of Epgland did not allow the reducing men
10 slavery aud did not regard negroes as at all diff
ferent 10 this respect from other men. Such being
the law Of England, there certainly did not exist
any legal power in the Colonial Assembly Of V,r.
gDia restricted as il was to the enactment of laws
mot repuspant' to those of England, to legalize
condition, many of the consequences of which were
declared by Lord Manifold, in the Somerset case,
TO be absolutely contrary" to English law.
But perhaps this matter was all set right by
the Constitution and laws of the State of Viz
GINA. Let lis hook little to thst The
Convention of Delegates and Representatives
from the several counties and corporations which
assumed the responsibility Of declaring Virginia
independent Of Great Britain, and of framing
Government for that born Commonwealth,
very properly prefaced their labOrs BY setting forth
a Declaration Of Rights as it's "basis and fJun1a-
tion" This Declaration of Rights, bearing date
June II, I776, announced, among other things,
"that al! men are by nature equally free and indie
pendent ard have certain Inherent rights of
(which when they enter into the state of society,
"they cannot by any compact deprive or divess
their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life
and liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing AID obtaining
"happiness and safety" Upon the "basis and
foundation" of this Declaration Of r ghts. the Con-
vent on proceeded TO cree; "Constituton aud
form of Government in which Constitution it was
provided that "the common law Of England"
20 which Slavery bad only five years before been
decided by the Court Of Kings Bench to be in many
things absolutely contrary and all statutes of
Parliament no. local in their character, made in aid
of the common law prior to the settlement of Viz
enis together with the several acts ofthe General
Assembly of this colony in force, so far as the
"a same may consist with the several ordinances,
declarations and resolutions Of the General
Convention, shall be considered as in full force
until the same shsl be altered by the legislative
"power Of this colony" This provision would
give no validity to the colonial acts recognizing and
Loo agino Ssvarv. in the "a hac an 40 m ga