Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-10-24

ed the principle, that a slave landing in a Free
State becomes free. In 1910. the General Court
Of Virginia held, that a slave taken by her master
into Massachusetts, and brought back into Virginia,
was entitled to her freedom. In 1888, Chief JUS
tice Shaw held, that 4 slave temporarily brought
by its owner into Massachusetts, became free.
fh,fd fointi The provision in tho Federal
Constitution relating to the recovery of fugitive
slaves, recognizes the foregoing principle Of uni
versal Jurisprudence. For if slaves we're property
under the Constitution, in any but those States
where local laws exist to that effect, there would
BE no need of an express provision for their recov-
cry, for property can be recovered at common law,
Moreover the obligation in the Constitution is
limited to fugitive slaves. When this provision
was under discussion, ii was amended by striking
out the word legally" before "held to service !"
because some thought Slavery could not be legal
IN n moral point of view, and substituting under
the laws thereof"
Fourth Point: The persons here claimed as
slaves, are free by the express enactment of the
Legislature of this State.
"No person held as a slave shall be imported,
introduced or brought into this State, on any pre-.
tense whatever. Every such person shall be free"
Every person brought into this State as u slave
shall DO free" The exception originally made in
transitu with their slaves, was repealed in lS4l.
The right to declare and control the condition OF
its citizens is a right belonging to the States, and
has not been conferred on the Federal Govern.
ment. Otherwise, the whole power over Slavery
must be deemed within the control of Congress.
FJM Point: They cannot be held by virtue Of
any provision os the Constitution of the United
Stites.
The provisions cited OH the argument before
Me. Justice Pain are; That relating to fugitives
from justice. That full, faith and credit shall be
given in each State to each State, to the public
ucts Of every other State. That the citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States. That
no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or prop
erty, without due process Of law.
None Of these provisions have any reference e
this case. They are not f~ugitives escaping into
this State from another State. We give full faith
and credit to the act OF Virginia, that made these
persons slaves there. We allow the appellant oil
Ika privileges and immunitios of citizens of thi,
State. lie has not been deprived of property by
these proceedings. The appellant has no proper
ty in these persons. 1t ceased to be property
when he brought them into the State of New-York
Tie Constitution of the United States is a grant
Of powers to the General Government. 1t follows
by necessary conseq uence, that what is not grant
Cd is reserved. New-Iork having prohibited the
act, no jurisdiction can declare her law unconsti.
tutional. Even in conserving to the reclamation
of fugitives from service, she does not anknowl-
edgo the Law of Slavery. She agrees to ignore
that question, and not to inquire into the nature of
tbe duty Of service, on the part of the fugitive,
whether a slave or an apprentice but to remit
Lihl " tiO SbutNo u IL SbhtO "hASh IN ~
Seth Point: These persons are not to DO held
as slaves, under any implied covenants between
the States of the Union, nor by any rule of comfy.
The provisions relating to the surrender Of fugi'
tives from service, is the only possible case where
such an obligation can arise. And by Incorporate
ing this provision in the Constitution every other
CAGE lie excluded. In extending comfy towards the
laws of other States, it is the State and not the
Court, that establishes the rule. There can be nc
comfy here, because the State has made an ex
press statute declaring these persons TO be free.
Serenth Point These persons cannot be restrain
ed of their liberty, whatever may have been theil
state in Virginia.
If restrained of liberty here, it must be eithe
under and by virtue of our laws, or under the law
of Virginia. The allegation Of the suit is, tina
they were held and confined in a certain house il
this city, against their will. The answer is the
ore slaves. Our laws prohibit any such holding
They furnish no remedy if the person claimed RI
fnse to be detained. The question here is, ca
they be detaineds Certainly not by our laws
and cur courts can only administer our own law
The laws of Virginia are not in force here.
the slave resists, how con he be compelled to su
lection? If the master has not the power to e1
force obedience, he cannot invoke the aid OF Il
law, for such a case. 1t follows that our laws,
this respect, if they remain neutral, leave the pa
ties to their natural rights. This being SO, Il
slave is free. Our authorities can only execu
the laws Of this State and not those of anoth
State.
Eighth Point: They are free by the comm'
law.
The English common law, as adj udicated befo
and since our Revolution, adjudges them to
free. By the principles of the law of nations,
expoundcd by the philosophers anc jurists of '
rious countries, and recognized by all Christie
dom, they are free. The Constitution Of Il
United States does not, by any express terms, d
liver them to Slavery. No implication can
drawn from an provision of that instrument
remand them to slavery. The laws of this sta
declare them free. In behalf of their freedom
we urge the common jurisprudence of all nation
the principles of our own common law the dc
trines Of the founders Of our Government; I
legislation of our State the public opinion of t
world and we deny, on the part of the people
the State Of New York, that these persons claim
ms slaves, can be deemed as such in our courts
Justice.
Frem the Liberator
rrvn ,rnrtIrpr rnNuE1JTTnN