Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1859-06-01
CITY ITEMS.

Gently convicted in the same eour, os slave re
ter from the mails. and in whose behalf connI s ny
Hence had moved TO set aside the verdict ~ "''
ihe prisoner In this was indicted for s,e.U, 49,,
taxing letter from the Post Office con,anin, "
PuouatH described In the indictment IA an
IN evidence In the trial. that she was at the tim.
the ohence was committed and at the time az an. 80
save anu her counsel thereupon PRAYED the dircc,; S
,e court to the jury, that the prisoner was mo-, enh
IN tns description OF persons to which the law In oues
ment. " '0' punish
The motion was overruled by the Court, and ,h. MI.
charged In the indictment - - 'J"! a.
Ana motion Is now made set aside the vc,l;., 49,
grant new trial. upon the ground that the ;nsrc,;o
ea ,or ought 10 have been given aud that the Cour,
The act OF March B. ls25. section 81 under vh;, A.
prisoner indicted, provides that ii any r,er,og IN
s OF nke letter from the mail or any postoiIee tbs
ohenuer shall, upon conviction thereof bs i,a,.sI
NOT iess Than two nor more than ten wears O"''
IL mas been argued in support of the mo,io, ,h,
~ VI ne eye Q, 'he law, Is regarded property; and
S inc act oil congress speaks only of r.o.s wi,Lo,
any reference to the property Of the master .nJ aI
no provision TO compensate him for his loss n was no,
intended and does not operate upon slaves w
IL Is true that slave is the property of The r,.s,
his right OF property is recognized and seJ ~ i
constitution and laws OF the United States Aud I, r.
eIuaH true that he Is not citizen and would mo-, b
'"oesu III law operating only upon that class az M
sons let he person, and is always spoken Of snI
described as such In the State papers and public act, of
Thus the two clauses in the Cons,;,,,;o III, -,
particularly TO property slaves and sanct;on H., 49,;
Suoh ana provide for its protection both sneak Of ,h
as Per'o" without any other further word of escrn
The clause which authorized their import,,;o, ..,
hat tne migration or importation OF such ,ersou. ,s
ay ., ,ne States now existing shall think proper to ad
init shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to tho
year one thousand eight hundred and eight
Ana the clause intended protect the right of nron
er'y III the master provides that no person held IN
service or labor IN one State under the laws thereof
Gaping INTO another, shall in consequence of anv Law az
regulation therein, he discharged from such service or
por but shall 6e delivered upon claim of the party 10
whom such labor or service may be due
And the Sd clause OF the I'd section of the ire, ,,il
whSh aPPortons the representation in Congress amopg
the several States describes them by the same word ami
provides that representation and direct taxes shall h
apportioned among the several States which MAY Lc la
cluded within this Union according to their r:nc,i
numbers, which shall be determined bv adding 10 M.
whole number OF free persons including those bonnd m
service Tor term OF Years, aud excluding Indians mo-,
taxed threehllhs of all other persons and un,er ,I;
description slaves have always been enumerated in ,I
census and the savcholding States represented in c.
greSs according to their numbers in the proportior ;
hed and no one has ever questioned the right of the
Nenouhs states to this representation doubted the
meaning OF the words al olLer persons 'N
IL Is evident therefore, that the word persons "a 5
IN the constitution to describe slaves as well as freeman
ana court OF Justice would be justified in ref,sin
to give the same word the construction WHOM :,
used III an act OF Congress unless there was som,b
~ the object and policy of the law in the provisions
with which the word associated which maniCstlv In
u mar rpV
aud intended TO Ice confined to persons who Were e.
There certainly nothing in the object and POLICY f
the law IN question from which il can Ice inferred H.,
slaves were not intended To be punished for the offence
therein enumerated. The offences wen, a I;,cIy -, E
committed by slaves by freenen and the r,srb;er
equally great whether committed by the one or the OIL
er; ana II slave H. not within the law woulJ IN. ~
the power of the evil disposed to train and tutor hin;
these depredations the mails and post Offices. and m
the slave could not he witness the cuprt who was the
real insugator of the crime would NOT he hro,L, -
punishment and il the slave himself i NOT ,,i,i a. -
law, the crime might be committed daily and with ,cr
feet impuny- all the safeguards which Congress in
tended To provide for the protection of its mails AMI
Offices would he OF no value Such construction would
defeat the whole evident object and policy of the law
and would rather tempt to the commission of those Of
fences by TIE ccr'an, OF IMMUNITY than prevent them
10y the fear of punishment.
In eNPonnding this law lose sight of the
twotod character which belongs to the slave lie /.
the owner entitled To the protection OF the law A.
person he is bound to obey the law and NAV like any
other person, be punished ii he offend against h. and he
may be embraced in the provisions of the law either nv
the description of property person. according TO
the subject matter upon which Congress or State is
legislaing.
IL is that of the offences created bv this act
OF Congress subjects the party both aud mprson
ment and it is evident that the ncapaety disabi-
ties OF slave were not in the mind and contemplation of
Congress when IL inflicted peoaRary punshment-for
he can have property and is also incapable Of making
contract, aud consequently could not borrow the
amount OF the fine and small fine which would in eff
adopted the usual course of committing the party until
the fine was paid. And think it must be admitted
that In imposing these pecuniary penalties Congress
could not have intended to embrace persons who are
slaves and greatly doubt whether court of Justice
could lawfully imprson a party for not doing an act
which 10y the law of his condition il impossible for
him TO perform And to imprison him to compel the
master TO pay the fine would be equally objectionable s
that would be Furnishing AN innocent for the crime
Of another.
The case before US however does not inyolve This
be-
decided opinion upon it, The offence of which lie
prisoner has been found guilty is punished by the Law Iy
imprisonment only and that punishment is without
doubt looked to with as much apprehension and fear
aud telt severely by the slave by the freeman
But, although the difficulty above mentioned will arigc
IN passing the of the law where both fine and i'm
pr-onment imposed; yet that circumstance will not
Justify the Court in departing from the and meaning
IN which the word persons is used ia the Constitutions e.
pccialy, when IL IS obvious that the whole object and
purpose OF tins act OF Congress would be defeated il the
word person. as used in it, held not embrace
person who q slave.
Nor do doubt the authority OF Congress to pass
this law IL is true that compensation Is provided for
the master for the Loss of service during the period of
imprisonment But the clause ia the fifth amendment of
the Constitution, which declares thar private property
shall not be taken for public without just compen
ton, cannot upon any fair interpretation apply to the
case of slave who is punished in his person for
any offence committed by him. although the punishment
NAV incidentally affect the property of another to whom
he belongs The clause obviously applies to eases where
private property is taken be used property for the
hene OF the government and not 20 where crimes
are punished by law. And IT, ia Of those conngen-
cies, which sometimes arise IN tune Of war a slave is
pressed by the proper authority into the public service
M order TO be employed u aborcr or teamser or in
any other mpnper; this clause Of the Constitution nm.
doubleday makes 1t the duty Of Congress 10 compensate
thc master for the los he susains In cases and
~ all other where the slave - taken and used rs
property for the bcuct Of the government the govern
meu acts directly and exclusively upon the master right
VI property without any reference To the persona, rights
Or personal duties VI the slave towards the government
" deals with him propcrty ouly and not "a person
aud ~ H takes property 20 be used for the public emou
ment, IL must pay Tor Il,
But punishment for crime stands upon very diTereD,
principles person, whether free or slave l. not taken
for public where he Is punished for an ocpce against
She law The public ia such cases acts IN sclfcfcncc
70 preserve is existence and protect ~ members IN
their rights Of person aud rights Of property Aud the
loss which the master sstnins on his property incen
ial aud necessarily arises from s twoold character
since The slave, perseu, may commit Offences which
society has right 70 punish for L. sniey although
hc punlhment may render the property Of the master
Of little value. Hut this hazard i unavoiiably
and inscparhy associned with this description Of prop
erty, and IL can furnish why q slave like any
other person, should not bc punished by the United
States for offences against IL laws passed within the
rYU spftf tI.Iar .tnN