The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-05-21
LOCAL AFFAIRs.

tsiFED STATES gs. AMY.--Is A SLAyE
rkasoS, rrc--The novel aud important legal oue
| s'oa 'Hsoived 10 this case Was argued on Moud A
osiore Cnief Justice TANEY and Judge HAIIYnus
ION, sitting In the Circuit Court OF the Unite
states, now holding its session in Richmond
The point ID, whether negro slave can be pur
soed under the act Of CoEsI which saws ths
aay person" who shall take or steal letter frol
the poet Office, etc.
IL vas commended by the council for the ovns
OF the defendant Amy, that az there WAS nothin
zoe ACT specially pointing to slaves, Il apple,
PTsMd ydcae, only TO "persons known and acknox
Ie1gso 10 the Law generally as persons having Il
s s sue ara responsibilities, who could be srie
.no legally punished 10 the manner provided b
the act, and under the usuai forms OF the law !
sominIstered In the United States courts: that
slaee = not such legal "persou," within the mean
rug =. .ns act, slave not being, 10 ordinary legs
the constitution of the United States. construe
py the supreme Court Of the United States i
pred scotts case, as recoeu slaves only q
Rrcpsrfy and the Supreme Court of Appeals Q
LIE. @ ~ decloing IN Bsyiy vs.. Poindexter an
oLher recent cases that slave has no legal rigb
wnatever-that be 10 not legal person. but
Mtag 80 far certainly the civil law IA
"n'en was eumcient tor the purposes of the argu
meel ia tna case, as would be seen; that ia &C
eoroAnce with these views, the different section
OF this act OF Congress 10 respect to offence
against the post Office, clearly sho we'd that slave
were never intended to be emby aeed therein; sine
someumes the punishment 10 merely q pecuniar,
noe, varying from $50 TO $4,000, and sometime
imprisonment, sometimes both; that it was i'm Dos
sioie, 10 legal sense, either 20 fine slacs or
deprive ham his liberty; that slave has asishe 81
properly, nor liberty, to be taken away, his lega
| LA S'e., 20 70 speak, consisting in denial Il
n.n " Iae rights OF property and liberty, so thai
a.Judgment against him, depriving bin of either
| 70 any extent, would of course be a mere le0a
| nullity and absurdity
Tne act OF Congress should not bs construed a;
n nal lnah hIa ;.xI Ia.
impossibility. But if the act be construed az in.
| ciudtpg slaves, still more striking ipcoupruity
| would follow. The constitution of the ITtited
states provides that "the trial of all crimes ex-
cept ih cases OF impeachment, shall be by jury;'
| which means Jury Of ones peers such was the
| sense in which the term was used in tho con-
ssitution In that sense ii was immem orialy under
| $1,000 at the common law, from which il was ta-
Aen .or even ID magma charter lin this respect the
prototype OF our constitution it is xpressiy pro
| vided That no man shall be deprived of his life
| liberty, etc, uuless by the judgement of his
peers, nts per tegae j,sdicium pariuni ,oya,n etc
VI ,n tue language OF Judge Story, in his COM
| mehtaries on the constitution, citing Coke's In-
| statutes and Blackstone's trial by the countrs
| Wnich IL trial bya jury, who are the peers OF
the party accused, beng Of the like condition ana
equdfity IN the Stale"
III, therefore, slaves are included in this act OF
Congress- aad are to be tried according to the con
sttutlon OF the United States. they must be tried
oy Jury Of their peers, their Equals stares like them,
sefeesi and thus would be presented the novel and
| anomalous spectacle of twelve negro slaves snh.
poensed from the field or the factory. presided
over by the learned Judges of the Court and ad.
| dressed by the District Attorney as "Geuttemsn o.
tne Jury"-s'aves solemniy deiermn ing the iega
rights OF their fsoU- slares who In platiou
of Law, have no right, and disposing of the law.
| iui property OF their masters, themselves bu,
| mere properly like that Of which they DISPOSE
| such solecisms and absurdities az these plainly
enough snow that slaves never we're intended to be
1 tbA
gress
| LII, however, they were intended to be SO iu-
cluded then the act was unconstitutional, inope-
| rative and void, as to them. The principles re-
| cognised and established by the Supreme Court
OF the United States in D7ed Scott against Sanford
clearly apply to this case. There, 1t is true the
only matter IN issue Was whe ether an sncipa to
negro, whose ancestors are brought from Africa
aud sold into this country as slaves, is . citizen
OF State, IN the sense III which the word citizen
IL used IN the Constitution of the Uuited States:
and the court decided that he is not and that
therefore he cannot sue as citizen in the United
states Courts. 1t IS also true that the Court ex.
preesiy stated that they were By no means pre-.
paI ed 10 say that there are NOT mauy ca.es civil
| as well as criminal, in which Circuit Court OF
the United States may exercise jurisdiction, al.
| thousn ono on Inc African race Is party-that
broad question was not before the Court Nor
was that question now before this Coprt The
question lie. not whether the Court may not exer-
else jurisdiction in any case in which freed ne.
gro Is party; but whether it has Jurisdiction in
| q case in which negro Stare is made a
| party. Aliens, citizens of the different
| States, not naturalised as citizens of the United
States, aid free negroes all have their respective
| legal rights aud obiigasious-and may or NAV
not, be held sueable, or responsible in the civil
l and criminal courts of the United States But
with stdres it is different They have no legal
| rights nor Obligations They can neither sue nor
he sued They are punishable, indeed, by the stat.
| ute law OF the Staie,' anu only by the positive
tnf IA W ain Afrc puIo
| the common law, was decided by Lord Mans.
| field in Sonmersetrs case, aud by the General
Court Of Virginia in Turner's case and as ba.
been decided by the Supreme tribunals of other
States OF the Union; they are punishable by the
statute law; yet, in mode, aud to an extent that
recognizes bo rights of any character ip them.
selves, but on the contrary, demonstrates the alb
| soute legal dominion ana supremacy of the mas
ter race; and the absolute subjecion of the slave
Slaves certainly would Not be sued in q civil
| action for damages 10 the Circuit Court Of the
United States-it is difficult to zee how they can bs
| made defendants to a criminal prosecution, the
oeetg ph'ch IS TO enforce fine, or the forfeiture
Of property, or freedom, to any extent or 10 any
manner. Congress has passed no positiye act to
| that effect, and II has no authority to pass any
| such act. 1t would be to create rights and re-,
sponsbilities for the slave which he cannot pos-
sess, and would not exercise aud fulitl 1t would
be to increase the peculiar province and urisdic-
;on of the several States ia respect to q matter of
hDely domestic concern, at once of the greatest
decacy, and of the greatest magnitude and i'm
portance.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dred Scott ss Sanford abundantly support these
views The Court say that the only two pro visions
of the Constitution of the U. s., which point
directly aud specifically to the negro as sep.
arate class OF persons, chow Clearly that they
were not regarded . portion of the peo.
pie citizens of the Government then form
ed-the one clause authorising their impor.
tation as slaves BY the several Srates until
H. and 1kk.
the return of fugitive slaves to their masters;
"that these provisions show conclusively that
neither the description of persons therein referr
to, (African negroesD nor their descendants were
| en- braced in any of the other provisions of the
Consttatiop; for that certainly these two causes
we're not intended to confer ON them or their DOS
terity the blessings of liberty, any of the pers
sona rights SO carefully provided for the citizen
The only two provisions which point to them,
and include them, treat them property, and
make 1t the duty of the Government to protect it,
No other power, in relation to this race is to be
found in the COfstitution; and as it il Govern.
ment of special, delegated powers, no suthority
beyond these tive provisions can be constitutionay
exercised.
The government of the United States had no
right to interfere for any purpose but that of pro
tecting the lights of the owner leaving altogeth-
or with the several States to deal with this race
whether emancipated or not, each State may
think justice, humanity, and the interests and
tue safety OF society may require. The States evi.
IDENTIFY intended to reserve this power to them
selves. Such is the language of the Court, and
therefore the law of the land, expouuded by its
highest Constitutional tribunal. OF course, the
negro slaves are not entitled to any Of the personal
rights secured to the citizens nor can they be
subjected, by the federal government, to any Of
the civil or legal respon sibities of the citizens,
siuee it has nothing to do With Slaves, except to
protect the rights and property of their 10
them as stares the State governments take care Of
their municipal discipline and control. Hence,
any act OF Congress, which contemplstes and me-
cessitates, in its administration by the Courts Of
the United States, the exercise by the slaves of
any of the personal rights OF tho citizen, or which
seeks to subject the slave to any Of the cfvlo le-
gal responsibilities of the citizens, or which at.
tempts to treat or TO punish him as free
man, who 10 liable ss such to the process
aud coercion Of the Courts, 10 clearly uncon.
stitional, nugatory and void 20 Gar as hs is
concerned. slave has no such rights TO