Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1859-07-01

Nourt-thC frcsiucnt-thc southern poil-
ticians--tho pro-slavcry Democracy. who ag-
itate. And they do it practically and thor
oughly. They mako their demands, back
them by at least two of the highest powers
Of the Government, the Executive and tho
Judiciary and dare the People to meet them.
Let us meet them to their hearts content
Let us meet all these questions, and as many
as they choose to put, as they rise. Then
will there sometime be a decision Of the
slavery question, and an end to this great
disturbing element in the Union. 1t is as
cowardly as it is unwise to attempt TO dodge
them.
From the Missouri Democrat
THE STATUS OF SLAVES DEFINED By CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY.
A cause which has been recently decided
nv Chief Justice fancy. in the United States
Circuit Court held in Richmond. Virginia.
has attracted very general notice. Amy a
female slave had been convicted Of stealing
a letter from the post office, containing arti-
clos Of value. Her counsel contended that
as she was mere property the law under
which she was indicted did not apply to her
The court decided otherwise. and. under its
directions verdict Of guilty was rendered
Application for a new trial was made before
Judge fancy, on the ground that the court
had erred in It's instructions The counsel
who made the motion contcnded that the act
Of Congress applied only to persons who
have legal rights and responsibilities, and
who could be tried according to the establish
ed forms Of law, as administered in the Fed
cral courts; that slave is not person in
the legal sense, being recognized merely as
property To sustain this theory, the bred
Scott decision was cited, and also the decs-
ion of the supreme Court of Appeals in Viz
ginia. in the caso of Bally VS.. PoindeNter. It
was argued that these decisions. and other
recent ones, prove that slaves have no legal
rights or responsibilities, that they are not
persons but things. and. as such, are not LA
bic to legal punishment. Congress, it was
commended, assumed this to be the case, for
the punishment il prescrbes. in great va
riety of cases, for the violation of law, is fine
or imprisonment, and sometimes both fine aud
imprisonment, neither of which is applicable
to a slave, who can neither be deprived of lib
erty nor property. as the law refuses to ac-
knowledge that he or she is possessed of
either. The position was also taken, that the
Constitution Of the United States secures to
every person charged with a crime trial by
his peers and, consequently, that a slave, If
put on trial, should be tried by slaves. Suits
for damages against slaves cannot be enter
tanned in the Federal courts, for they have
no property on which damages can be asses
sed. How, then, it is asked, can they be
made defendants in criminal prosecution,
the object Of which is to enforce a forfeiture
of property or of freedomi To do So would
be to attribute to them rights which they
cannot exercise, and responsibilities which
they cannot fulfil The point was also made
that the imprisonment OF slave conAictec
with the constitutional prohibition agains
taking private property for public uses with
out just compensation.
Judge fancy in overriding the motion
stated that a slave is the property Of tn,
master, whose right of property is recognize,
and secured by the Constitution and laws o
the United States. He is also person, an,
is invariably spoken of as such in the Stat
Papers and acts of Congress. He is so des
gnated in the Constitutions Courts of jus
tice would not be justified in refusing to Civ
the word, when used in acts of Congress, tn
meaning which it bears in the Constitution
unless there were circumstances which plainl
indicated that it was restricted to person
who are free. Offences are as likely to b
committed bv slaves as by free men. Wer
slave beyond the reach Of tbe law. the evil
disposed could use him with immunity fo
robbing the mails and post Offices. The slay
has in reality a two-fold cbaracter-be is
person as well as property In the fornc
character he is bound to obey the law m,
all other persons. and NAV no npnisbed If h
oAends. But il is trne that if some of IN
offences defined bv Congress subject the O
fender both to Gne and imprisonment co,
tainlv. pecuniary punishment cannnot he in
Aicted on slaves. They have no nroncrty
thew are incapable of making contract
small fine would be equivalent to imnrisor
ment for life. if the conrt adonted tho usn,
course of committing the offender until IN
fine was discharged 70 comnol the roste
to nav the fine would he couallv obioctior
able. as that would he punisbing one nerso
for the act Of another II is doubtfnl vbetl
err the court could lawfully imprison n mart
for not doing that which his yorv corditio
rendered it impossible for him to do Tb
difficulty will arise in eases where both fir
and Imprisonment are imposed Init the 81
cumstance would not iustify the CONT in 4,
parting. in the present instance. from II
sense and meaning in which the word enc
!