New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-04-24
rsfl n ray AZ. =
~. AN SLAVE CASE.

ss51g 58 - - - 4# i
- ~ 40 citizen q Virgins, = sne
, n1 =. ~ ssAoa, carried several slaves 70 New
~. ,o' Z n Il, With q view Of taxing steamship
saiees and going to Texas. While N new iorA
the slaves were taken nom me-. Lennon unoer I
wrikr,f habeas corpus, and carried before 'udge,
who decided that they were free; and faey we're
! accordingly set at liberty
4 This outrage upon the rights Of properly excl1ea
the indignation Of many of the more conservative
4 citizens Of New York, who took mp 2 ceiiectlon
and reimbursed Mi. Lemmon-who could Ill atiora
ID lose ta,cmthe value Of the slaves in full. With
dis he was content He had no desire to subject
himself ID the expense the delay, and the Fexaton
| Of lawsuit for the recovery Of his property.
But the State Of Virginia, feeling that it was a
matter of more Importance, both presently and
ultimately, than question Of dollars and cents,
ordered suit to be instituted to test the justice and
legality Of the decision She felt that a blow had
been aimed, to some extent, not only OF her code
Of laws and her institutions but at the rights Of
all her citizens who owned property in slaves.
The suit was decided against her. She appealed
to the highest judicial tribunal of the State of
New York-the Court of Appeals-and another
decision was rendered, a short time ago, sustaining
the Judgment of the Court below. Thus, in three
different Courts New York has decided that no one
has right to take property in slaves il. aasitat
through that State that slaves 50 brought are
i entitled to their freedom.
What course Virginia wiz now pursue we know
not. We take it for granted she will carry the
ease to the highest Judicial tribunal Of the land
the Supreme Court of the United States. Nothing
short Of decision by that Court will settle the
Il question definitely. And as it is a question of
great magnitude to oil the Slave States, we trust
4 Virginia viii pursue it to q final arbitrament so
that the people Of the Southern States may know
precisely what are their rights, in this respect,
under the Constitution
We do not know the precise meaning Of that
clause Of the Federal Constitution which declares
that the citizens Of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States.'' Various interpretations have
been put upon it. But if it has reference to the
privileges Of property, the Supreme Court viii be
compelled to reverse the decision made in New
York. II a citizen Of Mississippi is entitled to
his right of property in the Gotten which he brings
to Louisiana-as he undoubtedly is-then the citi-
zen of Virginia is entitled to hsrght Of property in
slaves iii New York. Under our system Of govern
ment he has no right to hold them there as slaves
but he is never Invested of his right of property
in them; and this includes the IN transi right of
carrying them from one place to another.
So, also, upon the principles laid down in the
bred Scott case, the Supreme Court must over
throw the decision in New York. Upon The prin-
ciples Of natural right and justice there cannot be
two opinions about it. The Constitution recog-
nizes property in slayes-and the rights of pro-
perty, matter Of what sort are too sacred to be
destroyed by courts Of law. Courts of equity, in
doing justice between man and man, may decree
the transfer Of property from one person to an
other - but no court has the right to destroy
property absolutely, by rendering it unavailable
and valueless.
4 This question involves another conflict of au-
thority between the States and the Federal Gov
ernment-a question which has given us trouble
ever since the adoption Of the Constitution. The
exact point ut which the rights OF the States
cease and the rights Of the Federal Government
commence has never yet been accurately deter
mined, and has ever been a fruitful source of
speculation and controversy. 1t is curious, how
ever, 10 note the fact that Northern Abolition
lists, who have heretofore ridiculed the idea of
State sovereignty and State rights as proclaimed
by South Carolina and ether Southern States, are
now the greatest sticklers for that doctrine when
they think it can be made available for the steal
ing Of Southern slaves, and their detention from
their rghtfu owners.
Il That the decision of the Supreme Court will
be respected we entertain no doubt. Notwthstand-
ing the outcry that was made by few fanatics
concerning the bred Scott case, there has never
been a formal denial, by the great mass of the
Black Republican party, of the binding effect of a
decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States. They recognize the fact that unless there
is some ultimate tribunal, from which there can
BIO no appeal; all law-and even Constitutions
would be Of no avail. They threaten, it is true,
to reorganize the Court if they ever have the
power--and to put npon the bench men who will
take Meis. views of constitutional interpretation
But they do not seriously propose to resist the
authority of the Court, or to deny its decisions.
A notable illustration Of this was furnished few
days since in Wisconsin, where Freesoil Judge
who had made decision contrary to the supreme
Court, was defeated Of a reelection by large
vote, although the State gave thirteen thousand
majority for Fremont.
Il d d. Il