Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-04-27
'rI.e LEBANON slave Case.

t' IchutiS iids Z a!ltaal uCch ii!loi H''' ''''''
;his case, which has been pe:riing in the courts
of New York fox several years. was finally ''e-
cidcu few days ago by the Court Of Appeals OF
that State The opinion Of the to,irl has been
sirte published. ltwsS delivered by Judge be-
Mo and holds that vixen Mrs. Lennon carried
her slaves Ia New York she did not carry there
the laws OF Virginia Her claim to hold them
rested on the ground that. rs citizen Of the
United States, she was entitled, under the Con-
stitution, to all the privileges that she had in
Virginia; Judge D. dc.ucs this, and ailirIns
thn, the privileges and imuluniteS t. which
:. Virs:r:an is entitled in New York are not
those of 6 citizen Of Virginia, but those o.
citizen Of New York And the right 10 hold
slaves, he says, is not one OF the privileges and
inmunties OF citizens of New York. This
point is discussed rs follows:
\ citizen of Virginia, having his home in
that State and never having been within the
Stale Of New IorL, has the same rights Endcr
our laws which native born citizen domicilc;l
elsewhere would have, and no other Either
neither could claim any rights which, unicr
our laws belong only to residents Of tie State.
But where the laws Of the several States differ,
4 citizen of one State asserting tights in another
must claim them according 10 the laws Of the
last mentioned State, not according 10 those
which obtain in his own. The position that
citizen carries with n!l! into every State into
which iir ,aay 90 the lc:"l institutions OF th::
one in which he was born, cannot he supported,
4 very little reflection will show the ..ii;.cv OF
the idea Our laws declare contracts depend
ing upon games Of chancc or skill, lotteries.
imaginary policies Of insurance, bargains Tor
more than seven per cent. ier annuin Gl inter.
est, ana MAN.. others, void. in other States
such contracts. or some Of them may be iaT-
iul. But no one would contend that il made
within this State by a citizen CT another State,
they would be enforced in our coE"ts. Certain
ct them, il made in another State in conformity
with the laws there, woald be executed hy oar
tribunals upon the principle Of comfy; and
the case would he the same if they were made
in Europe. or in any other foreign country.
The clause has nothing to do with the doctrine
of international comfy. That doctrine, rs has
been remarked. depends upon the usage ot
civilized nations, and the presumed assent of
the legislative authority Of the particular State
in w!,;ci. the right is claimed, an,l al express
denial ol the right u authority is decisive
against the claim.
In regard to the law of the State Of New
York in reference to this subject, nnd il. al!
legged conflict with the Constitution I'i':Gr n'-
MO says:
The Legislature has declared. ~ ciltcI, tina:
10 person shall b,'u. a s)uvr into this State
even in the rrur,c ~ n Journey between two
slaTcho!ding States. anh Is l'- 'lncs. lie slave
shall ie free. ti!r ;'wn citizens are, 81 cH"rSc
bound hr iiiiS regulation. II the owner Of
these slaves is not in like manner bound, II is
because in hcr quality Of citizen Of another
State, she has rights Supcric: 10 those ol any
citizen of New York aud because in canning
here. or sending her slaves here jnr 4 Iempo!'a.
r. purpose, she has brought with her or sent
! with them the laws Of Virginia. and is entitled
10 have those laws enforced i'll the courts not
wit,,staniing the mandate o. "nr own laws 10
ihc contrary. Bit lie position Of the APPEL
liant proves loo much The privileges and i;;'-
muntics secured Ia the ri;%usls o.! each State
by the Constitution are ~. limited TO time or by
! the purpose inr which in i particular case they
NAV hc desired, but are permanent and ahsn'
lutte in their character. Ic!ce. if The appellant
can Claim exemption it.r!n i!ir operation ul I'll"
I statute IN which iIr respondent relies, On ihc
| ground that Sl.a i. citizen OF Stat: where
| slavery is allowed, and TINT our courts are
| Obliged TO respect tie stlc which- those laws
confer. she may retain ,lic slaves here during
her Measure; and ss one Of the chief attributes
Of property is the power to use il, or TO sell or
! ,lspose OF it, 10 not sec how she could hc tie
| barred of these rights within cur jurisdiction
| as long as she may choose to exercise theln.-
She could not, perhaps, sell them 20 citizen
of New York. vino would at nil events be bo'lnd
h.; orr Laws, but any other citizen OF slave
/ State, who would equally bring with him The
/ niuuniticS and privileges Of his own State,
might lawfully trai!i;: in her slave property
| But INV opinion * that she SH$ 10 more right
! 10 tic protection Of this property than one Of
! the citizens of the State woGld have upon
! bringing them here. under the >aiua circtim-
stances, and that the clause oi the G"nS!lti'-
! ton referred to has 10 application Ia ihc case.
| | conccle that this clause gives /" citizens ol
each State entire freedom Of intercourse with
every other Slate, and that any law which
| should attempt to- deny them free lneTesS Or
ccrcsS would bc void. l;Ui it Is citizens ntiiy
who D6sscSs these rights, anil slaves certainly
are not citizens. Even free negroes, as is well
known, have been ad;,'ced rot 10 possess that
! quality.
Three Of the .Illigcs--Comslock, Scldcn and
Ciakc--di$scnt from the judgment pronounce
in this case; and iiyc--Denio, Davis Wright
Bacon and Wcllcs--concur therein
.