New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-21

csm them according to re laws Of tho last mentioned
State. rot accordr to tboAe vhcb attain in his own
TIE position that o citizen carrying WIN him, INTO
every State into which he may co. the legal inetitufoas
Of the one in which he born, cannot DC supported
very little reflection will show The falIacy OF the
idea. Our laws declare contracts depending upon
games Of chance Or SKILL, lotteries, imaginary policies
Of insurance, bargains for more than seven per cent
Der unum OF interest and many Others, voio. In
other States such contracts, or some OF tne may 10
lawful. -
But no OF would contend thet If made within this
State by "A citizen Of apober Ststf they w0nd DC en-
forced in our Courts. Certan Of them, made 10 an
other State in conformity with the laws there, would
be exc cuted by our tribunals upon the principles OF
comfy; and ths would be the same If they were
msde in Europe or in any other foreign country Inc
clause bas nothing do with the doctrine OF interna
tioDal comfy. That doctrine, has been remarked,
depenos upon the usage Of civilized nations and the
presumed assent Of the Legislative authority OF the
particular State in which the right is caimedi and an
express denial Of the right by that authority decisive
against the claim. How them is the OF the APPELLANT
aided by the provision under consideration
The Legislature has declared in effect that no per-
con shsn bring slave into this State, even in the
course Of journey between two slayehoding States,
81 If be does the slave shall be free OR own cti
zens are Of bound by this regulation. Ii the
Of these tlaves il not in ike bound 10 Ia
becaure in her quality OF citizen Of another State she
tas rights superior 10 those OF any citizen Of Ne ".
York, and because, In coming here, or sending her
slaves here for temporary purpose, she has brought
with her orsent with them the laws of Virginia, aud
Ia entitled TO have those laws enforced in the Courts,
notwithstanding the mandate Of our own laws to the
contrary But the position Of the appellant proves too
much.
The privileges and immunites secured to the citi-
Of each State by the Constitution are not limited
to time or by the purpose TOR which in particular
case they may be desired but permanent and ab-
soute In their character. Hence, If the appellant can
claim exemption from the operation OF the statute on
which the respondent relies on the ground that she
IL IF Uh 4
that courts obliged to respect the title which
those laws confer, she may retain the slaves here
DUNG her pleasures aud one OF the chief attributes
Of property the power to it, to sell dispense
of It, do not how she could be debarred Of these
rights within our jurisdiction as long she may
choose TO exercise them.
She could not perhaps sell them TO citizen of
New-York who would at all events be bound by our
laws, but any other citizen Of a Slave State who
would equally bring with him the immunties and
privileges of his State might lawfully traffic in
her slave property Bat my opinion is that abe has no
more right to the protection of this property than one
of the ctizsns Of this State would hsve upon bringing
them here under the circumstances and that the
clause of the Constitution referred to has no appbca-
ton to the cOncede that tbls clause gives 70
ctZe ps of each State entire freedom of intercourse
with every other State and that any law which shO1d
attempt to deny them free ingress regress would
be void. But it is citizens only who possess these
rights and slaves certainly are not citizsns.
Even free negroes, as is well known, have been
adudged not TO possess that quality. In Moore agt
The State of Illinois already referred to, the Supreme
Court of the United States in its published opinion,
declared that the States retained the po to forbid
the introduction into their Territory of paupers crim
nails or fugitive slaves. The case was conviction
under statute OF Illinois, making it penal TO harbor
secreto any negro, muato person Of color being
slave servant owing service labor TO any other
person. The indictment for secretlDg fugitive
saye who bad fled from his owner in Missouri.
The owners had not interviewed to reclaim him 80 as
to bring the fugitive law Tito operation, and the case
was placed by the Court on the ground that Il wa5
within the legitimate power of State Legislation in tbe
promotion OF its policy, to exclude unacceptable
population. do not 81 all doubt the night to exclude
q slave, do not consider him embraced under the
provision securing common citizenship; but II does
DOT seem to clear that who is truly citizen OF
another State can be thus excluded though be may be
a pguper or q criminal unless be be fugitive from
Justice. The fourth article Of the Confederation con-
tains exception to ne provision for common citi-
zer ship excluding from its benefits psupers and vags
b. nds well fugitivesfrcm justice bu ihis excep-
ton omitted in the corresponding provision OF the
Constitution
If slave attempting 10 come into State of his
accord can be excluded on the ground mentioned,
namely, because a slave he is unacceptable in
habant, and il If very clear be may be- 1t would seem
10 follow that he might be expelled accompanied by
bis master. 1t might 1t s true, be less msehievous TO
permit the residence of such person when under the
restraint OF his but of this the Legislature must
Judge. But ii il the right Of the slave, but of tn
MASTER which is supposed TO be protected under the
in that aspect has been already given. IL is that To
owner cannot lawfully do anything which our laws do
permit to be done by one of our own citizens and
citizen of this State cannot bring slave within
limits except under the condition that be shall mme
oeatey become Free the owner CT these slaves could
lot do it without involving himself In the same conse
qIsce.
Ii remains to consider the effect upon this case of tn
provisions by which the power given TO Congress to
regulate commerce among the several States. art. l.
GS,f B. If the slaves had been passing through the
navigable waters Of this State 10 vessel having
coastiDg license granted under the act of Congress
regulating the coastiDg trade in the of voyage
between TWO Slave States, and in that situation hes
been interrupted by the operation of the writ of ha6eas
corpus am not prepared to say that they could have
been discharged under the provisions OF the statute
So il in the course of such a voyage they had been
landed she territory of the State in consequence of
a marine accident or stress Of weather.
In either case they would In strctness Of language
have been introduced and brought into the State. In
the latter case their being here being involuntary they
would not have been brought here In the meaning Of
the statute. (See the OF the brig Enterprize 10
the decisions Of the Commission of Claims uc or the
Convention of 1853 p. 49,. Bat the Gaze does not
present either OF these features. Is actual crcun
stances these: Ms Lennon being the owner Of
these slaves at her residence Norfolk, In Virginia.
chose to take them to the State OF Texas for purpose
Lot disclosed further than that il not in order to
sell them.
Geographically, New-York is not on the route of
such voyage, bat can readily see that II would
be convenient 10 bring them TO that city from which
vessels sa to moat OF the ports of the Union TO be
embarked from thence in ship boand to port IN the
extreme southern part Of the Union. This was what
actually done. She with the negroes TO
NewYork by sea- in order to embark thence to Texas
ana when the writ OF habeas corpus was served they
staying at house in the city, ready to set out
when vessel should sail, and not intending TO remain
longer than should be necessary.
Tie act uncer consideration Is not in any Just
a regulation OF commerce Ii does not suggest ~ me
idea that has with hiack
1t would have extensive operation altogether inde
pendent Of commerce. Ii is not therefore, within the
scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in the pas
penger cases. q Howard, 2S3) In these cases the
- ~.