New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-21
THE LENNON CASE.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Slaves Cannot be Held in The State of NtW-YOrk.
THE OPINION OF JUDGE DEMO.

ri lmoDd in the harc1 Of New-YOrk, and at the
time Of presenting the penuon were confined IN GER
tain bouss in Carlisle street Ia that city. The writ Is
directed 10 the appellant, by the name of Jennings,
as the person having in charge the eight coored
persons lately taken from the steamer City OF Rich
nobd and TO the man in whose house In Carlisle
street they ara confined - q,
The return is made by Lennon, the appellant, and
the colored persons Of which II speaks ana which are
therein allie ged to be slaves, and the property Of Jnle
lie mnon, as "the eight slaves or persons named In
tee said writ Of babeas corpus Ii alleges that they
were taken out of the poseession OF hlrs Lennon
while ~ frdaStu between Norfolk, 10 Virginia, aud
the State of Texas and that both Virginia and Texas
are saveholdng States; that she had no intention OF
bringing the slaves into this STATE TO remain therein, or
in any manner except on their transit as Aforesaid
through the port of New-YOrk; that she was COM
xele0 by necessity TO touch land but did not intend
10 remain longer than Necessary and that such landing
was for the purpose OF passage and taans and not
Otherwise and that che did not intend to cell tue
necessity accident TO take passage from Norfolk In
the above meptoued steamship, and that Texas was
the ultimate place of destination.
understand the effect of there statements to be that
Mrs. Lennon, being the owner Of these slaves, de-
sued TO take them from her residenee 10 Norfolk, IN
Virginia TO the State of Texas and, a means OF
efectne that purpose, she embarked III the steamship
mentioned for New York, with view to secure
passage from thence 70 the place OF destination AS
nothipg is said of any stress of weather and ma
rpe casualty is mentioned, the necessity Of landing,
which is spoken Of refers no doubt to the exgency of
that mode of prosecuting her journey.
II the ship in Inch she arrived was not bound for
the Gulf of Mexico, she would probably be under the
necessity of landing at New York to reembark in some
other vessel sailing for that part of the United States
and this suppose is what 1t was intended to state.
The necessity or accident which is mentioned as hav
ing compelled her TO embark at Norfolk in the Gig of
Richmond is understood to refer to some circumstance
which prevented her from making direct voyage
from Virginia TO Texas. The question to be decided is
whether the bringing the slaves into this State under
there circumstances entitled them TO their freedom.
The intention and the effect of fine statutes of this
State bearing upon the point very plain and une-
quiyOcal BY an act passed in 1917, It was declared
that DO persOu hs as slave should be imported in
troduced or brought into this State any pretence
whatever except in the cases afterward mentioned in
the act and any slave brought here contrary TO the act
was declared TO be ee. Among the exceptional cases
that of person not an nhabant OF the State pass
ing through IT, who was allowed TO bring hs slaves
with him. but they were not to remain in the State
longer than nine months Laws 1917, CHI l47, 9,
49, TIE portions Of this act which concern the pres
ent question reenaced at the revision of the laws
1880. The frat aud last sections Of the title are IN
j he following language:
sEo No person held As slave shall be imported intro
ducod or boue into this State any preeuse wussoever
b. ee Fver PERSON he'd a. slave who Ban been intro
dned brought this State contrary to the laws III force at The
so 10 Every person in thi, State whether white
co0Ted is ee EytIy VINO snail be born within
a. slave except authorized by this title snail be free"
The intermediate sections three TO seven inclusive,
contain the exceptions. Section SIX ID as follows:
" Any psrs0u not being inhabitsnt Of this State,
who shall be travelling TO or from, or passing through
this State, may bring with hun any person lawfully
held in Slavery, and may take sueh person with him
from this State but the perOn 80 held IN Slavery shall
not reside continue in this State more than nine
months; if such residence be continued beyond that
time such person shall be free 10 the year 1884, the
Legislature repealed this section, together with the
four containing other exceptions g. the general pIovis-
ions above mentioned. lCh. %Hl
The effect Of this repeal 10 render the first and
sixteenth sections absolute and unqualified. If any
doubt Of this could be entertained upon the perusA OF
the part Of the title left unrepeaed the rules OF con-
struction would obge to look at the repealed por-
tiops in Cder &c ascertain the Of the residue.
lI3assey act Story, Balm & AdolPh, 98) Thus ex-
aminec the meaning Of the statutes rs az PLAIN as
though the Legislature had declared IN terms That ii
any person should Introduce slave into tins State,
in the course of journey to or from IT. OF III passing
through IT, the slave shall be free.
If therefore the Legislature had the CONSTITUTIONAL
power TO enact this statute TIE law OF tho State pre-
csey meets the Of the persons VINO were orouyh
before the Judge on the writ OF hdbeas corpus and his
order dsohsrsiug them from eonstraint was unques-
tiopably correct Every sovereign State has right to
determine by its laws the condition OF all persons VINO
may ST any time be within It's lurlsdctlol 10 exclude
thers'rom those whose Introduction would eontravene
its policy or declare the conditions upon which they
NAV be received, and what subOTdinaon or restraint
may lawfully be allowed by one class or description Oh
persons over another.
Each State has moreover, the rght to enact snch
rues as it nay see lit respecting The title to property,
and 70 decla what subject SHALL within the STATE,
Doll me attributes OF property, aud what snail DC
incapable Of prOpretory right. these powers may,
of course be vaiiOuAly limited or modified by its own
const utiOna fundamental laws but incepsndenty
of such restraints scms alleged to exist agectng
this easel the legislative authority OF the state upon
these subecs is without limit CONTROL except so lar
AZ the State has voluntarily abridged ner jurisdiction
by aIrsDg ements with other States 1here are many
cases where il is trae the conditions impressed upon
persons and properly By the laws Of other friendly
States may and ought 20 be recognized within our own
jurisdiction.
These are Defined in the Absence Of express legias.
ton By the general assent and by the practice anA
usage Of civilized countries, and beng considered as
iueorpoIateG into the municipal law, an, freely admin
Uttered by the Courts They are not, however, thus
allowed On account Of any supposed power residing Ia
another State 10 enact laws which should be binding
On our tribunals but from the presumed assent of the
making poWe 70 abide by the usaRes OF other CIV
jzed St.tes Hence il follows that where the Legis-
larure Of the STATE, in which right or privilege Is
c6iu ed on the ground of comfy has Dy s laws spoken
npoo the subject Of the alleged right, tho tribunals
not AT liberty search for the rule vi decison among
The doctrines of international comfy, but are bound 70
adopt the directions LAID down by the political govern
melt Of their own State.
We have not therefore. considered It necesssry to
inau 70 whether by the law OF Nations, country
where negro Slavery If tttabifbed las generally
right to ella of neghboriDg State, in which it is not
allowed the right have that species OF property re-
coz nzed ana go ected the course Of aawto journey
tai en- bv The ner through the lss; meusoned country
as wouid undoubtedly be the with subject recog-
nized az properly everywhere; and 1t is proper to say
that the council for the appellant has not urged that
principle il support of the claim Of Mrs. Lennon.
What has been said as to the right OF u sovereign
State to determine the status of persons within ts u
risdcton applies the STATES OF this UDion except as
il has been Eooifed or restrained by the Constitution
Of the United Ststes, iGroyer sgt Slsmsaer 10 Pet
449 Moore agt. The People Of Illinois, Ia How.
CITY Of New-York art. Mine, III Pet. l3l, 1872.
There are updoubted independently of the pro-
ysops Of the Federal Constitution in ooneiiaoFy les'
ation on the part Of the several States toward the poy