Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-04-08

Constitution refers to slaves as persons he'd to
ser7ice in one State under the laws thereof,
Nothing can Incre clearly describe status
created by municipal law. J."
The former Judge, in another portion o, his
opinion asks: "By virtue of what law IT,
that q master may take his slave into i::e
territory and exact from him the dutie- y;
slave? The law Of the territory doe. not
sanction ii. No authority can be claimed
under the Constitution Of the United Sic,-es,
Or any law Of Congress" "Does the master
carry with him the laws OF the State from
which he removes into the tcrritOry?"
Thus it appears that protection is exter.:d
to US with one hand and withdrawn with tie
other. We are assured that no law shall ne
passed impairing our rights, and We at" y
formed that VIC have no rights to be impaired.
If this provision be- further examined i: will
be found to contain still another Rcput tlican
argument against slavery. Itdeclares thu. tie
rights arising from the relation "shnil be sub
| ject to judicial cognizanco in the Fes;s. 81
Courts, according to the course Of tho Common
Law" The Republicans maintain that tic
Common Law recognizes no right in slaves and
affords no remedy in controversies concerning
freedom. Their highest judicial authority,
Justices Mclean and Curtis held this doctrine
in the Drel Scott case.
Justice Mclean says, lord Mansfield held
that slave brought into England was free
Lord Stowcll agreed with Lord Mansfield in
this respect, and that the slave could not be
coerced in England; but on her return to An
tigua, the place Of her slave domicil, her former
statu attached. Forrs rly century the Courts
Of England have declared that the slave there
is FREQ from the coercion Of the master. Lords
Mansfield and Stowel agree upon this point,
aud there is no dissenting authority"
Justice Curtis says, "rhc will Of States and
Nations by whose municipal law slavery is not
recognized, has been manifested in three waya.
One is absolutely to dissolve the relation,
! The second is TO refuse the master ali aid to
exercise any control over his slave; and if the
attempt to do 50 in manner justiGablc only
by that relation, In prs1Gnt the ersrcise Of that
control. But no law exists designed to opc-
rate directly on the relation of master and
slave and put an end to that relation. This is
said 10y Lord Stowell, in the case above men
toned, 10 be Tie Ltse cJ' England"
Our rights, therefore in slaves carried to the
Territories are to be taken cognizance Of ac-
cording to the course Of the Common Law,
which, in the opinion of the Republican por.
ton Of our Judiciary, will prevent the exer.
else of any control by the master over his
slave"
The gentleman from Kanawha thinks ditfc.
renly, maintains thar the course OF the COM
mon Law does afford remedy, and cites in
support Of his position our practice in Virginia
Of bringing the Comman Law actions Of de-
tinue and trover for slaves. Unfortunately for
us his opinion will not be the rule Of interprc-
tation, and If it were, would require other
reasoning to support it. Tho application By
! Virginia Of Common Law forms Of action to
controversies between third persons about
slaves, could hardly be regarded as proof that
the Common Law Of Engand furnishes RENE.
dies for the master against his slave. What
We need is remedy for the master against thc
slave asserting his right to freedom, and it is
poor consolation 70 be told that the Corlmon
Law affords remedy where the question Of
Freedom does not arise
This very distinction is taken by Lord Mans
field, in the famous Somerset case. lie says,
contracts for the sale Of slave are goou '.sre;
| the sale is n matter to whioh tho law properly
and readily attaches, and will maintain the
price according to the agreement, tnt here The
person u Tie sIare himself S Immediately The
oljee; ej enquiry uAioh makes rery mute.
rial IdiJsrence.-Q Qlowell's State Trials, vol. 90,
p. T9)
In the celebrated argument Of Hargraye in
the same case, he denies the right Of the mas
ter to cocrce his slave expressly OIL The ground
that the Common Law affords him no remedy.
The Common Lew remedies, be says, in quts
lions Of freedom, were only applicable to cases
Of yilcnage. admitted Of defences incompatible
with African slavery, and had no application
to that system Of bondage The villain was
| c.t frao rr1cSa ir cnuI1 hu hat j;c
cestors had been slaves from time immemorial,
but VIC in this country hold our slaves By pur-
chase and not by prescription. The contro-
versy between Lord and villain, moreover,
was carried on by means Of certain ancient writs
long obsolete in England and never in force in
this country.
This pretended recognition Of our rights and
remedies therefore, is in fact an Incorporation
IF Lord Manslicld's decision in our Consti!u-
ton. \ decision under which, says Judge
McLsan, "for near n century, the Courts Of
England have declared that the slave there is
free from the coercion OF his master" A dec-
sion under which, in the opinion Of Judge Cur
tbs, master will "be prevented from exercising
any control over his slave"
There is bitter mockcry about this pro.
tended settlement 0f the Territorial question.
We ask for bread, and they give us Il stone
There is the Sardonicus Iisus on the features
Of what trust is now corpse.
: The second section cf the Peace Conference
plan is much eulogizcd by the gentleman from
kanawfa, (Mr. SUNNERs,) because it coniers
upon the South equality cf pOUer in the ac-
yuisition uj Territory, instead 0! equality Of
turtition in tho Territory uhen acquired, as
provided in tic Crttenden plan. In my jndg-
rcr,t, Mr.. Chairman, the proposed c1uslty Of
power sill be q fertile source Of agitation iii.
trigne, bargain and corruption, and q most un.
reliable safeguard.
By the equal partition Of territory, we should
have gained at least one thing We should have
f Withdrawn the question from Congress, aud
{ escaped all further agitation on the subject
! But this proposition, which requires the ma.
iorities of tho Senators Of each section
, to concur in the acquisition OF terri.
tory, exposes US again to all the annoyan.
. ces Of controversy; and, much worse than that,
, to the dangers cl intrigue and inhdcl!y. We
have now but seven slave States, for .arkaEsas
r is trembling on the verge Of secession and can
e not be relied or. BY this proposed partition
! Of power, i. will only be necessary 10 ga!r
eight Southern Senators to admit all the Cana
G das; while VIC shall have to win twenty North
c ern Senators to acquire slave territory. AL
Q the Northern States are equally interested
S against us, while four Of the Southern States
3. sufficient to control US, have less than thlrC
t of the slave population, and arc but little In
terrstcd in our behalf. OF the fifteen hun
;, dred and fifty thousand slaves in the sere!
e slave States, the States Of Delaware, Maryland
t Kentucky aud Missouri have only four hundred
;. and twcnty.eight thousand-less than twenty
! eight pcr cent Of the whole. The North vii
e wicld all the patronage oil the government, and
8 we shall be poweress. Have we not just cause
, to fear that as the white population oi the louI
5 States before mentioned gains rapidly on tie
i blacks, and their interest in the institution {"
slavery s,Ns n nAoss TO IIso ,nr io Of free
:. territory, without requiring an equal addition
Of slave territory TiIe odds against US in the