1 This balance of $816 185, added to the $2,016,185 $1,169,185 of Kentucky, who claims her as a fugitive from original principal, makes labor;-it appeared that cognizance of the case had The nominal amount of capital, as now been taken under a law of this state, which prostated on the books in the office, invides, that a non resident, having a claim to the cluding bonds, bank stock, cultivat. service of any person in this state, shall procure ed farms, and new lands is a warrant from a judge, or a justice of the peace, Some losses will doubtless be incurred who being satisfied of the validity of the claim, sħall on the bonds and lands included in certify the case to the next term of the circuit court this nominal amount, which it is imfor the county, where a trial by jury shall be had possible for your committee to es in the ordinary mode; and upon verdict and judg timate.-But supposing the nominal ment being obtained against the servant, the court and actual value the same, there shall grant a certificate, authorising the claimant will be a balance not particularly ac to remove the servant out of the state. That the counted for, of $367,000 claim of Chasteen having been asserted under this This balance appears large; it will however be law, the case was certified to the circuit court, for recollected, that the expense incurred in managing the county of Jefferson, and being dismissed by the establishment for the last nine years, must the claimant, a bill in equity was filed and an inhave been considerable. That some of the debts junction obtained against him, for the purpose of of the school fund have been partially unproduc-investigating the claim of the girl to her freedom. tive of interest. That lands, if unfortunately taken,The claim, however, being brought before me, did not advance in value equal to the interest, and the case pending before the state court was dis that the new lands now on hand, reckoned at the missed, and a motion submitted for the dismissal price for which they were received, amount to of the warrant, upon the ground$40,560, the interest of which would be properly applied in the reduction of the above balance. It also appears that there are now on hand cultivated farms, which, at the received value, amount to $67,193, which probably have not produced six per cent. the difference, then, between six per But admitting the constitutionality of that law, cent. on that sum, and the actual rents, will also it was contended that the several states have an be a proper item to reduce the abovementioned authority, concurrent with congress, to legislate on balance. There are doubtless a variety of other this subject; and therefore that any procedure un items which ought to be applied to the same pur-der the law of this state, (December 30, 1816,) pose, which your committee find to be impossi ble to ascertain, unless they were to enter into a fruitless investigation of all the transactions regarding this important fund, for more than twenty years past Your committee have judged proper to present, as far as practicable, the nominal value and distribution of the school fund, and for this purpose they have prepared the following exhibit, viz: Bonds against persons in the state of Connecticut, In the state of New York, "That the 3d clause, of the 20 section, of the 4th article of the constitution of the United States, confers no authority on congress on the subject of fugitive slaves; and, therefore, that the aet of con. gress (Feb. 12, 1792) is unconstitutional." already mentioned, operates to the exclusion of any authority derived from the act of congress. Prior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, the inhabitants of the states, where slavery prevailed, were exposed to so many inconveniences, from the escaping of their slaves into other states, where slavery was not tolerated— from the different views entertained of the sub. ject, itwas thought unnecessary or improper to aid in their restoration-and in the states, where co$579,227 99 lored persons were free, persons escaping from the 568,297 63 service of their masters, became emancipated by 271,582 30 their laws. To correct these abuses-prevent col 17.444 63 lisions between the several states-to secure the 47,279 33 enjoyment of property according to their laws, respectively-and to enable the owners of slaves, 1,483,831 88 fleeing from their service, to reclaim them, the 57,600 00 constitution provides, that no person held to labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regula. tion therein, be discharged from such service or Amount of new lands 40,560 00 labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of Cultivated farms in Connecti Massachusetts, Vermont, Amount of bonds Stock, 576 shares in Hartford bank, New York, In the state of Ohio, cut, Įn Massachusetts, $38,000 2,560 Signed per order, $1,649,185 42 ELIJAH BOARDMAN, Chairman, Fugitive Slaves. the party, to whom such service or labor may be due, and in conformity to this provision of the coDstitution, congress accordingly enacted that any person held to service or labor, in any state, ac cording to the laws thereof, escaping into another state, may be seized by the person to whom such service or labor is due, and taken before a judge of the United States, or any magistrate of a county, &c. who, upon proof to his satisfaction, that the person so seized, doth, under the laws of the state, from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the claimant, shall give a certificate thereof, and Decision delivered by the hon. Benjamin Park, at which shall be a sufficient warrant to remove back Cor don, Nov. 3, 1818 John L. Chasteen, a citizen of Ky, Busan [alias Sook,] a woman of color, and a fugitive slave of Ky. the fugitive to the state from which he or she escaped. This case has probably furnished the first occa sion on which the validity of this law has been questioned, which is cited by Judge Tucker in his commentary on the constitution of the U, States of this cou“, A: r I can not think that the evidence was such as sanctioned character of the four men said to have been enlist (Tucker's Black. 366) and by the supreme coury own executive, in many official communicatio is, of Patriot Privateering. fined solely to the case of rescue from those whom U. States circuit court, at Charleston, March, 1819. high seas; the jurisdiction of which is not susceptible CONSUL OF SPAIN, VS. THE SCHR. CONCEPCION AND CARGO. DECREE. of that demarkation and appropriation which takes place on the land. This conflict has long been carried on between the colony and parent state. The event is at least doubtful--it is on both sides Opinion―Johnson, judge.—This vessel and cargo an assertion of a supposed existing right, and nei are clearly Spanish property, and the Corvette La ther can claim of a nation to whom their disputes Union, by which she was captured, was a com- are inimaterial any act of interf rence which may missioned cruiser of the republican or revolted involve it in a contest with the vic or. Much has province, (for names prove nothing) of Buenos been said, and some cases and opinions cited to Ayres. The prize put into this port in distress, shew that this court cannot recognize the indepen. was libelled by the Spanish consul in behalf of the dence of a revolted colony, until that recognition Spanish owners, and by the decree of the district shall have proceeded from our own government or court, ordered to be restored, on two grounds-1st. the parent state. There was a time when this couns That the courts of this government cannot re-try negociated and fought to maintain a different cognize the commission under Buenos Ayres-2d, doctrine-and it will be recollected that, in the That the capturing vessel had recruited men while opinion before expressed, I have not thought it ne lying in the mouth of the Mississippi in the monthcessary, in this case, to assert a different doctrine. of April last, which men were on board at the time But as the doctrine in this point, is no where laid down fully to my satisfaction, I will embrace | cargo. The same rule cannot be applied indifferthis opportunity, to state briefly my views of this ently to both parties claimants. If the residue subject. The recognition of our own government, ought to be restored to the Spanish claimant, then whatever be the state of fact, removes all question no salvage can be demanded; if the treaty applies or doubt, and our courts must consider the govern- to the case, or if it does not apply, then much highments thus recognized, as independent-and so the er salvage ought to be paid, than if it be adjudged recognization of the parent state actually produces to the captor. The principal question in the case, a state of independence. But courts exercising then, is forced upon me before I can dispose of that jurisdiction of international law, may often be salvage; and here I cannot hesitate on the decision called upon to deduce the fact of national inde- that must be made. The law of nations requires of pendence from history, evidence or public notoriety, the United States the observation of strict neutra-, where there has been no formal public recognition. lity between the belligerents. Flagrante bello, no The actual possession and long exercise of all the neutral nation is bound to pursue a course of conattributes of a state of independence, may be duct that may, ultimately, embroil it with the viclegally resorted to, without giving just cause of tor. We found the property in possession of one umbrage to a nation that does not possess the of the belligerents, and we are bound to leave it power to subjugate a revolted colony. There exists there. It is enough for us that we see a state of many nations at this day, which may claim of courts open war existing between two powers who are of international law, all the rights of independent able to maintain it. The question of right is with nations and may be judicially recognized as such, the god of armies. This is no recognition of the notwithstanding no act of government has acknow-independence of Buenos Ayres; it is the recogniledged them in that capacity; and some which hold tion of a fact known to all the world, and admitted it altogether by the sword, which acquires it when by the claimant himself—that of a state of open the parent state relinquishes the conflict, or plainly war between Spain and one of her colonies-this evinces an inability to pursue it with success. 1 is the most solemn and notorious act by which nashould say her recognition in words is unnecessary, and should our own government ever exercise, to wards a revolted colony, those acts of comity or communication, which are known and practised in the intercourse of nations, I should consider all positive explicit recognition as unnecessary to support the claims of such states, to a judicial recognition. The establishment of many such facts would, in my estimation, supercede the necessity of ex--and that the libellants ought to be satisfied with plicit official recognition. Our own courts have in several instances been called on to express opinions on this subject, and although the opinions which they have expressed, may in their language appear very general, yet that language has always been used in reference to cases in which the conflict was actually kept up. In the case of Palmer, the chief justice has expressly limited his observations to such a case, flagrante bello; it is a question of policy: there is an actual absence of such evidence as a court of justice can act upon, and the question is altogether one on which the executive or legisla tive power is called to act. Decree reversed, pro-cond section of the 14th article, it makes no property restored, and libel dismissed with costs. tions can exhibit their independence to the rest of the world; and, whilst the struggle continues, other nations are not at liberty to distinguish between fact and right. Under these impressions, I award one fifth of the nett proceeds to the libellant; con. vinced that, had the captors been consulted at the time the vessel was taken charge of, they would have freely given that proportion to secure the rest eight thousand dollars for the service rendered. There is another point on which I feel myself called on to make a remark: that is, the effect of the treaty between Spain and the United States, The sixth article has no bearing on the case. The object of that article is the protection of the vessels or effects of Spanish subjects from seizure, at the time of their being within our jurisdiction. Nor does the case come under the 9th article, since, in whatever light Spain may think proper to consider the cruisers of her enemy, they are not pirates in the view of other nations; and as to the se. vision for the restitution of property captured by citizens who have accepted commissions to cruise against Spain. The provisions are, that no citizen shall accept such a commission, and that he who accepts such a commission shall be punished as a pirate. In a government of laws, every thing has been done which good faith required to be done. Laws have been passed and our courts are open for the punishment of such as accept of commissions under the enemy of Spain. But information must be lodged and evidence produced, before it can be required of the courts of justice to punish those offenders. For any thing farther Spain must depend upon the vigilance, activity and intelligence of her agents; and in no case is it, or can it be made, an addition to the punishment of such offenders, that the property shall be restored, unless the United States may be made liable for indemnity; for when the capture is made, the property is vested in the government that grants the commission. It is the seizure of the state and not of the individuals. In the case before us, there is no evidence that the San Martin privateer was fitted out in the U. States. She has, indeed very improperly, recruited her crew within our limits; and every individual concerned in that transaction will be punished, if prosecuted. But all the world knows that the arbitrary exertion of power is unknown to the ge- and apparently disregarding his solemn vows, the nius of our constitution, and all that any state can unhappy girl was advised to swear the child to expect of the United States, is that adequate laws him, as well to obtain its maintainance, as to exshould be passed to punish and prevent the com- pose the circumstances, which had led to her calamission of such acts. When acts are done in eva-mity. She was required to appear in court, to sion of those laws, unless the government can be depose to the fact that he was the father. She charged with winking at those evasions, it is not was young and beautiful, her appearance, sorrowful liable to indemnify Spain for such captures-and and interesting, her deportment perfectly modest our courts of justice cannot, on that ground, vio- and correct-free from any affected sensibility and late the obligation of neutrality by seizing and re- devoid of all forwardness. After being sworn, storing prizes that have been made by either party. she stated that "she had only to say that Mr. [Signed] WM. JOHNSON. was the father of her child; if other testimony was required, it could be obtained from witnesses who were now present." The attorney for the commonwealth remarked "you are positive, madam, that Mr. is the father of your child?" A Whale is a Fish? FROM THE NEW YORK EVENING POST. - At a late Mayor's court came on for trial the case "Yes, sir, it is impossible that any other person of Maurice, inspector of oil, vs. Judd, a vender, could have been." Never did a woman excite a which, strange as it may seem, turned on the ques- more general sympathy, than Miss did at this tion whether a whale is a fish? To support the ne-moment. You might see, through her eyes, the gative, the learned Dr. Mitchell was sworn, and a inward agonies of those finer feelings, which were number of persons not so learned; while, on the repressed with so much dignity, but which excited other side, a number of witnesses, equally respect such universal respect and commisseration. . A soable, testified that they had always been accustom-lemn pause of some moments ensued. Those who ed, during their whole lives, to consider every in- had gathered around to leer and to laugh, invohabitant of the great deep, and which could not luntarily sacrificed their intentions to the more live upon land, as fishes, and the whale among the generous feelings of our nature. At length, one rest. It consumed nearly three days in settling the of the counsel for the defendant, ventured to ask question-all the sellers of oil being one way of her a question; one which, on similar occasions, swearing, and all the buyers another-and, perhaps, would have hardly been deemed improper. the jury might have been puzzled until this time, But "the age of chivalry was not gone;"-the had not the learned Dr. Mitchell, unfortunately, the whole bar were ready to resent "even a look quoted the first chapter of Genesis in support of his that should threaten her with insult."—A gallant opinion. The doctor remarked, that it is there said, young gentleman instantly rose to protest against that "God created whales, and every living crea- the question; he was not engaged in the case; but ture that moveth, which the waters brought forth it was impossible for" his heart to be cold, or his abundantly:" from which he inferred that the whale tongue to be wordless" on such an occasion; every was a separate creation from fishes. This put the feeling of his soul was aroused, and impelled him other side upon the same track; who found a text to denounce the course which was about to be in the old testament, which states that "Jonah was pursued.-The attorney for the commonwealth, in in the belly of the fish three days and three nights,,' his accustomed eloquence, gave vent to his love and in the new, that "Jonah was three days in the and tenderness for the sex.-A third gentleman, whale's belly." Putting the two together, they of a good old age and retiring from the labors of proved that a whale was a fish, according to scrip- the law, next arose-and with all his well earned ture authority: besides, they said that the doctor's influence, declared in the generous enthusiasm of text, if it proved any thing in the case, would his nature, his reprobation of the man, who could prove too much; as it would equally prove that a first betray an amiable and beautiful woman, and whale was not a "living creature." Finally, the then cause her sorrows and sufferings to be sportjury, by their verdict, decided that a whale is a ed with in a court of justice. The worthy counsel, fish. Sir Joseph Banks, we are told by the facetious whose ill-fated question had brought forth these Peter Pindar, once made an experiment, to satisfy bursts of indignant eloquence, seemed not to know himself whether fleas were not lobsters, by boiling them, to see if they would not turn red, but the result disappointing his expectations, he is made by the poet to exclaim peevishly, "Fleas are not lobsters, d-n their souls." A report of this funny trial is preparing by Mr. Sampson, one of the counsel for the plaintiff. Case of Seduction. what he had done, or what he should say; his coadjutor, however, made an apologetic explanation for him, complimented, in a handsome strain, the ardor and eloquence of the volunteers, who had enlisted under the banners of the unfortunate fair; in feeling terms commisserated her affliction, and declared he was one of the last men in the world who would give it the slenderest additional pang. In this state of things, a friend of the defendant stated to him, that he "was bound by every feeling and principle that could bind a man of honor, to marry that girl." The man immediately declared, he was perfectly willing and always intended it. Petersburg, Va. Sept. 8.-The following singular incident, we are assured by a respectable friend, occurred a short time since, between a young gen. tleman and young lady, in an adjacent county. This declaration was instantly communicated to The parties both possessed a smail property, were another counsel, who, (altho', from the mere want of respectable connections, and had been for some of an opportunity, he had not spoken,) had been time engaged to be married. But some unfortu- manifesting no ordinary solicitude on the subject. nate circumstances having opposed and retarded IIe requested a pause in the proceedings-the girl their union, they were, in an unlucky moment, inaad her mother were called out and consultedduced by their warm and confiding affections, to the former, declared that she had loved Mr. anticipate the event; and in the ordinary course more than she could ever love any man again, of such manners, a fine child was born unto them. and that if his former feelings towards her were The love now becoming indifferent and neglectful, unchanged, she would still marry him. He was then consulted, and declared his unabated attach-f ment; and his entire confidence in her virtues and affections. The gentlemen who had thus inter ceded, insisted then, that as the affair had been thus public, its termination should be public and instantaneous. In a few moments, but with some opposition by the father of the young lady, this course was agreed upon. They then ali returned into the court; the recent reconciliation and adjust ment were announced and explained; their kind mediator addressing each of them, earnestly charg ed them not to marry, unless they knew and felt that their confidence and affections were unabated and unchanged. This being declared, and a respectable clergyman being present, a license was issued, and the young couple were legally and solemnly united, in the holy estate of matrimony, before Almighty God, "and in the presence of this worshipful court."* Religious Obligations. Glasgow, Scotland) April 9. During the trial of a horse cause, at the Leicester assizes, last week, a Mr. Davenport, a surgeon, was examined as follows, by Mr. Clark, counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Clark-Have you been examined as a witness before? I have. You know then the religious obligations of an oath? I do. Do you consider the oath which you have taken as binding upon you, to speak the whole truth? I do. Do you believe in the holy scriptures? I believe in sin. I ask you, sir, do you believe in the scriptures upon which you have just sworn to speak the truth? I do not believe in every part of them. Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?-Witness to the learned judge: My lord, am I obliged to answer that question? Mr. Serjeant Vaughn. My lord, I apprehend the witness is not obliged to answer such interro gatories. Mr. Baron Garrow. As you have taken the ob. jection, it is my duty to say he is not. I should Rot, however, have prevented him from giving an answer if he had chosen, because the answer might have vindicated him from the imputation which the question conveyed. But, whatever might have been his answer, whether he declared himself to be a believer in every part of the holy scriptures or not, I should, in my address to the jury, have said, that his belief or disbelief in these matters should not impeach his testimony. He might be equally disposed to tell the truth, whatever were his religious opi nions. If, however, Mr. Davenport had the misfortune not to entertain the same opinion as he did, he would advise him to be more sparing of his declarations on that subject; as such opinions delivered from a person whom it must be sup posed had passed through a regular education, might have a very mischievous effect upon the minds of ignorant persons.. Fat not Tallow. FROM AN ENGLISH MAGAZINE OF 1817. Wiltshire Assizes.-At the assizes, H. Maidment, aged 24, was indicted for stealing 89 lbs of tallow, the property of Francis Webb, of Mere. It was stated that Webb had recently received a great An appropriate interpolation in the marriage ceremony. deal of tallow, from which the quantity mentioned in the indictment had been taken. It being declar. ed that the prisoner had no counsel, the judge very cheerfully became his advocate. Judge Abbot, for the prisoner. How do you know, Webb, that you lost just 89 lb. of tallow? I am sure of it, my lord. I want to be sure of it too; do you keep an account of what you receive, or what you use? No, my lord. What, no book, in which you minute down your goods? Yes, my lord, I keep a day-book. Well, that is what I wanted; and did you in this book make any entry of the tallow received, or taken from it, for the purpose of making candles! No, my lord, for it was not fit to make candles of. No! not fit to make candles of! why then, man, it was not tallow? The sloop Pitt, her tackle, &c.j Libel for entering a port of the United States, against the provisions of an act of congress, entitled, "an act concerning navigation;" passed on 18th April, 1818. Process returnable at Dover, 16th November, 1818. Same Libel for same cause &c. &e. process at The goods, wares and merchandise (time and place afore, laden on board the sloop Pitt. said. These cases, on the preliminary question of the right of the claimants to a delivery of the vessel and cargo on stipulated bonds, were argued before Fisher, district judge, by Mr. Read, district at torney, on the part of the United States, and by Mr. Rodney, on the part of the claimants. As the judge briefly recites the arguments of counsel, in the opinion here given, they are omitted in their proper place. November 17, 1818. FISHER, district judge:-The case now before this court arises on two libels filed on the part of the United States against the sloop Pitt, (a British bottom) her tackle, apparel and furniture; and also against her cargo, consisting of 46,000lbs. of cocoa, a small number of raw hides, and seventy sticks or pieces of fustick. These libels are instituted upon an act of congress of the 18th of April last, entitled an act concerning navigation.' The act was passed with a view to exclude from the country, after the 30th of September last, all vessels owned by Bri tish subjects, arriving from a colony which, by the British navigation laws, is closed against vessels |