Governor Seward thus proceeds: "The offence charged in the affidavit before me is not understood to be that of kidnapping a person, by which he was deprived of his liberty, or held in duress, or suffered personal wrong or injustice, but it is understood to mean the taking of a slave, considered as property, from the owner. If I am incorrect in this supposition, the vagueness and uncertainty of the affidavit must excuse my error. But I think there can be no controversy on this point. I need not inform you, sir, that there is no law of this state which recognizes slavery, no statute which admits that one man can be the property of another, or that one man can be stolen from another. On the other hand, our constitution and laws abolish slavery in every form. The act charged in the affidavit, if it had been committed in this state, would not contravene any statute; nor is it necessary to inform you that the common law which is in force in this state, when not abrogated by statute, does not recognize slavery nor make the act of which the parties are accused in this case felonious or criminal."

The decisions of the supreme court of New York, cited in our former number, show, that until a very recent period the laws of that state recognized slavery, and her statutes admitted that one man might be the property of another. Such property was the subject of sale and the owner's rights were protected by the laws.

It may however be conceded that the act charged in the affidavit, if it had been committed in New York, would not have contravened any existing statute of that state making such an act felonious or criminal. It might further be conceded that the act of stealing a slave could not be deemed a common law felony. And still the conclusion, that the act charged in the affidavit is not a felony or crime, within the meaning of the federal constitution, is one which cannot be sustained, if the precedent of governor Throop be cor

rect, and the opinion of the supreme court of New York be a sound exposition of the constitutional obligation to surrender.

เ

Nay more, it is not necessary to call in aid that precedent and that opinion to the whole extent that they authorize. The conclusion that the fact charged in the affidavit is not a felony or crime within the meaning of the federal constitution is untenable upon another ground. In a communication of the 4th of October, 1839, from the lieutenant governor of Virginia to the governor of New York, this language is used, "Is it true that the offence committed by Peter Johnson, Edward Smith, and Isaac Gansay is not recognized as criminal by the universal law of all civilized countries?' They are charged with feloniously stealing from John G. Colley, a citizen of this state, property which could not have been worth less than six or seven hundred dollars. And I understand stealing to be recognized as a crime by all laws, human and divine." In governor Seward's reply of the 24th of October, 1839, he says, "it is freely admitted that the argument would be at an end if it were as clear that one human being may be the property of another as it is that stealing is a crime." It might not be going too far to say that stealing property is recognized as a crime by all laws, and that any state may make that property which she pleases. But here the question is not between Virginia, whose laws recognize slaves as property, and a foreign state, whose laws recognize no such property. The question is very different. It is between Virginia, under whose laws slaves are property, and New York, who has made a compact with Virginia recognizing this very kind of property. New York has said to Virginia that if she will come into the union with her, a constitution shall be adopted for the government of the states, by which New York will agree that, no matter what laws or regulations New York may herself adopt to abolish slavery within her

borders, persons held as slaves in Virginia, under her laws, who may escape into New York, shall not be discharged from slavery, but the right of property of the owners shall be respected in New York, and the slaves shall be delivered up on claim of the owners. New York has further agreed by the same constitution, that a person charged in Virginia with a crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in New York, shall be delivered up to be removed to Virginia. After a union of the states has been formed, based upon the provisions contained in this constitution, a person charged in Virginia with stealing property, flees from justice and is found in New York; Virginia demands the fugitive and New York refuses to deliver him up. New York, while so refusing, admits that if the person is charged with a crime he ought to be delivered up: and she admits that stealing property is a crime. But the ground of her refusal is, that nothing was stolen except a person held as a slave, and that a person held as a slave, is not property by the laws of New York.

We trust that it is not yet come to this, that New York shall be told in vain that she herself has said, persons held in Virginia as slaves shall be recognized as property. We trust it is not too late to remind her that she has so said in a constitution which she agreed should be her supreme law, and which she declared the members of her state legislature and all her executive and judicial officers should be solemnly pledged to support.

C. R.

ART. V.-BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN WINSLOW.

THE name of general Winslow fills so considerable a space in the history of Massachusetts, that he seems to deserve a place among the judges of her courts, although little is known of him in that connection.

He was the presiding justice of the court of common pleas in his native county of Plymouth, for the term of twelve years, and held that office at the time of his death.

He was of the family of governor Winslow, and was born in Marshfield in 1703. His father, Isaac Winslow, who was a son of the governor, had been chief justice of the same court, for the term of ten years, and left the bench in 1738.

General Winslow was educated as a merchant, and pursued mercantile business as a means of livelihood.

Early in life, however, he became connected with public affairs, and among other offices, he was for some time register of probate for the county of Plymouth.

Soon after this appointment he was commissioned as a military officer, and entered upon a brilliant and successful career. An expedition was fitted out under the direction of the crown, against Cuba, then, as now, under the government of Spain, and the command of a company was on that occasion given to Mr. Winslow. He took an active part in the enterprise, but it altogether failed. The troops belonging to the British army were attacked and swept off by disease to such a degree, that of the five hundred men who had been furnished by Massachusetts, fifty only returned from this disastrous campaign.

In 1744, he was in command of a company which formed a part of an expedition then fitted out against the French in Nova Scotia, and ten years afterwards he led an expedition against the Indians in the Castine part of Maine.

In these various enterprises, his courage and conduct had been such as to secure him general confidence, and when in the year 1755 it was desirable to raise a new army to carry on the war with the French, general Winslow, who held the rank of lieutenant colonel in the expedition, was able to enlist two thousand men in the space of two months.

The enterprise in which he now bore a part, was among

the most memorable in the annals of New England, not so much on account of the magnitude of its consequences, as the incidents that marked its progress.

The whole expedition was put under the general command of colonel Monckton, but the chief responsibility rested upon lieutenant colonel Winslow, who was at the head of the provincial troops.

The destination of this army was Nova Scotia, which was claimed by Great Britain under the treaty of Utrecht. The inhabitants of a considerable portion of the country were French, who had been suffered to retain their property and religion, under an understanding that they would in the case of a war with France remain neutral. They were accordingly known as the "French Neutrals," and the early history of Massachusetts contains frequent references to them as a people.

From a real or supposed violation of their neutrality, and the danger which was apprehended from their number and concert of action, it was thought to be necessary to remove them from the country and to scatter them through the English colonies.

The execution of this severe, not to say odious measure, devolved upon general Winslow, whose good judgment, forbearance and lenity in performing so ungracious a duty, met with universal approbation.

There was in the character and manners of this people more of romance than ordinarily is found in civilized life. They realized the poet's dream of Arcadian simplicity, honesty, happiness and contentment. Attached to their religion, fond beyond measure of their homes, possessed of comfortable if not independent estates in their well cultivated and well stocked farms, they formed a most interesting community.

As nothing but stratagem could avail in inducing them to bring themselves within the power of the invading army,