Page images
PDF
EPUB

arrested in the city of New York, but having been brought before Robert H. Morris, the recorder of the city, on a writ of habeas corpus, were discharged by him on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavits to justify their detention. The lieutenant governor of Virginia, however, persisted in the requisition, demanding that the governor of New York should surrender the persons as fugitives from justice. Gov. Seward replied that they had been discharged from arrest in due course of law, and that the affidavits in support of the requisition were informal and insufficient. At the same time he admitted that these affidavits could be replaced by new affidavits, or a formal indictment. Disdaining, however, to stand upon mere light technicalities in so grave a cause, he met the question on the broad and universal principles which it involved. He took the ground, that the crimes contemplated by the constitution of the United States in its provisfons authorizing the demand of fugitives from justice, between the several states, were not such crimes as depended on the arbitrary legislation of a particular state, but such as were mala in sese-crimes which could be determined by some common standard, as the concurrent sense of the several states-the common law received by them all alike, or the universal sentiment of civilized nations. No state, he argued, could force a requisition upon another state, founded on an act which was only criminal through its own legislation, but compared with general standards, was not only innocent, but humane and praiseworthy. Thus, the aiding of a slave to escape from bondage was in itself an act of virtue and humanity. No statute could pronounce such an act a crime, without a perversion both of reason and justice. Still further, though slavery was left by the constitution of the United States to the exclusive jurisdiction of the states where it existed, it was carefully excluded from Federal recognition. Hence no state was bound by the constitution to recognize slavery or any of its incidents in another state, so as to create an obligation for the surrendry of persons charged with offences in violation of laws enacted by slave-holding states for the maintenance of slavery. This reasoning was applicable to all cases, and not alone to those which grew out of slavery. By the laws of New York, for instance, as in several other states, there was no legal imprisonment for debt. But in Pennsylvania this barbarous custom was still sanctioned by the laws; hence, in that state, resistance by a debtor to a civil officer charged with process was a

felony. The governor of Pennsylvania had made a requisition on Gov. Seward, under the Federal constitution, for the surrender of a citizen of New York, indicted in Pennsylvania, for resistance to a sheriff charged with an execution against his person. Governor Seward refused to comply with the requisition, on the principles before stated. While the decision was acquiesced in by the state of Pennsylvania, Virginia withheld its assent in the case presented from that state.

A correspondence ensued which continued during the whole of Gov. Seward's administration. The legislature of Virginia appealed from the governor to the legislature of New York. The public mind was profoundly moved by this novel and important discussion, Although not made an affair of strict party division, the whig legislatures of New York, more or less explicitly, sustained the position of the governor.

Upon the election of an opposition legislature in 1842, the assembly took a different ground, and requested Gov. Seward to communicate their opinion to the legislature of Virginia. In a firm, but respectful manner, he declined to comply with the request. The soundness of his views on this subject received a striking illustration in subsequent requisitions by the governors of Louisiana and Georgia, demanding the surrendry of fugitive slaves on the most frivolous pretexts as fugitives from justice; in one case, on the indictment of a female slave for stealing the gown on her back, valued by the grand jury who found the indictment, at twelve and a half cents and in the other. on the indictment of a person for stealing a female slave from her master, and stealing the calico dress and trinkets worn upon her person, when the entire transaction consisted at most in his persuading the slave to make her escape from bondage.

The state of Virginia, combined with other states, resorted to retaliatory measures designed to injure the commerce of New York. But this produced no change in the decision of Gov. Seward, nor in public opinion concerning the controversy. The judgment which will ultimately be passed upon his conduct in this affair by the moral sentiment of mankind, is indicated in the construction placed by the British ministry on the article of the recent treaty in regard to the extradition of fugitives from justice-an article of similar purport to the extradition article in the Federal constitu* See Special Message, Vol. II. pp. 385-433.

VOL. I-E.

tion. It was stated by them in the house of commons, that they should not deem themselves bound to surrender any person charged with a crime which should appear to have been committed by the offender in effecting his own escape, or that of another from slavery. In connection with this subject, it may be added that Gov. Seward always maintained the unconstitutionality of imprisoning colored citizens of the free states in the slave-holding states, when not charged with actual crime. In case of such imprisonment of citizens of New York, he employed agents at the expense of the state to obtain their restoration to freedom.

The condition of Gov. Seward's private affairs, which had been affected by the general depreciation of property incident to the financial embarrassment of the country, made his acceptance of a re-election in 1840 a matter of personal sacrifice. But it was deemed necessary by his political friends. His own mind regarded the subject in a different light. He had been elected by a diminished majority. Several hundreds of whig votes were given for other candidates. To him this was a proof of dissatisfaction on the part of no inconsiderable number of persons; many had been disappointed in their hopes of office; others were alienated by his devotion to reform; his policy in regard to universal education was greatly misapprehended: all these causes led him to doubt whether a division of the party would not be produced by his remaining in the executive chair, although no one, in fact, ever possessed a stronger hold on the confidence of a great political party than he did at that moment. Besides, Gov. Seward foresaw more clearly than many of his friends, the progress of reaction in regard to internal improvements. The opponents of the policy were rapidly gaining ground; it would be necessary, at another election, to present a candidate to the whig party against whom there was no considerable prejudice. Accordingly, in Jan., 1841, Gov. Seward announced his determination, under no circumstances, to again become a candidate for the executive office. The announcement took the public by surprise, especially as it was made at a time when he was regarded as having triumphed over all opposition, and gained a firm footing as a leader of the whig party. His last annual message * was considered the ablest official production of his pen. Nor is it too much to say that few, if any, abler documents have ever issued from the executive chair of New York.

*See Vol. II p. 297.

The election of Gen. Harrison in 1840, who had been nominated for president in preference to Mr. Clay, on the ground of superior availability, induced the friends of the latter distinguished leader to believe that he would have been successful if he had received the nomination. This conviction, which became almost universal, produced a settled determination to secure Mr. Clay's nomination for the canvass of 1844. The policy was to foreclose the question by popular movements throughout the United States as early as the spring of 1842. Gov. Seward did not assent to the wisdom of the plan. He yielded his private views, however, to the prevailing sentiment of the whig party. But he could not be persuaded to place himself at the head of the movement, with the prospect of a re-nomination for governor. On the contrary, he frankly pointed out to his friends the reasons against their course. The question of the annexation of Texas, he argued, had become inevitable. Under the excitement produced by its discussion, the anti-slavery interest had grown up in the state, from one thousand in 1838, to two thousand five hundred in 1840, in opposition to Gen. Harrison and himself, neither of whom was regarded with special prejudice by the political abolitionists. It was more than probable, that the premature nomination of Mr. Clay, who was already severely censured by the abolitionists, would increase their vote at the state election of 1842, from five thousand to fifteen thousand, at the expense of the whig party. This would ensure the loss of the state to the whigs, as well as of the presidential election of 1844.

Other counsels, however, prevailed. Gov. Seward persisted in declining a re-nomination. Mr. Clay was the avowed candidate of the whigs for the presidency. The result was the increase of the abolition vote to sixteen thousand. The whigs were, accordingly, defeated. Their candidate for governor, Hon. Luther Bradish, a man of unexceptionable character, well known to the public, and universally popular, lost his election by a decided vote. William C. Bouck received a majority of twenty-two thousand, and the administration of the state reverted to the hands of the opposition.

On the last day of Gov. Seward's official term, his accounts with the treasury were definitely settled; and on the first day of January, 1843, he introduced his successor, Gov. Bouck, to the people of the capitol, exchanging with him appropriate courtesies on the

occasion of his inauguration. These courtesies, so well adapted ailay animosities and to cultivate a better tone of feeling, were at that time without precedent. They made a favorable impression upon the public mind. With that successor, and all others in the executive chair, of whatever politics, Gov. Seward maintained relations of mutual respect and personal friendship.

How strong a hold his benevolent action during his official term had taken upon the classes most generally overlooked, neglected and oppressed, may be seen by referring to his replies to letters and addresses elicited by his retirement.*

On retiring from his official duties, Gov. Seward returned immediately to his residence in Auburn. In one week's space of time, he was seen engaged with as much calmness and assiduity in his profession, as if he had never been removed out of it. Having enjoyed the honors of the highest post in his native state, to the full satisfaction of a noble ambition, and in a manner to leave the deep impress of his character on its laws and institutions, he was not only content, but anxious to turn again to the calls of a profession, which he ever pursued with all the ardor of an amateur.

In 1843, Gov. Seward, in his retirement at Auburn, had the gratification of a visit from Ex-President John Quincy Adams, between whom and himself the most intimate relations of friendship had long existed. The meeting was one of great cordiality and affection. It has been said, and we believe with truth, that on that, as well as on other occasions, Mr. Adams expressed his confidence that the great work of human rights which he would be obliged to leave unfinished, would devolve more completely on Gov. Seward, than on any surviving statesman. Thus far, at least, that expectation, so honorable to Gov. Seward, has not been disappointed. The following pages contain fragments of correspondence between Mr. Adams and Gov. Seward, together with orations and speeches by the latter, which, while they illustrate his own reverence for Mr. Adams, have been regarded as presenting their distinguished subject in his just attitude before the world.

On the occasion of Mr. Adams' death, Gov. Seward was invited by the legislature of New York, to pronounce a eulogy† on his character and services. It was one of the most faithful and

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »