by his unbounded goodness; to commit to his tender care the poor, the neglected, and the oppressed, and to supplicate a continuance of his favor to this people throughout all generations. However we may be separated by opinions or associations, all the citizens of the republic have equal political rights, and have the same motives to desire its peace, happiness, and perpetual prosperity. The church of the living God is one, and embraces all those who in humility of spirit receive his holy faith, and endeavor through Divine aid to keep his commandments. Let us, therefore, in perfect harmony and charity, one with another, as patriots and Christians, implore Him to sustain and bless all our civil and religious institutions, and to dispense to us abundantly that heavenly grace which, with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, leads through the way of virtue here to the blessed society of the redeemed in his everlasting kingdom.

REMOVAL OF THE RECORDER OF NEW YORK.

TO THE SENATE:

ALBANY, JANUARY 12, 1841.

GENTLEMEN: Robert H. Morris, recorder of the city of New York, proceeded in the month of October last, in the night-time, to the house of a citizen, and demanded of him certain papers which were sealed in a package and had been delivered to that citizen by an individual against whom a criminal complaint had been made before the recorder, which complaint did not involve the charge of having unlawfully obtained the papers so demanded. The citizen hesitated to deliver the package. The recorder then declared to him, that if he did not deliver the same, he, the recorder, would search for the papers and forcibly seize them, by virtue of his authority as a magistrate. Under the coercion of this threat the papers were delivered to the recorder.

Soon after these proceedings a court of general sessions of the peace was held in and for the city and county of New York. The recorder presided in that court, and a grand jury was there empanelled. Upon that grand jury devolved the responsibility of inquiring into the conduct of the recorder in the proceedings which have been described. The recorder in charging the grand jury spread before them a defence and vindication of his conduct in those proceedings, and urged that the same were just and sanctioned by law. After very mature deliberation on the subject, I am satisfied that in the case in which the proceedings occurred any search-warrant for the private papers of the accused, which papers were not alleged to have been feloniously stolen or unlawfully acquired, would have been a violation of the

NOTE.-The grave legal questions involved in this proceeding are luminously discussed in a report submitted to the governor by the Hon. Willis Hall, attorneygeneral, Jan. 11, 1841.-Ed.

most sacred private rights, and of the most cherished principles of civil liberty, and that the seizure of the papers in such a case by a judicial officer, without warrant on oath, was more aggravated than the issuing of a search-warrant would have been, because it was a mixture of judicial and executive functions, derogatory from the station of the judge and dangerous to the personal rights of the citizen. In availing himself of his station as a judge to defend and vindicate his conduct before the grand jury, who by law could receive testimony only on behalf of the people, and hear only their counsel, the recorder obtained an improper advantage, denied to all other citizens in similar circumstances, and furnished an example to other judicial officers, which if permitted to pass without censure, may become a precedent of alarming tendency.

I do, therefore, for the causes above stated, recommend that Robert H. Morris be removed from the office of recorder of the city of New York.

The evidence before me in regard to the proceedings referred to, consists of the charge of the recorder as published in various newspapers in the city of New York.

On the 29th day of December last, in anticipation of your meeting, I transmitted to the recorder a communication, a copy of which, together with a copy of his acknowledgment of the receipt of the same, is herewith laid before the senate.

Should a further communication, pertinent to the subject, be received from the recorder, it will be transmitted to the senate. I transmit also herewith a copy of the charge made by the recorder to the grand jury.

I nominate Frederick A. Tallmadge of the city of New York to be recorder of the said city in the place of Robert H. Morris.

THE VIRGINIA CONTROVERSY.

ALBANY, MARCH 26, 1841.

TO THE LEGISLATURE:

I TRANSMIT resolutions of the legislature of Mississippi, concerning the decision of the executive of this state declining to comply with a requisition made by the lieutenant-governor of Virginia, in 1839, for the surrender of certain persons represented to have been fugitives from justice, charged with the constructive offence of stealing a negro-slave. I avail myself of the occasion to lay before the legislature certain other proceedings affecting the same question.

On the 24th of February last, I issued a requisition to the executive of Virginia for the surrender of Robert F. Curry, a fugitive from justice, charged with an aggravated crime of forgery. His excellency the governor of Virginia, in his reply, admits the regularity of the requisition, and acknowledges that the fugitive has been arrested, and is in actual custody in that commonwealth, upon the charge contained in the requisition. Nevertheless, he deems it proper to make his compliance with the requisition depend on a reversal of the decision heretofore made by the executive of this state in the case before referred to, and to detain the fugitive in custody six months, to afford time to the executive of this state to reconsider that subject. By the documents transmitted, it will be seen that I have deemed it my duty, under these extraordinary circumstances, to inform the governor of Virginia without delay, that the decision in question can not be reversed.

The house of delegates of Virginia expressed their disapprobation of this proceeding, and the decision of the executive of Virginia was, therefore, reversed, and the fugitive demanded by the governor of New York was surrendered. Thereupon the governor of Virginia immediately resigned.-Ed.

It appears from the public prints, and is undoubtedly true, that an act has been passed by the legislature of Virginia, designed to subject vessels owned or navigated by citizens of this state and departing from Virginia, to inspection, and attempting to impose other onerous and offensive restrictions upon citizens of this state carrying on commerce with the state of Virginia. It is understood to be among the provisions of this law, that it shall take effect after the first day of May, 1842; but that his excellency the governor of that commonwealth, may suspend the operation of the same until the end of the succeeding session of the legislature of Virginia, whenever he shall be officially informed that the executive of New York has consented to surrender the supposed fugitives before mentioned, and that the law of the state of New York, passed May 6th, 1840, entitled "An act to extend the right of trial by jury," has been repealed. A copy of that act of the legislature of Virginia, as contained in the public prints, is herewith laid before you.

It will belong to the legislature to decide whether the law that seems to have given offence to the legislature of Virginia shall be repealed: but I trust it will not be deemed improper for me to state, that although I supposed the privilege of trial by jury was already effectually secured to persons claimed as fugitive slaves without the passage of the act in question, and therefore believed it unnecessary, yet I cheerfully deferred in that respect to the better judgment of the legislature, and approved the law, the repeal of which is thus demanded. In my judgment, the law could not now be repealed, and especially under the singular circumstances presented, without raising a presumption that the legislature intended to deprive our own citizens, or other persons claimed as fugitive slaves, of the right of trial by jury. Believing that the right is invaluable as a protection to personal liberty, is peculiarly proper in cases where persons are exposed to the loss of liberty without even a charge of crime, and that it is important to every human being within our jurisdiction, in proportion to the humbleness and defencelessness of his condition, I can not recommend the repeal of the act. If it became my place to speculate concerning the probabilities of legislative action, and if I supposed as I certainly do not, that any disposition existed in the legislature to repeal the act, I should deem it my duty to remonstrate against the measure.