ful deference to their wisdom, and with an anxious desire for harmony and agreement upon a question in which the rights, interests, and honor of this state are deeply involved. After thus considering the subject, without the benefit, however, of any of the arguments which have brought the legislature to a different conclusion, I remain of opinion that a being possessed of the physical, moral, and intellectual faculties common to the human race, can not, by the force of any constitution, or laws, be goods, or chattels, or a thing, and that nothing but goods, chattels, and things, can be the subject of larceny, stealing, or theft; and that the constitution of the United States, so far from controverting truths which seem to me so obvious, acknowledges them, by carefully treating persons held in involuntary servitude, or bondage, not as property but as men, while the Declaration of Independence, expounding what to any mind may seem obscure in the constitution, declares that all men are born free and equal, and have inalienable rights to enjoy life, and liberty, and to pursue the way to human happiness. In view of the crisis at which our relations with other states have arrived, and of the close of the legislative session, it seems my duty to make no delay in submitting these views to the legislature.

I am requested by that body to communicate their preamble and resolution to the executive of Virginia. The constitution of this state declares that it shall be the duty of the governor to expedite all measures which shall be resolved upon by the legislature, and to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. But the legislature can not effectually resolve upon any measure, or impose a duty on the governor, except by bills passed both houses, and becoming laws by the executive approval, or by a constitutional majority, notwithstanding his objections. In proper cases I cheerfully comply with the requests of the senate and assembly, but I can not do so when a request conflicts with constitutional duties. I could not transmit the resolution in the present case, without silently acquiescing therein, and thus waiving a decision to which I adhere, or accompanying the communication to Virginia with a protest of my dissent. The former course would be a plain dereliction of constitutional duty; the proceeding, if the latter alternative were adopted, would not tend to enhance the respect in which this state is held by her sister-states and by the civilized world.

Cherished principles of civil liberty forbid me equally from recognising such a natural inequality of men as the resolution of the legislature seems to assume, and from contributing, in any way, to perpetuate the inequalities of political condition, from which result a large portion of the evils of human life.

The senate and assembly will, therefore, excuse me from assuming the duty which an assent to their request would impose, and will, if it be proper, select some other organ of communication with the executive authorities of our sister commonwealth.

REMOVAL OF THE SHERIFF OF SCHOHARIE.

ALBANY, JULY 6, 1842.

COMPLAINTS of official misconduct were preferred in March last by Joseph S. Johnson, against Cyrus Smith, Esq., sheriff of Schoharie county. Supplemental complaints were afterward filed. Notice of all the charges were given to the sheriff, and his answers were received. Instructions were given to the district-attorney to take proofs before a judge of the county courts of Schoharie. Testimony was taken and returned by the districtattorney, and the same has been considered, together with supplemental and explanatory depositions submitted by the parties; and Henry Hamilton, Esq., of counsel for the sheriff, has been heard in his defence.

It was complained that the sheriff had illicit intercourse with a female-prisoner; and that servants and persons employed by him had such communication with the same prisoner. The charge was denied by the sheriff. Although a person who was intrusted for a time with the charge of the jail endeavored to avoid being examined as a witness, and when examined testified in a very unsatisfactory manner, yet the proof was insufficient to convict him, and does not at all implicate the sheriff. This charge is therefore dismissed.

It was charged that Abraham Sloughter, while a prisoner on a complaint of petit larceny, was permitted by the sheriff to be at large and to frequent stores and taverns, and carried spirituous liquors to persons in the jail. The sheriff admits that the prisoner was at times employed in sawing wood out of the jail, but upon appurtenant premises and for use in the jail; and denies that the prisoner was otherwise at large, and that he furnished spirits to his fellow-prisoners. It was proved that the prisoner

was, by the sheriff's direction, employed in sawing wood for the jail-was seen several times apparently unemployed in the street, at a tavern kept by the sheriff near the jail, and at a grocery; and that on one occasion he sawed wood for an inhabitant of the village; and that he drank ardent spirits in the tavern, and once carried such liquor to another prisoner in the jail. It does not certainly appear that the sheriff, or the officer, having the prisoner in charge, knew that he was absent from the assigned labor. It may be believed that he never was so far distant from his keeper as to have it in his power to escape from custody; and it is proved that the sheriff had instructed the keeper to watch the prisoner carefully, and to let no ardent spirits be conveyed into the prison. Nevertheless, the sheriff violated a statute in directing the prisoner to be employed out of the jail, and strictly might be held responsible for all its consequences; yet if allowance is made for erroneous notions concerning the law in this respect, and for abuses of the sheriff's confidence by his agent, the charge may be dismissed without severe censure.

It was alleged that in the winter of 1841, the sheriff permitted two men to enter the prison-room in which two women were confined--one of whom was committed on a conviction of keeping a house of ill-fame. The sheriff denied this charge. It was inexplicit, and more than a year had elapsed before the complaint was made. The governor, upon receiving the sheriff's denial, decided that it was inexpedient to entertain the charge, and it was therefore dismissed without inquiry.

It was alleged that one of the females thus described was permitted to be at large in the public streets- but the transaction has been satisfactorily explained by the sheriff. He is, therefore, exonerated from this charge.

It was complained that James O'Brien, a prisoner charged with petit larceny, was permitted to remain days and nights in the same apartment with the same two females before mentioned. The sheriff admitted this fact, but offered by way of excuse that O'Brien was a lad of only thirteen or fourteen years that his condition was such as to require maternal attention, for a reason which need not be stated, and for that reason alone he was put into the apartment with his mother. The district-attorney was directed to take proofs whether the prisoner was of so tender an age. It appeared in proof that he was a robust youth of fifteen

and a half years, but was represented by his mother to be of the age stated by the sheriff.

The statute peremptorily forbids confining persons of different sexes in one apartment. If, however, respect were paid to the spirit of the law rather than the letter, the sheriff might not have committed an impropriety in permitting the young man to be transferred to the room in which his mother was confined, but in that case some other apartment should have been assigned to her than one in which two other women were imprisoned, especially when she as well as the other females were of a vicious and depraved character, and one of them was under a conviction of keeping a house of ill-fame. The proceeding, therefore, was a violation of propriety as well as of the letter of the statute.

It was alleged that Abraham Sloughter, a prisoner charged with petit larceny, was confined in the same prison-room with two women, one of whom was committed for petit larceny, and the other had been convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame. The sheriff admitted this charge, but offered in extenuation that one of the women was Sloughter's wife-that they were all committed to the prison at one time by the complainant, who urged and persuaded the sheriff to confine them in one apartment.

Although the governor was of opinion that the sheriff's conduct, as thus explained, was censurable, he communicated to the district-attorney an opinion that if the transaction was truly represented by the sheriff, the complainant was guilty of duplicity, and that the sheriff's error would be overlooked, rather than what seemed to be an unworthy artifice of the complainant to injure the sheriff, should be crowned with success. The districtattorney was therefore required to take proof of the facts stated by the sheriff. It appeared in evidence that the complainant (who was a constable) on arresting several male and female prisoners living in one family, found it difficult to induce one of the women to go to the prison, and therefore promised her that he would use his influence with the sheriff to confine her in an apartment with her husband, and that he stated this promise to the sheriff, and advised him to put the family in one room. the sheriff declined to do so; and the male and female prisoners were separated. The woman who was convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame was not committed till afterward-the male prisoner was not put into the room with the females until some

But