power entrusted to him for purposes of humanity, to accomplish an act of oppression.

The same independence of character was manifested in the case of James Watson Webb.* Col. Webb had fought a duel with Hon. Thomas F. Marshall, in the state of Delaware, and was convicted under a law of this state, passed as early as 1817, and sentenced to the state prison. There had been no attempt to enforce this law, except in two cases which occurred immediately after its passage, and in these instances, the offenders were pardoned by the governor who then filled the executive chair. Afterward the law became obsolete, for want of public opinion to sustain it. Duelling was still practiced in the state of New York, notwithstanding this law was on the pages of the statute-book, and that too by men enjoying the highest distinctions and honors, including De Witt Clinton himself. It is easy to see that if the offender in the duel with Marshall, had been a political editor opposed to Gov. Seward, the enforcing of the conviction under such circumstances, would have been regarded as an act of personal and political retaliation. No one can suppose he would have enforced it under such circumstances. But Col. Webb, the offender in this case, was a personal and political friend of Gov. Seward's, and his editorial controversies had made many relentless enemies. Col. Webb having, like many others, made himself liable to the penalties of this law, probably without being aware of its existence, those enemies, unconscious, without doubt, of the motives which influenced them, demanded the rigorous application of the obsolete statute. The governor showed, in this instance, that he was not afraid to do in the case of a friend, what all men who knew his impartiality and magnanimity, would have expected him to do towards an adversary. He pardoned Col. Webb. In the case of Rathbun, he would not pardon, because, among other principal reasons, the offender had moved in high circles and had powerful friends. In the case of Webb, he pardoned notwithstanding he occupied an elevated position and was surrounded by influential friends. In both instances he showed his coolness and courage in resisting popular clamor, when satisfied that justice demanded such resistance.

Gov. Seward's principles in the exercise of the veto power, may be learned by reference to his messagest delivered on the several

*See Vol. II. p. 661.

See Vol. II. pp. 374, 379, 426, &c.

occasions when he assumed its exercise. The D'Hauteville case will serve as an illustration.

A lady of large wealth, a resident of Boston, while travelling in Europe, had married a French gentleman, by the name of D'Hauteville, of greater respectability than of fortune. One child was the fruit of this connexion. She separated from her husband, and returned to America, in 1846, bringing her child with her. D'Hauteville appeared in Boston, and demanded her return to Europe, insisting, in case of refusal, on the custody of his child. The friends of the lady, designing that she should take refuge in the state of New York, procured a hurried passage of an act by the legislature of this state, then in session, providing that where an American woman should be married to a foreigner who should propose to require her with his children, to remove to Europe, the Court of Chancery should have power to interpose and take charge of the children and their fortune. A veto from Gov. Seward arrested the passage of this bill,* upon the ground that no nation could wisely or justly make a discrimination in its laws regulating parental or other domestic relations, on the ground of the alienage of either of the parties-a decision the wisdom. and soundness of which few can doubt.

With the return of an opposition to the legislature, came, of course, a desire for the benefits to be derived from the enjoyment of the state printing. An act was passed removing Thurlow Weed from the office of state printer, which he held, under a contract authorized by law. Gov. Seward interposed his vetot promptly, on the ground of the inhibition in the Constitution of the United States of the passage of laws by the states, impairing the obligation of contracts.

But while he thus exercised the veto power to arrest inconsiderate and unconstitutional legislation, he declined interfering in cases of pure legislative discretion, as has been seen in his action on the New York registry bill, and in his consent, against his own opinions, to the act of 1842, suspending the public works. In such cases, however, he insisted on the right of stating the grounds of his qualified approval of bills, in the message communicating the executive assent. It must be left to impartial public opinion, free from the bias of temporary excitement, to decide between * See Vol. II. p. 374. + See Vol. II. p. 426.

him and the legislature, on their refusal to receive such messages and enter them on their journal.*

In his administration of the state government, Gov. Seward took a firm and dignified attitude against the institution of slavery. He labored to clear the statute-books of every provision which authorized holding a man in slavery, in any form, or on any pretext. His devotion to the principles of freedom at length accomplished the work, which had been so nobly commenced by the admirable statesman, John Jay, in 1795. The law, which permitted a master travelling through the state with his slaves to retain them for the space of nine months, was repealed through his influence. It was this repeal by which the slaves in the recent Lemon case, who had been brought from Virginia to the city of New York in order to be shipped to Texas, were saved from perpetual bondage.

Gov. Seward also procured the passage of an act by the legis lature, allowing the benefit of a jury trial to persons claimed as fugitive slaves. He defended this right with his usual fervid eloquence, and it was mainly through his efforts that it was incorporated in the policy of the state. At a subsequent period, when the fugitive slave bill was debated in the United States Senate, he labored to have a similar provision engrafted in its details.

An act was also passed, at his instance, prohibiting state officers from participating in actions for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and denying the use of the public jails for their detention. He held that these were actions under the constitution and laws of the United States, and should, therefore, be executed only by the United States marshals and judges in United States courts, and that imprisonments they might order should be in United States prisons, if such could be found. Although the Supreme Court of the United States pronounced these laws to be unconstitutional, they were clearly founded on the eternal principles of right and justice. They will form an enduring memorial of the wise humanity of Gov. Seward, and of his heart-felt devotion to the spirit of freedom, as embodied in the declaration of independence.

It was through his agency, moreover, that a law was enacted in 1840, for the recovery of free colored citizens of New York, who should be kidnapped into slavery. This law authorized the gov

* See Vol. II. p. 411.

ernor to employ an agent for the aid of such persons, securing their restoration to liberty. It was under the provisions of this act, that H. B. Northrup, Esq., of Washington county, N. Y., in Jan., 1853, procured the liberty of Solomon, a colored man, long a member of his family, who twelve years ago had been inveigled to the city of Washington and there kidnapped and sold into slavery.

Among Gov. Seward's last official recommendations to the legislature, was an amendment of the constitution of the state, by which the freehold qualification required of citizens of the African race, as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage, should be abolished. He based this recommendation on the principles of natural justice. And he urged the necessity of granting the right of suffrage to every class of persons subject to the laws of the state, and the safety with which it could be thus extended where a system of universal education had already been established. It is to be regretted that on the revision of the constitution, in 1846, this recommendation was found to have anticipated public sentiment for an indefinite period of time. But that Gov. Seward's recommendation on this point will yet be adopted and incorporated into the constitution of the state, there cannot be a doubt.

The course of Gov. Seward in regard to these measures was an agreeable surprise to the abolitionists, who had failed to obtain any pledge from him during the preliminary canvass. His noble position in the "Virginia Case," was adapted to win the admiration of every lover of freedom.*

The outlines of this case may be briefly given as follows. In 1839, a vessel from Norfolk, Va., on arriving near the port of New York was found to contain a slave, who had secreted himself in the hold. He was taken and conveyed back to bondage. Three colored seamen belonging to the vessel, who had expressed their sympathy with the fugitive, were charged with having conveyed him out of the state by stealth. Affidavits were made to that effect in Norfolk. A requisition, based on these affidavits, was made by the lieutenant governor of Virginia upon the governor of New York, for the surrender of the accused, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the United States, and the act of Congress of 1793, concerning fugitives from justice. Before the requisition was presented to Gov. Seward, the parties had been * See "Virginia Controversy," Vol. II. pp. 449-516.

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 provisions 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