Mr. Editor,—I have just received the following invaluable communication from Hon. Wm. Jay, of Bedford, Westchester, Co. N. Y. a man of the highest respectability. Unfortunately it was not mailed until three days after it was written; else it might have reached this place in time for the late trial of Miss Crandall,—and who knows but the opinions of such men as Clinton, and King, and Van Vechten, and Kent, and Jay might have shaken even Judge Daggett’s confidence in his own opinion, respecting the citizenship of colored people?

Being, as I am, fully persuaded, that the learned Judge has given his sanction to an erroneous notion, that may do inconceivable mischief in our country, if it be not corrected . I am most happy in being able to lay before the community in connection with his, the opinions of men who have held the highest rank at the Bar, on the Bench, in the Halls of Legislation, and in the Executive department of the States. Yours truly, Samuel J. May

--

Bedford, 30 ^th Sept. 1833

Rev. Sir. —On the late trial of Miss Crandall, it was thought expedient by her opponents to attempt to deprive our whole free colored population, of the protection of the Constitution of the United States, by denying that they were citizens. Should a second trial be had, it is possible that the annexed authorities may be of some use and I will therefore commit them to your care, as I have not the honor of being acquainted with Miss Crandall’s counsel.

With sincere respect for your exertions in the cause of humanity and freedom, I remain Rev. Sir  Your very ob’t servant, WILLIAM JAY

--

Extracts from ‘Reports of the proceedings and debates of the Convention of 1821 assembled for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the State of New-York.’ By N.S. Carter and W.L. Stone.

On a motion to insert the word ‘white’ before the words ‘male citizens’ in the article of the Constitution regulating the right of suffrage.

‘I would submit to the consideration of the committee whether the proposition is consistent with the constitution of the U. States. That instrument provides that ‘Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’ No longer ago than last November, the Legislature of this State almost unanimously resolved that ‘If the provisions contained in any proposed constitution of a new State, deny to any citizens of the existing States, the privileges and immunities of citizens of such new State, that such proposed constitution should not be accepted or confirmed, the same in the opinion of this Legislature being void by the Constitution of the United States.’ Now Sir, is not the right of suffrage a privilege? Can you deny it to a citizen of Pennsylvania who comes here and complies with your laws, merely because he is not six feet high or because he is of a dark complexion.’ —Speech of Peter A. Jay, p. 184

‘No longer ago than last winter the Legislature of this State almost unanimously resolved ‘that their Senators be instructed and their Representatives requested to prevent any State from being admitted into this Union which should have incorporated into her constitution any provision denying to the citizens of each State all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.’ These instructions and requests it is well known, particularly referred to Missouri, and were founded on a clause in her constitution interdicting this very class of people ‘from coming to or settling in that state under any pretext whatever.”— Speech of R. Clark, p. 189

‘Suppose a negro owning a freehold, and entitled to a vote in Vermont, removes to this State, can we constitutionally exclude him from the privileges of voting? The constitution of the United States provides that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.’— Speech of James Kent, (the Chancellor,) p. 190

‘The constitution of the United States is beyond the control of any act of any of the States. It is a compact to which the people of this in common with those of other States are parties, and cannot recede from it, without the consent of all. With this understanding, what let me ask, is the meaning of the provision quoted by the gentleman from Albany (Mr. Kent.) Take the fact that a citizen of color entitled to all the privileges of a citizen, comes here—he purchases a freehold—can you deny him the rights of an elector incident to his freehold? He is entitled to vote because like any other citizen he is a freeholder, and every freeholder your laws entitled to vote. He comes here, he purchases property, he pays your taxes, conforms to your laws—how can you then under the article of the constitution of the U. States which has been read exclude him? The gentleman from N. York thinks that the meaning of this provision in the U.S. Constitution extends only to civil rights. Such is not the text, it is all rights. This seems to me to lay an insuperable barrier in our way. As certainly as the children of any white men are citizens, so certainly the children of black men are citizens.’—Speech of Rufus King, p. 192.

‘It seems to me that some gentlemen entertain doubts whether any of our people of color are in a legal sense citizens; but these doubts are unfounded. We are precluded from denying their citizenship by our uniform recognition for more than forty years—nay some of them were citizens when this State came into political existence—partook in our struggle for freedom and independence, and were incorporated into the body politic at its creation. There is another and to my mind an insuperable objection to the exclusion of free citizens of color from the right of suffrage, arising from the provision of the Constitution of the U.S. that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’— Speech of Abraham Van Vechten, p. 193.

Letter from De Witt Clinton, Governor of N. York to President Adams.

ALBANY, 4 ^th Sept. 1826

Sir,—I have the honor to enclose copies of the proceedings of a  respectable meeting in West Chester County in the State, and of an Affidavit of John Owen, by which it appears that one Gilbert Horton, a free man of color and a citizen of this State is unlawfully imprisoned in the jail of the city of Washington, and is advertised to be sold by the Marshal of the District of Columbia. From whatever authority a law authorizing such proceedings may have emanated, whether from the municipality of Washington, the Legislature of Maryland, or the Congress of the United States, it is at least void and unconstitutional in its application to a citizen, and could never have intended to extend further than to fugitive slaves. As the District of Columbia is under the exclusive control of the National Government I conceive it my duty to apply to you for the liberation of Gilbert Horton as a freeman, and a citizen, and feel persuaded that this request will be followed by immediate relief.

I have the honor to be &c. DE WITT CLINTON.”