“On the 9th of June, a writ in trespass, for assault and false imprisonment, from the Federal Court, was served upon Sheriff Yates, laying the damage at $4000.

“The Act of 1844, I take it, was intended to prevent all interference on the part of any power on the face of the earth, with the execution of this police regulation, which is so essential to the peace and safety of our community.  Had the legislature which passed it ever dreamed that the sheriff was to be subjected to the annoyance of being dragged before the Federal Court for doing his duty under a law of the State, I am sure it would have provided for his protection.  As no such provision has been made for so unexpected a contingency, I recommend that you so amend this Act of 1844, that it may meet any case that may arise.

“It is certainly wrong to tolerate this interference with the laws enacted for the protection of our institution.  In the general distribution of power between the Federal and State Governments, the right to make their own police regulations was clearly reserved to the States.  In fact, it is nothing more nor less than the right of self-preservation-a right which is above all constitutions, and above all laws, and one which never was, nor never will be, abandoned by a people who are worthy to be free.  It is a right which has never yet been attempted to be denied to any people, except to us.

“The complaint against this law is very strange, and the attempt to bring us in conflict with the General Government on account of it, is still more remarkable; when, so far from its being at variance with the laws of the United States, it is only requiring the State authorities to enforce an Act of Congress, approved February 28th, 1803, entitled, An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their importation is prohibited.  By referring to this Act, you will see that the plaintiff in the action alluded to was prohibited by it from entering into this State.  I deem it unnecessary, however, to enter fully into the argument.  If any doubt should be entertained by you, as to its constitutionality, I beg leave to refer to the able opinion of the Hon. J. McPherson Berrien, delivered at the time he was Attorney-General of the United States, which I herewith send you.

“On the subject of the modification of this law, I am free to say, that when Her B. M.’s Government, through its consul, made a respectful request to our legislature to that effect, I was anxious that it should be made.  It was with pleasure that I transmitted his first communication to the last legislature.  I would have made a recommendation of its modification a special point in my first message, but that I thought it indelicate to do so, as the matter was already before the legislature, and committees had been appointed to report upon it.  Another reason for the neglect of this recommendation, was the then excited state of party politics, which might