Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-09-28

granted the correctness OF the decision of the !
Court Of MassachusettS-and where is the |
individual who will risk his reputation for
and love Of natural justice on
dissent2 Be it known then that any slave
coming to free State with the consent Of his
master, whether in the way Of accompanying
him on a visit or otherwise, is " emancip pate
and loosed" the moment his feet ale on our
soil
elf their lungs
" Receive our air, that moment they are free
- They touch our country and their shackes fall
" That's noble"
"Spread it then,
And let it circulate through every vein
"Of all" Newt gland
Let every man now learn and do his duty.
When southern nabobs bring out their vas
sails on northern excursions, let the latter be
taught that here they art men, under the pro-
lection Of law, not liable to be forced back
as mere animals into the yoke. lfneedful,
let the same course be taken to rescue the
victim as in the case described below.
FECu Ilc L ludIlCII dtOE
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Sometime in May last, a Mrs Mary
Slater, wife of Samuel Slater, of New Or
leans, came to Boston, to visit her father,
Thomas AYES, bringing with her Mary,
: colored child, about six years of age,
and daughter Of a female slave held by
Mr. Slater in New Orleans. OF late Mrs
Slater has been boarding in Roxbury,
just Out of Boston, for the benefit Of her
health, leaving the child in the mean time,
with Mr. AYES, with the outstanding that
she would take the child with her to New
Orleans, On her return. The fact being
known, writ Of habeas corpus was issu-
ed, for the purpose of testing the question
Of the lawfulness Of her present detention
and contemplated return to slavery; and
the decision in the case settles the point,
that every slave brought into the state BY
the master is, ipso fdcto, free, and that the
law Of Congress in regard to the reStora-
ton offugitives does not app y to such as
come with the masters consent. The
following report of the proceedings in the
case, is from the Boston Daily Advertiser.
COMMONWEALTH Us. THOMAS Ewes.
This was 4 writ Of habeas corpus, issued
against the defendant as OBTAINING in his
custody, unIawfully, a female colored child,
The question was argued some days since
before single Judge, but owing to the
importance of the case, it was continued
hill Friday the 26th, to be reargued before
the whole Court An affidavit of the de-
PENDANT was read, stating that the child
was the property Of his son-la-law Mrs,
Slater, upon visit to her relatives in this
city. A sister Of MIS-. Slater's testified
that the child was to be taken back to
Louisiana. The question presented tc
the consideration ofthe Court, was, wheth.
er the relation Of slavery could exist in
Massachusetts, To any extent, between tho
citizen ola slave-holding state and a slave
whom he had voluntarily brought within
the limits of the state. The question wa:
argued very ably and elaborately By
Messrs. Benjamin R. Curtis and Charles
P. Curtis for the defendant, and Messrs
Ellis G. Loring and Rufus Choate for thu
petitioner
For the defendant, it was commended tha
the slave being brought here merely 70
temporary purpose, the master had
r right to retain so much of the custod Y G
? her as would enable him to carry he
: back TO his own state The child was
r slave by the laws Of Louisiana, and upo
: the broad ground Of national comfy, W
> are bound to recognize the laws of thu
J.. state and give force to them within on
e own limits. The constitution had recog
:. nized slavery, and we, therefore, could NJ
S say that it was immoral in such sense a
s to bring it within the list Of exceptions
IS the general rule Of national comfy. Gu
u own policy is to be consulted and not In;
. of any foreign state. Movable propert
!. always follows the person Of the owne
Il These and analogous positions were ilIu:
d trated at great length and enforced by tn
= citation ofnumerous adjudged cases.
st For the petitioner 1t was contende'
Ie that slavery was unknown in Massachu
Il sets. That i, had been actually and e,
"a prrss!y abolished by the declaration
y y rights and virtually so, long before, eve
\. before the case of Somerset, in Englanr
- in l77l. That it was for the State TO d,
k, eide how far ii would recognize TIE law
Is of Louisiana. That comfy was not
E be exercised in doubtful cases. That Il
le provisions Of the constitution Of the UAj
" ed States was the result of comprOm:!
r .it was a bargain-and the non-s'av
ID holding states were not bound TO 60 b
re yondthe strict terms Of the bargain. t.
es slavery must be deemed an immortality
st far as Massachusetts is concerned. Oh
ID policy is against slavery. England {
u[ lows slavery in her colonies, but nev
!" upon her own SOIL A great number
cases were cited in defence of these POI
- tons. The whole Of Friday the 26,h IN
-. was consumed IN the argument OF, 4