Tri-weekly journal., 1848-02-14

that the children OF Mary being in existence at
the time of the execution ofthe deeds from Mrs Mar
tin to her son, and from the latter to Rogers, were
not the subjects OF grant, or in other words not
susceptible OF being transferred but that said child
rem Cor rather the twobon in Ky-) upon their birth
vested in Mrs. Martin absolutely, Notwithstanding
said conveyance.
ID. The children Lorn in Indiana free, because
the Common and nttthe Civil Law prevails in India
ma and by the former tle child takes the condition of
the father, though different Ine obtains in those
States where the Civil Law is adopted, for its maxim
is partHs seIuitur reHtrem.
Sd. That he conveyance from Nancy Martin to
her as to the girl Mary, attempt to create
a remainder in personal chattel in manner not
authorised by the Laws Of Kentucky, and was there
fore void That such a remainder could only be Gre
ated by will or by conveyance in trust.
4th, That the conveyance from Nancy Martin to
her Son was and is mere contract OF thing in ac-
ton, and was not assgnahe and therefore the said
Mary did pass said Rogers by said conveyance
Or in other words that the conveyance ola future in
terest in personal chattel is a mere contract to
transfer the chattel at future time, COW
enant stand seized of the ehattel for the of the
grantee on which actien for damages is the only
remedy
5th That no interest in the girl Mary passed to
Rogers by the deed from House Martin, because the
interest ofsaid Martin was mere possibility, de-
pending on the contingency that Mary, the slave,
should out live Nancy, the owner, for life House
Martins interest might or might not vest. 1.-THE slave
survived her mistress, then and only then, would
his interest vest IT, on th, other hand, Nancy Mar
tha ala
interest could never vest bit would be forever gone
and as it was entirely uncetain which would die
first, this uncertainty made House Martins interest
in the slave contingent interest, and contingent
interest in real personal property, is not the sub
jec of bargain and sale, an cannot be transferred or
conveyed.
9th That independently sfthe foregoing consider
atoms, the claimant nd entitled to a warrant to
remove the defendants to kentucky for the following
reasons
LIST Because the claimanunust look ezclusiuely to
the Constitution of the United States and the act of
Congress of 1893, for the ril which he claims, and
for the remedy which he SEEKS.
ID Because the provisonrelative to the fugitive
slaves in the Constitution the United States only
embraces and provides for nedelivery up or recap
ton of one class ofpersonsvz: Persons held to
Uice or labor ia State he Latrs thereof and
ESCAPING into another State and the of Congress
Of 1893 enacs that when held labor in the
United States or either of lie territories north west
or south OF the River Ohio, uder the laws thereof,
shall escape Into any other said States or territory
the person to whom such l9or or service may be due
his agent attorney, may eize arrest such fngi-
tiue from labor and take hin or her before any Judge
&c, or before any magistrae of a county, &c, and
upon proof to the sasfactiOTof such judge mags-
trate, &c, that the person 80 seized arrested doth
under the Laws of the State territory from which
he or she FLED oue serpiee labor to the person
claiming him or her. shall the duty Of such Judge
or magistrate togivea certificate, DC.
To bring person Within tie statute and consti-
tuition he must at he time he clainel owe service
or labor under the Laws of th State from which he
fed; it will not suffice that did former period
owe service but the service nust be due and oweing
when the claim is made, il ialso essential that the
party claimed a slave shout have fei or escaped
from State into another Safe, for without this
he is not embraced in the statute.
Sd These principles of Interpretation applied TO the
facts ofthe present concuivey show that tue de-
PENDANTS all free. Mary lord and her two Oldest
children within the poysiors of the Consti-
tuition or act OF Congress, because they never fed
escaped from Kentucky to lEdana, but on the con
trary, they were brought from he former to the lat
ter State, by person who hal right to their SER
vices and to control all their actions; there was no
fleeing in the case, and it is ar utter peversion of
language to apply the phrase ngitige from labor, TO
slave who is brought of ne state into another
by person having an interestn the slave, whether
that interest be term of yearsor life the
absolute ownership, in either cse the master thinks
and acts for the slave, and whist the slave remains
in his possession and conforms his conduct to his
wishes, there can be no fleeing, no escaping, within
the meaning of the CONSTITUTIONS of Congress- If
this is true to the mother and he two children born
in Kentucky, fort much stronger reason is it true as
to the two Younger children BON in Indiana Can
person that never trod the soil or beathed the air
OF Kentucky be said have fed or escaped from that
State to Indiana. The idea that child that has
never been under the jurisdiction Of Kentucky Law
should eve service in Kentucky undei her Laws is en-
hrely original. Is it not disgrace to the times in
which We live thatfrom such decisions there should
be no right OF appeal.
1 THE FOUR QUESTIONS.