Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-08-19

the supreme created by act or any judges thereof
OF the district courts created by this Of judges
thereof upon any writ OF habeas corpus involving the ques-
ton OF personal Freedom"
The bill contains nothing which bears materially upon
the subject Of slavery Imeely prohibits the Territorial Gov
eminent from passing any law upon the subject and leaves
the Southern man. who may be inclined to 90 there with his
slaves contest his rights the best Of his abilities with the
courts Of the Territory in the first instance, them if he
chooses, with the Supreme Court Of the Union.
All that the bill does to guard against the passage OF any
law for the protection the but opens wide the door
Of expensive and almost endless litigation between him and
his slave without aiordng him the shadow Of
hance of hope that his rights at the end of the law, will
ever be recognised or enforced.
The most interesting Of all questions, Mr. Speaker the
South, upon this point is, by what law will the Territorial
courts, In The first instance and the Supreme Court OF the
United States in the last resort decide the question of free
dom between the master and slave II is not the province Of
courts in their judicial character make laws they only
decide upon laws after they made And in the absence
Legislation by Congress- and the Territorial Governments
upon this subject Try what law ask, will the decide
questions between the master and his slave in these Terrific
ries This, sir is great and vital question for
sidenot as partisans, but statesmen and legislators
before we refer subject of much interest to their decision
certainly matter of the utmost importance the people
Of the South that they should be left in ignorance upont
And, SO far as my ability goes, they shall not be.
set out then BY stating that, according to the best abest,
and most approved writers public law and according the
decisions of the courts in England in analogous cases. and
according to the repeated decisions of Supreme Court
to which this bill proposed to refer this NATTER Tin the absence
OF such legislation have alluded to- the law by which the
courts would decide questions slavery there the law which
was in force in New Mexico and California upon that subject
at the time OF the conquest The general principles which
understand to be recognised and we'll settled among civilized
nations in modern times relation conquest are that all
the laws which in the CONQUERED country at the
time OF the conquest held continue until
modified by the conquerng power except such may
inconsistent with the fundamental law ofhe conqueng power
or inconsistent with stipulation in the final treaty,
such as were purely political in their character and concerned
only the relations between the people and their former sover-
eign ruling power. This a proposition which no
controyert In babaous times when people were
conquered they might by the laws of war; be put the
sword, or be reduced to the condition Of slaves With the
progress of civilization however, this principle has been modi-
fed According the modern doctrine the relations Of the
people towards their sovereign ruling power whatever
form Of government changed but their relations towards
each other and their laws, before stated remain until mod
he'd or altered by the new governing power.
Upon this subject Gotus, in his work, book chapter
10, section citing the of the Jews which might per-
haps be referred to from much higher authority says
Thus the government continued among the Jews in the
Sanedm, after 4cheas had been srpt of his king
DOM And Evagoras King ofCyprus las Diodorus relate)
said he would obey the King of Persia but that king did
another"
Upon the text above far relates the Jews the
author has note in the following words
That to they judged according their laws,
did most OF the people dependant upon the Roman empire
For the rest before Archeaus bansed Vienna the
complete sovereignty no longer in the Jewish nation.
In another place (book J. chap. 8, 90, 81 the
author says:
'They 1.-THE Jews) likewise followed their own laws, and
punished their own delnquen according to the Of
their country"
This however, the only SO long as the Romans
permitted 1t for Josephus expressly observes that /" after
Jerusalem taken by Romulus the Jews lost eir liberty
and became subjects" From this it will be that,
that early day. after the conquest Of their country the laws
and customs of the Jews continued until changed and
abrogated by the conqueros the Romans Upon the
point yattel says in his work upon the law of nations,
page Isl
prince, taking town province from his enemy,
justly acquire it the rights only belonged to
the sovereign against whom he had taken War author
ICES him 10 possess himself of what belonged his enemy
he deprves him of the sovereignty of province he
acquires il is with all its limitations and notifications
Again he says, on page 45a
But present less terrible the subject things
are transacted with humanity is against
eign that another makes war; and against the quiet sub
The conqueror his hands possessions Of
State on what belongs the public while private
and them the result is that they only change masters
And, again, the same author says, on page 453
eve always remember that the law Of Nature per-
mts no injury TO be done to enemy unless in taking
sures necessary for just defence, and reasonable security
Some princes have only imposed tribute others have
been satisfied with stripping of some privileges dsmember
ing province or keeping in awe by ortreses Others
their quarrel only with the sovereign person. left
nation in the full enjoyment Of all its rights only setting
sovereign over it. the conqueror thinks proper to re-
tain the sovereignty of the vanquished State
right the in which he is to the State still flows
from the principles II the sovereign be only the lust
object Of his complaint declares that by his
he acquires only such rights actually belonged the de-
throned sovereign and the submission of his people, he is
TO govern il according to the laws Of the State'
These authorities the position assumed. They
could be multiplied much greater extent. But said
the principles had been settled by solemn adjudication
in the English courts and ask the attention of the
House to decided by Lord Mansfield in IVA II is
the Of Campbell Hall, reported in LIST Cowper EOS.
The principles involved 10 IL very analogous indeed to
many that may arise Of late war; and the conduct Of
Executive in assuming the power to lay and collect duties
in the Mexican ports out Of our citizens without autho
rity Of law.
Campbell, the plaintiff, natural born subject Of the
kingdom Of Great Britain, and the 80 OF March, 1863,
purchased plantation in the Island Of Grenada which had
been taken from the French by the British in open
time before. The King by virtue Of his royal preroga-
i've imposed duty Of Tour and half per upon all
gars exported from the Island Of Grenada Campbell paid
the duty and then brought action against the collector
the money The whole doctrine and principle Of conquest
recognised by the courts Of Great Britain have been
discussed The reporter says the very deliberately
argued four several times and Lord Mansfield finally deliver
ed ,he unanimous opinion Of the court.
And in that opinion call the attention Of the House the
following principles stated the 20sth and 209h pages Of
the LIST volume Of Cowper's Reports
"a great deal has been said and many authorities cited
relative propositions in which both sides be per-
fecy agreed and which, indeed clear be
verted The stating Of those propositions which
think quite clear will lead with greater perspicuy
what is the question upon the first point and upon what hinge
will the propositions large, and the first Is
this;
"a country conquered by the British arms becomes do
mnon Of the King in the right OF his and therefore,