Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1845-1851, 1848-12-30
LAW ITEMS.

to be the heads OF decision of the Supreme Court Of
Missouri:
81. Slavery may exist without any positive law
authorizing it,
- The existence of slavery In fact is presump
tive evidence of It's legality
80. IL 10 not necessary la show any general
tom III Country of holding negroes III slavery. to
prove its legality. If be found To exist In fact,
even to limited extent, and positive law prohIb-
ting ii be shown, it will be deemed legal.
Il 1t IS MT III" policy of the Slave States TO ia
vor the Liberation of negrues."
Ii thus appea rs that the opinion Of Southerners
nothing more is required TO legalize slavery than TO
prove It's existence "evcn To limited extent - and
to prove this the Shareholder has Nothing do
but 10 emigrate thilbe with his slaves and Of course
the proof is forthwith apparent.
IMPORTANT DEcIsToN.-A very important decision
to the mercantile interest has recently up. and
been decided at Albany. New York, ON the validity
by endorsement, Of delivering property IN form OF
warehouse receipt. The parties in the pro-
mlnent commercial men, and the amount at Issue
$l9, 500. 1t appears from The case, that warehouse
receipt issued by extensive provision house at
Cleveland Ohio. for about 5000 brls. Of pork and sold
to large firm III Detroit. On the endorsement OF
this receipt Suydam, Sage & Co.. of this city, ad
vanced Sl9,5O0 its being signed over to them.
The parties in Detroit settled with the first owners In
Cleveland. by bills OH James Rowland, of New York.
These being dshonored the vendors insisted that they
ndu oeen I'D ldke uTalts Iduu, asserting
distinct parol agreement that the property
main in their hands until the bills naiured. The
suit has been verdict for the plaintiffs. S. S. a. Co.,
for the Of Sd, 729 10. The course of the
trial gave rise to the following important decisions
That the Endorsement and delivery of warehouse
receipt, constitute Il valid transfer of the property
specified In it.
That the vendor of personal property. by giving
warehouse recep for IT, assumes the character and
liabilities of bailee, and claim rights
vendor, inconsistent with his obligations as bailee.
That warehouse receipt implies a contract, and
cannot be varied or conradicied by paro and that
person advancing money such receipt, is TO be
deemed, pro tGnt0, purchaser.
That fraud in obtaining it cannot affect the rights
Of purchaser, unless he had no; ice of the fraud.
AN IMPORTANT LAW SUIT.-An important law suit
has been commenced III the United States Circuit
Court now sitting in Philadelph 10 test the legality
of the will of the late Peter Miller of Easion Penn
sylvania. He lef: property worth between two and
three hundred thousand dollars prohibiting the sale
of his real estate, and requiring the entire of
the TO be loaned to farmers and mechanics pur
chasing property, who may find inconvnent TO bor
row from banks Should tt re desire TO borrow
from the fund bond and gage, then the trus-
tees may expend the of the estate IN erect
ing and maintaining an asylum at Easion, for poor
and INDECENT widows and single women. The first
objection of The Request will be observed, Is 10
tablish a great banking fund. In one hundred years
ii would amount 10 above SS4 900 OOO-thls at per
cent would produce income IF about five millions
of dollars. aud the ital would absorb all the mon
eys and property directly Indirectly, of the coun
ties of Northampton and half a dozen adjoining
counties Peter Miller, the only heir of the deceased,
alleges that the residuary devise and bequcst in the
will Of the deceased valid, being attempt 10
create perpeiuIiy, and not having for ITS primary
leading object, any charity. This posthumous ava
RICE locking up SO large an amount of the capital OF
the country, is alleged TO be great evil to the gov
ernment which the law Will not tolerate.
SLAVE DECISION IN PENNsYLvANIA.-A late number
of the Philadelphia North American has the follow
ing:
The case Of Lewis PIERRE, alleged to be the slave
of Robert Tilghman, of New Orleans, came up again
before Judge King of the of common pleas, on
writ of habeas corpus, yesterday morning. After the
case hnd been fully argued by Mr. O'Ne for the
ter and Messrs. George and Thomas Earle, for the al
legged slave, who Claimed, under the laws OF Pennsyl-
vania TO be relieved from the restraint imposed upon
his liberty by the claim of his former MASTER Judge
King delivered his opinion. which was follows
The constitutional question raised ia this case is
free from real difficulty. The State of Pennsylvania
like any other independent sovereignty, has the clear
right to declare that slave brought within her terri
tory becomes ipso facto a freeman. This was and is
a principle of the law (Somersets' case. State
trial, VOL 2O) and In terms asserted by the 10th
section Of the act of 1850
Pennsy vana retains all the rights of any other
sovereignty which she has not coded renowned in
entering into the national compact which binds this
confederacy together If she has stipulated anything
in that compact which limits her otherwise plenary
power in regard to the passage Of such law the
act of lS47 then OF course the act of .semby must
yield 10 the paramount authority of the constitution
of the United States.
This restraint the plenary authority of The State
Il
Of the fourth article of that instrument. which de-
clares that person held service or labor in one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another
SHALL In consequence OF any law regulation there
in, be discharged from such service labor but sal
be delivered up OH claim of the party to whom such
service or labor may be due"
Ii seems to me difficult to argue that this section.
which a stipulation surrender fugitves
from labor, escaping from their owners in State
into another, has any relevancy to the right of State
declare free slaves brought voluntarily into her ter
ritory by their owners. Where the master of his
own motion brought his slave into free State, the
operation of whose laws lie is bound 10 know what
ground has he TO complain if those laws give freedom
10 his slave
Ii was his own act which has produced the result.
and for all the legal consequences Of which he must
of course respond. Has such state of things any
thing In with the case, in which slave has,
against the will and without the agency of bis mas
ter, fled from his service in State. and sought
shelter and protection in another :! This was the
case intended to be provided for by the Sd section Of
the 18th article of the Constitution of the United
States And undoubtedly Pennsylvania is bound TO
the faithful execution of this of all other obliga
tons imposed on herself in becoming party to the
National Union.
But when Pennsylvania stipulated with her sister
Suites deliver up ugitIves from labor. fleeing from
other States and seeking shelter in her territories.
she certainly meant to deprive herself OF the
right pertaining to every Independent sovereignty. to
forbid the voluntary introduction OF slaves into her