The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-21

ter to the passengers on the 25th Of December,
IN which you asaribe the Ohio's salvation @main-
"" to their 'extraordinary exertions," and your
perfectly correct deciajonsas 70 going Into Nos-
folk, prove very conelusivey 10 my mind tbs
imminent danger which we have fortunately
survived, and the periIs your vessel passed
through. Tint she lived through these perils,
and came out comparatively unscathed, Is evil
dence of her great original strength, and when
she goes forth sgain to tie seas, eoppered and
repaired, ! hope you will long live 70 command
and b. proud Of her. II ~.
Lam, very truly. your friend,
BRANTZ MAYER, s
Important cass Decided
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
DECEMBER TERN, 1850.
Jacob Strader James German and John Arm.
strong, plaintiffs in error, w. christopher
Graham. In error to the Court Of Appeals
for the State Of Kentucky.
Mr.. Chief Justice TAkEY delivered the opinion
of tho Court
This case was brought here by writ Of error
directed to the Court Of Appeals OF the State oj
Kentucky.
The facts in the case, 30 fur as they are ma
terial to the decision Of this Court, are briefly az
follows Tina defendant in error is citizen OF
the State of Kentucky, and three negro men
whom he claimed and held ms his slaves, were
received on board the steamer Pike, at Louis
vile, without his knowledge or consent, and
transported to Cincinnati, and from that place
escaped to Canada, and were finally lost to him.
The proceedings before us were instituted I'M
der statute Of Kentucky, In the Louisville
Chancery Court, against the plaintiffs In error,
10 al ~ <na, had
TINS escaped and, In default OF payment by
them, to charge the boat itself with the DANA
ges sustained Strader and German were the
owners Of the boat, and Armstrong the master.
The plaintiffs in error, amongst other do
fences, insisted that the negroes claimed as
slaves were free; averring that some time be-
fore they were taken on board the steamboat,
they had been sent, Ivy the permission Of the de-
PENDANT in error, to the State of Ohio to per-
form service as slaves; and that in consequence
thereof they had acquired their freedom, and
were free when received on board the boat.
1t appears by the evidence that these men
were musicians, and had gone to Ohio on one
or more occasions to perform at public enter
iainments; that they had been taken there for
this purpose with the permission of the de
PENDANT in error, by a man by tile name of vii
lams, under whose care and direction he had
for time placed them; that they had always
returned to Kentucky as soon as this brief ser,
vice was over and Tor the two years preceding
their escape they had not left the State Of Ken
lucky, and had remained there in the service OF
the defendant in error as their lawful owner
The Louisville court finally decided that the
negroes in question were his slaves; and that
he was entitled to recover $4,000 for his DANA
ges. And if that sum was not paid by certain
day specified in the decree, it directed that the
steamboat should be sold for the purpose of
raising it, together with the costs Of suit. The
decree was afterwards affirmed in the court Of
appeals Of Kentucky, and the case is brought
here by writ OF error upon that judgment
Much the argument on the part Of the plain
tiffs in error has been offered for the purpose OF
showing that the judgment of the State court
was erroneous in deciding that these negroes
were slaves And it is insisted that their pre-
vious employment in Ohio had made them free
when they returned to Kentucky.
But this question is not before us. Every
State has an uudoubted right to determine the
STATUS or domestic and social condition of the
persons domiciled within its territory, except
in so FIR as the powers of the States in this re-
spect are restrained, or duties and obligations
imposed upon them by the Constitution Of the
United States There is nothing in the Const
tuition of the United States that can in any de-
gree control the law Of Kentucky upon this sub
j CT And the condition of the negroes, there
fore, to freedom or slavery, after their return,
depended altogether upon the laws OF that State,
and could not tie influenced by the laws Of Ohio
1t was exclusively in the power of Kentucky TO
determine for itself whether their employment
in another State should or should not make them
free on their return. The court Of appeals have
determined that by the laws Of the State they
continued to be slaves. And their Judgment
upon this point is upon this writ Of error, con-
elusive upon this court, and we have no inris-
diction over it.
But it seems to be supposed in the argument
that the law Of Ohio,upon this subject, has some
peculiar force by virtue otthe ordinance of 1887,
for the government of the Northwestern Terri
tory--Ohio being one of the States carved ont
Of it.
One Of the articles Of this ordinance provides
that there shall be neither slavery or involun-
tary servitude in the said territory, otherwise
than in punishment for crimes whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted but that any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed in any one OF the
original States, such fugtives may be lawfully
reclaimed and conveyed to the person calming
ms or her laDor or service as aforesaid. Ana
this article is one of the six which the ordinance
declares shall be a compact between the original
States and the people and States in the said ter
ritory, and forever remain unalterable, unless BY
common consent.
The argument assumes that the six articles
which that ordinance declares to be perpetual
are still In force In the States since formed with
in the territory, and admitted into the Union.
II this proposition could be maintained il
would not alter the question. For the regna-
tons Of Congress under the old confederation
or the present Constitution, for the government
of particular territory, could have no force be-
yond its limits 1t certainly could not restrict
the power Of the States within their respective
territories; nor in any manner interfere with
their laws and institution; nor give this cour,
any control over them. The ordinance in aues
ton, IL still in force, could have no more opera
ton than the laws OF Ohio In the State Of Ken