The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-01-10
Supreme Court OF tho United States.
No. 26.-DEcEmBEa Term, 1850.

Jacob Strader, Jalnes German, and John Arm
strong, plaintiffs in error, Us. Christopher Ora
ham. In error 10 tae Court OF Appeals for the
State OF Kentucky.
Mr.. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion
of the Court:
This case is brought here by writ of error di-
rected to the court OF appeals OF the State of Ken
lucky.
to the decision of this Court, briefly follows
The defendant in error is citizen Of the State Of
Kentucky, and three negro men whom he claimed
and held as his slaves were received on board the
steamboat Pike, at Louisville, without his know
ledge 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 under
statute of Kentucky, in the Louisville chancery
court, against the plaintiffs in error, to the
value OF the slaves which had thus escaped; and in
default of payment by them, TO charge the boat it.
sell with the damages sustained Streder and Gor-
man were the owners Of the boat, and Armstrong
the master.
The plaintiffs in error, among other defences, in
sisted that the negroes claimed slaves were free;
averring that some time before they were taken on
board the steamboat they had been sent by the per-
mission OF the defendant in error to- the State OF
Ohio 10 perform service slaves; and that in con-
sequence thereof they had acquired their freedom,
and were free when received or board the boat.
II appears by the evidence that these men were
mvsicians, and had gone TO Ohio on one or more
occasions 10 perform al public entertainments; that
they had been taken there for this purpose with the
permission Of the defendant in error by man by
the name OF Williams, under whose care and d.
rection he had for time placed them; that they
had always returned to Kentucky this
brief service was over and for the two years pre-
ceding their escape they had not left the State Of
kentucky, and had remained there in the service
OF the defendant III error as their lawful owner
The Louisville chancery court finally decided
that the negroes i'll question were his slaves; and
that he was entitled to recover $4,000 for his dam
ages. And if that sum was not paid BY certain
day specified in the decree, il directed that the
steamboat should be sold for the purpose Of raising
1t, together with the costs of suit. This 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 Of the argument on the part OF the plain.
hffs in error has been offered tor the purpose Of
showing that the Judgment OF the State court was
erroneous IN deciding that these negroes were
slaves And 1t is insisted that their previous en-
ployment in Ohio had made then free when they
returned to Kentucky.
But this question is not before Every State
has an undoubted right to determine the status or
domestic and social condition of the persons dorni
ciled within its territory, except in far the
powers OF the States III this respect restrained
duties and obligations imposed upon them by the
Constitution Of the United States. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States that in
any degree control the law of Kentucky upon this
subject. And the condition of the negroes, there
FORE as to freedom or slavery after their RETURN de-
pended altogether upon the laws of that State, and
could not be influenced by the laws of Ohio. 1t
exclusively in the power of Kentucky to de-
termine for itself whether their employment in
other State should should not make them free
on their return. The court of appeals have deter
mined that by the laws of the State they continued
to be slaves. And their judgment upon this point
ID, upon this writ of error, conclusive upon this
Court, and we have no jurisdiction over it.
But it seems to be supposed in the argument that
the law of Ohio, upon THE subject, has pecu-
in Inv of 10 al FIR
the government ofthe northwestern territory-Ohio
being one OF the States carved out of it,
One of the articles Of this ordinance provides that
"there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servtude 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 law
fully claimed in any of the original States such
fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed
to the person claiming his or her labor or service
as aforesaid" And this article is one of the six
which the ordinance declares shall be compact be-
tween the original States and the people and States
in the said territory and forever remain unaltera
ble 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 within the terri
tory, and admitted into the Union.
If this proposition could be maintained, it would
not alter the question For the regulations of Con-
gress under the old confederation or the present
Constitution, for the government of a particular
certainly could not restrict the power of the States
within their respective territories: nor in any man
ner interfere with their laws and institutions;
give this court any control'over them. The ordi
in question, if still in force could have NO
more operation than the laws OF Ohio in the State Of
Kentucky and could not influence the decision up
on the rights Of the master or the slaves in that
State; give this court jurisdiction upon the sub
jeot
But it has been settled by judicial decision in this
court that this ordinance Is not in force.
The case of Permoli U.s. First Municipality, 3
How. $50, depended upon the same principles with
the case before US. II s true that the question in
that case arose in Louisiana. But the act of Con-
gress of April Z, 1898, chap. %, "a Stat at Large
549,) extended the ordinance OF 1857 to the then
Territory OF Mississippi, with the exception Of the
anti slavery clause, and declared that the people
of that Territory should be entitled to and enjoy all
the rights, privileges, and advantages granted to
the people of the territory northwest of the Ohio.
And by the act of March . 1906, chap %, e Stat.
at Large 322,) it was enacted that the inhabitants
of the then Territory of New Orleans should be en-
titled to and enjoy all the rights privileges, and ad
vantages secured by the ordinance Of 1857, and at
that time enjoyed by the people of the Mississippi
Territory
In the case aforementioned Permoh claimed the
protection Of the clause in of the six articles
which provides for the freedom of religion alleging
that il had been violated by the First Municipality.
And he brought the question before this Court upon
the ground that it had jurisdiction under the ordi-
nance. Dut court tnat the ordnance ceased
TO be in force when Louisiana became State and
dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. This
opinion is indeed confined to the territory i'll which
the case arose But il is evident that the ordinance
cannot be in force in the States formed in the north
western terrtory-and at the same time not in force
in the States formed in the southwestern territory
which it was extended by the present Government.
For the ordinances and pledges of the Congress of
the old confederation cannot be enduring
and obligatory Than those Of the new government;
nor can there be any reason for giving n different
Interpretation to the same words used in similar in
strsnents, because the is by the old confedera
ton and the other by the present Government. And
when is decided that this ordinance s not in force
in Louisiana, it follows that it cannot be in force in
Ohio.
But the whc.e question upon the ordinance of
1884, and the acts of Congress extending it to other
territory afterwards acquired was carefully consid-
cred in Pollard vs. Hagan, 3 How. 2l2. The sub
Jet is fully examined in the opinion pronounced in
that case, with which concur; and it is sufficient
now to refer to the reasoning and principles by
which that judgment is maintained without enter
ing again upon full examination of tho question.
Indeed il ia impossible TO look AT the ak artic