The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-16

No. g6-DLcMBER IERM, 1889
Jacob S,rader, James German, and John arm
strong. plaintiffs ia error, rs. Christopher Ora
ham. IL srror TO the Court of Appeals LOT the
Mr' Chef j, Justice fancy delivered the opinion
Of the court - =:
rerted to the court ofnppeas OF the state 81 Ken
lucky.
10 The DECISION of the court, hris6y follows
THE defendant in error 10 ciiiaep Of The State OF
Kentucky, and three negro men whom he claimed
and held as his saves were received on board the
steamboat Pike, Al Louisville, without bis know
ledge and consent, and transported 70 Cincinnati,
and from that place escaped % CANADA, and were
finally lost 70 him. .s.....,.
The proceedings before us were instituted I'M
der statute Of Kentucky, in the Louisville chan
Gerry court against the plaintiff in error, 70 recover
the value oft slaves which had thus escaped
and, in default Of the payment by them, to charge
the boat itself with the damages sustained. Stra.
der and German were the owners of The boat, and
ArmstrongShe mas.er.
The plaintiff in error, among other defences, IN
sisted that the neg oes claimed as slaves were
free; ayerrng that some time before they were
taken board the steamboat, they had been
sent, by the permission Of the defendnntin error,
to the State Of Ohio to perform service ms slaves;
and that in consequences lhereofthey had acquired
their freedom, and were free when received on
bonrd the boat.
Il appears by the evidence that these men were
musicians, and had gone to Ohio on one or more
occasions to perform at public enter ailments ;
that they had been taken there for this pur osc
with the permission of defendant in error by a
man by The name of illiams, under whose care
and direction he had for time placed them; that
they had always returped u Kentucky as soon az
this brief service was over; and for the two years
preceding their escape, they had not ief the S,ats
Of Kentucky, and had rsn!ained there in the ser.
vice of the defendant in error as their iawful
owner.
The Louisville chancery court finally decided
that the negroes in question were lls savfsi ana
that he was entitled to recover $1,000 for his
damages And if that sum was not PAID by a
certain day specified in the decree, II directed
that the steamboat should be sold for the purpose
of raising il, together with the costs OF suit This
decree was afterwards affirmed in the court Of APP
peals of Kentucky, and the case 10 drought mere
by writ OF error upon that judgment.
Much of the argument on the part OF the PLAIN
Tiff. in error has been Offered for the purpose of
showing that the jud sment Of the State court was
erroneous in deciding that these negroes were
slaves And il is insisted that their previous en-
ployment in Onio had made them free when they
returned TO Kentucky.
But this question is not before us. Every State
has an undoutted right 10 Determine the stdius or
domestic and social condition of the persons doml-
cied within lis territory, except IN 80 tar MS the
or 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 nentucky
upon this subject And The condltion OF the ne
groes, therefore, as to freedom or 81 very, after
their return, depended altogether upon the laws
OF that State, aud could not be influenced by the
laws of Ohio. Ii was exclusively IN the power OF
Kentucky To determine for itsel whether thrr en-
ploymeni 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
Saie they continued To be slaves. A'd their
judgment upon this point is, upon this writ o.
error, conclusive upon this court, and we have no
jurisdiction over IT.
Blu, i, seems to he supposed in the argument
that the law Of Ohio, upon this subject, has some
peculiar force, by virtue Of the ordinance OF 1851
for the government Of the norhw estern territory
Ohn beng one of the States carved out OF II.
One Of The articles of this ordinance provides
TINT 90 there shall he neither slavery nor invoun-
fury servitude in the said territory, otherwise
than in punishment ior crimes whereof the party
shall have been duly v,cted; but that any per-
son escaping into he s,ne. from whom labor or
service is lawfully clsim.d an any one ut The
original States, such fugitive may be Ia vfully re-
claimed and conveyed To the person claim.
ing his or her lsbo' or service rs aforesaid.
And this article is one of the ak which the ordi
nance declares shall be nptct between the
original States, and the people and States in said
territory, and forever remain unaterable, 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
territory, and admitted into the Union.
IL this proposition could be maintained, il
would not alter the question. For the regulations
of Congress under the old confederation or the
present Constitution, for the government OF par
ticuar territory, could have no force beyond Its
limits II certainly could not restrict the power
of the States within their respective territories
nor in any manner interfere with their laws and
institutions; nor give this court any control over
them. The ordinance IN question, II still IN force
could have no more operation than the laws of
Ohio in the State of Kentucky, and could not IN
huence the decision upon the rights OF the master
or the slave in that State; give this court uris
diciion upon the subject.
But has i, been settled by judicial decision in
this court that this ordinance Is not in force.
The case of Permoi vs. First Municipality, 2
How. $50, de, ended upon the same principles
with the case before us. II is true that the sues
ton in that case arose in Louisiana. Bat the set
of Congress Of April !, 1893 chan. %, Stat. al
Large, 549) extended the ordinance of 1871 to the
then Territory OF Mississippi, with the exception
ofthe anti slavery clause aud declared thatthe peo
pe of III territory should be entitled 10 and enjny
nil the rights privileges, AMI advantages granted
% the people Of the territory northwest Of the
Ohio And by the act Of March 2, 1905. chap
10, @ Stat a, Large, 322, twas enacted TINT the
ipbabiiants of the then Territory OF New Orleans
sho lid he entitled to and enjoy all the rights,
privileges. and advantages secured by the ord-
nance Of 1871, and nj the time enjoyed by the peo
pile Of the Mississippi territory.
In the case above mentioned, Permp claimed
the protection of the clause in one of the six arii
cles which provides for The freedom of religion, al
lesing that it had been violated by the First Mu-
nicipality. And he brought the question before
this cour, upon the ground that il had jurisdiction
under The ordinance. But the court held that the
ordinances ceased to he in force when Louisiana
became State, and dismissed the cnse for want
Of jurisdiction. This opinion is indeed confined
II the territory IN which the case arose. But It
is evident that the ordinance cannot be IN force IN
the States formed in the north western territory
and nj the same time not in force in the States
formed 10 the southwestern territory, to which u
was extended by the present Government. For
the ordinances aud pledges of the Congress Of the
old confederation cannot he more enduring and
obligatory than those OF the new government; nor
can there be any reason FOR giving different in
IN no Wor used in sir