The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 184?-1851, 1851-01-22
IMPORTANT DECISION.

No. 26 Decsmber Tern, 1850. =
Jacob Slrader, James Gonmap, aud John
Armstrong, plaintiffsin in error ps Christie
pher Graham. In error To the Court OF
( Appeals for the State of Kentucky, Mr.
Chef Justice fancy deIiseted The opin-
ion OF the Court aj aaI 1tl ~
This case is brought here by writ Of error
directed To the court fappealsof the Stale
Of Kentucky. pen 5aeatat 4, 3f .eesa
The facts in the case, SO Ear as they are
material 10 the decision of his Court, are
briefly as follows: The defendant in error is
a citizen oilhe State OF kemuclsy, and three
NEGRO men whom hs claimed and held as
his slaves were received on board The steam
boat Pike, at Louisville, without his knowl.
edgeior consent, and transported TO Ciacin,
mai, and from that place escapedlo Cnnaca,
and we're finally lost TO him. 3fls s.b tU
The proceedings before US were Instituted
Under a statute ol Kenlucky,su the LOUIS
villo chancery courls, against The plainlitfs
IN error, TO recover the value bf ,ae slaves
which had thus escaped and, in default Of
payment by them, to charge tbe boat itself
with the damages sustained. Strader and
Gormanwere the owners of she boat, and
Armstrong the master. ae3 81 H
I The plaintiffs in error, among other deten'
ces, insisted that the negroes claimed as
slaves we're flee; avetring! THAT some lime
before they we're taken on board The sleam-
boat they had been sent, by ile permission
Of the defendant in error, 10 the State of o.
Irio toperForm sGrvice as slaves; and that in
consequence thefeofthey had acquired their
freedom, and were free when received on
board the boat. a1 7a .3,l.H55
1t appears by the evidebcethat these men
we're musicians, and had gonaslo Ohio on one
or more occasions TO periormbt public enter
ttinmenls; that they had been taken there
for this purpose with the permission Of the
defendant in error bya man by the name Of
Williams, under whose care and direction he
had for time placed them; that they had
always returned TO Kentucky as soou as this
brief service was over; aud Tor The two years
preceding their escape ,theylhad nol left the
State of Kentucky, and hodfemained there
in the service Of the defendant in error as
their lawful owner.
The Louisville chancery. court finally de~
cided that the negroes in question we're his
slaves; and that he was enitled 70 recover
$4,000 for his damages Aud If that sum
was hot paid by cerlainysapy specified in
the decree, ii directed that The sreaniBo az
should be sold for iii, purpose Of raising it,
together with The costs of suit. THIS decree
wnsaerwards affirmed in The court ofsppeals
of Kentucky, and the case is brought here
by writ Of error upon that Judgment. aHHs
Much of the argument on the pnrt Of The
plaintiffs in error has been offered for The
purpose OF showing that the Judgment of the
State court was erroneous in deciding that
these negroes weve slaves. And itis insis-
led that their previous employment in Oslo
bad made them free whentley returned td
Kentucky. M NJ ae PAP baoui .s#4
But this ques.ionis no, before US. Every
State has an undoubledrigIn 10 determine
the status or domestic and social condition Of
the persons domicied within its territory,
except in 50 fsr as The powers of the Stn,es
in this respect are restrained, or duties and
obligations impose upon Ihem by the Con,
stjut;on Of the United States. There is
nothing in the Constitution ofthe U States
thai can in any degree contro. The law of
Kentucky upon the subject. And the con,
dlion Of the negroes, therefore, as TO free
dom or slavery, alter theif feWrn, depended
altogether upon The laws of that Safe, and
could not be Influenced blythe laws ol Ohio.
IL t,,o G a clusv.Iv ~ tn tho s,ouar , II al,
ia determine for itself whether their EN-
ploymen: in another Slale should or should
not make them free on their return. The
court ofappeals have Determined that by the
laws Of the Stale they continued TO be slaves
And their judgment upon this point is, upun
this writ oierror, conclusive upon this Court,
and we have no jurisdiction over il. d
Bat il seems 10 be supposed in The argu
ment that The law Of Ohio, upon this subject,
has some peculiar force by virtue Of HE or
dinance ot 1857, for the government Of the
northwestern terrilofy--Ohio being one Of
the States carved Out ofai. as.g 30 f.
One ofithe arlices of this ordinance pro-
vides that, there shall be neither slavery nor
Involuntary servitude III the said territory,
otherwise Than in punishment for crimes
whereol the party shall have been,duly cons
ylcted; bntihat any persoI escaping into the
same, fom whom labonof service is lawfully
claimed in any one of the original States,
such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed aud
conveyed TO the person claiming his or her
labor or service as aforesaid" And This ar>
lce is one OF the six which The ordinance
declares shall be a compact belween ibe
original States and The people and States in
the said territory, and forever remain unal..
ierabIe, unless by common consent, sat isi
The argument assumes that the six arti.
cles which that ordinance declares to be per.
pelual, are still in force in the States. since
formed within the territory, and admitted
al(aIis ptoposition could he main,aiaed, /, IL
would not alter the question: Fsr the reas
illaiions Of Congress under The old confeda
Grafton or ihei presen, Constitution, for The
govetn.nentsOi a palticuiar territory, could
lave no iorce beyond its limits. alt certainly,
could not restrict the power Of the States
within .heir respective territories :and in anyt
manner Interfere with their laws.and instlu,
liUus; nor give this court my control over
Them. The ordinance inquesiion, ,if still, IN
force, could have no more operationtha the
laws % OhioAin the State Of Kentucky, and
could Mt influence The decision upon the
rights nf the master outbo slaves in that
SMiet NOR giselihis couFt. Jurisdiction dpoA
tlre sntlecs. Asi se'altga Nv 4 .'8 ,be4
Dp / has eenseuledby Judicial decision