The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-12
nDITsp ST
tn o n As kIT CHE.
s~prsas Ooaxt 81 shs Ua,s.d states.
No 2o--DEcEABlK TERM, 1850.


Jacob Srader. James Goman,l
and John Armstrong. plain I" error 10 he court Of
ufs in error, appsais fer hs STATE
chr.,ophs, s; Graham q Kentucky
Mr. Chief Justice fancy delivered the opinion of the
Court htttM
This is brought, here by writ Of directed TO
the court OF appeals OF the Stale of Kentucky.
The facts IN the lar they are material TO the
decision OF this Court briefly as follow; The defend
ant IN error s citizen OF the State OF kentucky and
three negro whom he claimed and held his slaves
received board the steamboat Pike al Louisville
without his knowledge consent, and raDspo ted 10 Gin
cinnau. and IRON that place escaped TO Canada, and
The proceedings before us were instituted under stat
ute Of Kentucky in the Louisville chancery court, against
the plaintiffs error, to the value oil the slaves
which had thus escaped and, in default of payment by
them to charge the boat itself with the damages sustain
cd Strader and GofiRan were the owners OF the boat
The plaintiffs in error, among other deences, insisted
that the negroes claimed slaves were free averrng
that some tine before they taken on board the
steamboat they had been sent BY the permission of the
defen liant in error, TO the State OF Ohio. 10 perform
vice slaves and that in consequences thereof they had
acquired their Freedom and were fire. when received on
1t appears by the evidence that these men were mu
scans and had gone to Ohio on one or more occasions
perform at public entertainments; that they had been
taken there for this purpose with tie permission OF the
defendant IN error, by man by the name OF Williams,
under whose and direction he had for time placed
them that they had always returned to Kentucky
this bref service was and for the two years pre-
cedng their escape they had not left the State Of Ken
lucky, and had remained there in the service of the de-
fendan in error their lawful owner.
The Louisville chancery court finally decided that the
negroes in question were his slaves and that he was en-
titled to - 900 for bis damages and il that sum
was not paid BY certain day specified in the decree,
directed that the steamboat should be sold for the purpose
of RAISING it, together with the COSTS Of suit This decree
aft erwsrds affirmed in the court of appeals OF Ken
lucky and the case is brought here by writ OF error upon
that judgment
the Judgment Of the State cour in deciding
that these negroes were slaves And il is insisted thai
their previous employment in Ohio had made them free
when they returned 10 Kentucky.
But this question is not before US Every State has an
uhdouhted right to determine the status or domestic and
social condition OF the persons domiced within its ter
fory except IN far As the powers OF the States in
this respect restrained, duties aud obligations i'm
posed upon them BY The constitution OF the United States
There is nothing in the constitution Of the United States
that can IN any degree control the law OF Kentucky upon
this subjects and the condition of the negroes therefore,
freedom slavery, after their return, depended alto
getber upon the laws OF that State and could not be in
huenced by the laws Of Ohio. 1t was exclusively in the
OF Kentucky to determine for itself whether their
employment n another Stale should or should make
them free their return. The court OF appeals have
determined that by the laws OF the State they continued
10 be slaves; and their judgment upon this point is,
upon this writ OF error conclusive upon this Court, and
we have no jurisdiction over 1t.
But il TO be supposed in the argument that the
law Of Ohio upon this subject has some peculiar force
by virtue the ordinance OF l7s7 for the government of
the Northwestern Terory-Oho being one OF the States
carved out of it,
One Of the articles Of this ordinance provides that
here shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servude
in the said Territory otherwise than 10 punishment for
crimes. whereof the party shall have been duly convict
ed; but that any person escaping into the same from
whom labor is lawfully claimed In any OF
ths original States such fugitive may be lawfully re-
labor or service, a. aforesaid" And this article is one
OF the six which the ordinances declares snail be COM
pact between the original States and The people and States
in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterabe,
unlees by common consent
The argument that the six articles which that
ordinance declares to be perpetual still in force in the
States, since formed within the Territory, and admitted
Ii this proposition could be maintained it would
alter the question: for the the regulations OF Congress,
under the old confederation the present constitution,
for the government Of particular Territory could have
force beyond ito limits certainly could not restrict
the power OF the States within their respective Iefrto
res nor in any interfere with their laws and
institutions, give this Court any control over them
The ordinances i'm question, If still IN force, could have no
more opera than the laws of Ohio in the State OF
kentucky and could not influence the decision upon the
rights OF the master the slaves in that State give
this Court jurisdiction upon the subject,
But has been settled by judicial decision in this Court
that this ordinance is not IN force.
The OF Permoi the First Municipality 60 How,
osS) depended upon the principles with the case be-
fore us II is true tina, the question in tina, in
Lousapa. Blu, the act OF Congress OF April = 179S,
chap 49, Il Stat al Large. 349 extended the ordinance OF
ton OF the tisavery clause and declared that the peo
pie OF that Territory should be entitled 10 and enjoy all
the rights, privileges and advantages granted 10 the
people OF the territory northwest OF the OHIO; and by the
act OF March g. 1905, chap 49, Il Stat at Large 322)
enacted that the inhabitants OF the then Territory OF
New Orleans should be entitled to and enjoy all the
rights. privileges. and advantages secured by the ord-
OF 1887, and that time enjoyed by the people OF
the Mississippi Territory
In the case above mentioned, Permo claimed the pro-
lection OF the clause of the six articles which pro-
vides for the freedom OF religion alleging that it had
been violated by the first municipality and he brought
the question before ths Court, upon the ground that
that the ordinance ceased TO be in force when Louisiana
became State. and dismissed the for OF juns
dction. This opinion indeed confined 10 the Territory
wi hch the case But il is evident that the ordi
cannot be in force in the States formed IN the
Northwestern Territory, and al the time not IN force
in the States formed in the Southwestern Territory, to
which il extended by the present government; for
the ordinances and pledges OF the Congress OF the old
confederation canno, be more enduring and obligatory
for giving different Interpretation TO the same
words used in similar instruments because the one is by
the old confederation and the other by the present gov
eminent And when il 10 decided that this ordinance 10
not IL force in Louisiana, il follows that cannot be IN
force in Ohio
But the whole question upon the ordinance Of 1887,
snd the acls OF Congress extending to other territory
afterwards acquired carefully considered in Pollard
HaSsn. q How, 2i2) The subject is fully examined
concur; and 1t il sufficient refer the reasoning
and prncples by which that judgment is maintained,
without entering again upon full examination of the
uestion.
Indeed, il il impossible to look at the six articles
which supposed in the argument TO be still in force
without seeing that many OF the provisions
tanned in them inconsistent with the present constu
4 - L. vAnA -