The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1851-02-06

l5TISsIIsl sSVsiIIlIIll, ClIs 'aH a8l' Cave
y t5.|. ai.a TOWING 2 pNff pllsl ell ef
ffienls at home, ils I'd u our eilellile
Wi lloutthe state
me ordinanco q; d7ss.
I Hnsln Govis7 m THE z; az
DSteus6sz 1elns, 1890
jacob elfs1lar James Gorpanalaa John h .5.'
5 3 &fFonn Plaintiffs ii error rs. ~
aars. errorto he Court of ppeals 1or Fh'
State OF Kentucky
a. CHIEF Justice i fancy de- iseredths opinlOa
NJ OF the colxal
!. This case Is brough here by writ of error 81
recssa % the Court Of ppeals Of tlIs State 2
The iacts II the case, 50 they are tsatsria
10 The decision Of this IRE pr follows
The defendant in errors citizen Of the State Q
Kehtncky, and three esro men VI - he claimed
and held as his slaves were received pc boafdtte
steamboat Pike at Louisville, without his knowi.
edge or consent, und transp ported TO e Cincinnati
and from that place escaped to Canada. and were
finally lostto him.
II The proceedings before us We're instituted TIM
der "a statute of Kentucky in the Louisville chan
1cery court, against the plaintiffs in terror, 70 re-
i cover the value Of the slaves which had thus es-
capped; and, in default Of yrnent by them, 20
i charge the boat itself with the damages sHstain-
cd Strader & German were the owners 81 the
1 boat, and Armstrong the master.
The plaintiffs in error among other de lenses, M
sisted that the negroes claimed as slaves were
free ayerrinp thar some time before they were ta-
ken on board the steamboat they had been sent,
by the permission Of the defendant in error, to
the State of Ohio to perform. service as slaves;
/ and that in consequence thereof they had ac-
auired their freedom, and were free when receiy-
cd on board the boat
Ii appears by the evidence that these men were
musicians, and had gone TO Ohio on one or more
occasions to perform at public entertainments;
that they had been taken there for this purpose
with the permission of the defendant in error by
4 man BY the name Of Williams under whose
care and direction he had for time placed thcm;s
that they had always returned to Kentucky as.
soon as this brief service was over; and for the
two years proceeding their escape they had not
left The State of Kentucky, and had remained
there in the service of the defendant in error as
their lawful owner.
The Louisville ehanccry court finally decided
that the negroesin question were his slaves; and
that he was entitled recover $1,000 for his dam
ages. GAndif that sum was not paid lay pcerfain
day specified in the decrce,.it efeeted that the
steamboat should be sold for the purpose of rais
ing it, together with the costssof SUIT. This de-
cree was afterwards affirmed in the court ofap-1
peals of Kentucky, and the case is brough here
by writ of error upon that Judgments
Much oftheargumcnt OH the part OF the plaint-
ifs in error has been offered fortl,e purpose Of
showing that the judgment of the Statc.co was
erroneous IN deciding thar these snegroes were
slaves. Aud it insisted that their previous en-
ployment in Ohio had made them free when they
TO Kentucky.
But this question IS not before MS. Every State
aas undoubted right to determine the status
or domestic and social condition of the persons
iomiciIed within its territory, except in so far as
he powers of the States in thir respect are re-
trained, or duties and obligations imposed upon
hem by the constitution of the United States
There Is nothing in the constitution of the Uni
ed States than can in any degree control the law
# Kentucky upon this subject. And tie copdi-
ion OF The negroes therefore, as 10 freedom or
lavery, after their return, depended altogether
pom the laws of that State, and could not be IN
uenced by the laws of Ohio. It was exclusives
gin the power of Kentucky to determine for it,
elf whether their employment in another State !
hould or should not make them free on their re- Z
arm. The court of appeals have determined that
y the laws OF the State they continued TO be 9
ayes. Andtheir judgment upon this point is,
ponthis writ of error, conclusive upon this court
nd we have no jurisdiction. over it, te
But it seems to be supposed in the Argument n
tat the law of Ohio, uponthis subject, has some ii
ocular force, by virtue of the ordinance Of e
7s7, for the government of the northwestern Ii
being one Of the States carved Il
1t oil. it. la
One of the articles of this ordinance provides s
at "there shall be neither slavery nor involun- o
ry seryitude in the said territory, otherwise 81
AN in punishment for crimes whereof the par o
shall have beenduly convicted but that persons 81
Gaping into the same, from whom labor or SER ct
ce is lawfully claimed in any one of the origi-
i States, such fugitive may be lawfully CO
ID conveyed TO the person claiming his or her "
Dor or service as Aforesaid And this article
one of the six which the ordinance declares
all be a compact between the original States
ID the people and States in the said territory, L.,
d forever remain unalterable, unless by com :. :.
on consent. = =
The argument assumes that the SIX articles -
llch that ordinance declares to be perpetualare =
II in force in the States since formed within the =
rritory, and admitted into the Union. ~ =,
If this proposition could be maintained, it Iag
ould not alter the question. For the regula- :.
ms of Congress under the old confederation or -
. present constitution, for the government of -
rticuar territory, could have no force beyond ~
limits. Hcertainly could not restrict thepow- f.
ofsthe States within their respective territory; -
I any manner interfere with their laws and -