The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-11-17


not have that full and absolute property IN person
which he may have in an inanmaie thing. (Putendor
b. g. CHI 8, ~ IL can scarcely therefore, De SAID tha
when writers on the law of nations maintain that strangers
have right 10 pass through a country with Their
merchandise property they thereby maintain their
right TO pass with their slaves.
But the property or merchandise spoken OF by writers
on the law OF nations which the stranger may take with
him, being inanlmale things can have no rights;
and the rights OF the owner are all that can be thought
of Ii is therefore necessary 10 look sill further, ana 10
what is the state OF things by the law OF nature as
affecting the rights OF the slave when owner finds hm
self, from necessity, with his slave in country where
slavery is not egalized or is not upheld by law .
is generally supposed that freedom OF the soil from
slavery is the boast OF the common law OF England, anu
that great truth was brought TO light IN oomersel oase
THIS is not Lord Mansfield was Dy no MEANS so Iaf
as the rest of the world concerned the pioneer OF Tree
dom Whatever honor there may De 10 having hfs' as.
serted that slavery cannot exist oy Inc law OF nature Du
only by force OF local law that honor among modern ma
tons belongs France, and among systems OF uspru
dence to the civil law The case OF Somerset did not oc.
until the year l772 ana IN l1ss case arose h IN
free by being brought into France Q3 Causes Ceebes
49)
free belongs neither TO England France, but is as old
ancient Rome and the law OF Rome repeatedly as
serts that all by nature free and that slavery
can subsst only by the laws OF the Slate Digest d. J.
L. 1,s.4;B 1, L 5, IS. A.
The writers the law of nations uniformly maintain
the same principl-evz: that by the law OF nature all
free, and that where slavery is not established
slaves. tGrotus 3. 2, oh. %. s. H. Hobbies DE C,ye
B. l. ch i. 8. Pahendorf (Barbeyrac) Dro de la Ma.
tu1s, B. 8. Oh. 2. S. lab 9. ca. s.s2)
one race OF men is no more subject 70 be reduced TO
slavery than other (PuHendor B. 8, CHI p s. 81
When we are considering master and slave IN Tree
State, where slavery is not upheld by law, we must take
into view all these principles OF the law OF nature and
see how they respectively to be dealt with according
to that laws for il will be remembered tina, the master
can claim nothing except by virtue OF the law OF
nature He claims under that law anghl TO pass through
the country. That is awarded to him. But be claims,
in addition, 10 take his slave with him; but upon what
ground That the slave is his property. BY the same
law. however under which he himself claims, that can
not be; for the law OF nature says that there can be no
property in slave
with the claims Of the slave. There being now no law
but the law OF nature the slave must have all his rights
under that well as the maser and il just as much
slaves right under that to be free is The masters TO
pass through the country 1t is very clear, therefore,
that the slave has right TO his freedom. and that the
master cannot have right TO take him with him.
AS The cases cited BY The respondents counsel all vest
the masters right OF transit exclusively upon the law OF
nations and admit that he cannot have under any other
law have thus followed out that view, perhaps at IN
necessary length, in order 10 see 10 what 1t would lead
In order to prevent any msapprehenson as to The den
tty of the law of nature and the law Of nations will
close my observations upon this part OF the case With
citation upon that point from Vatlel (Prellmlnares,s
"Thc law OF nations originally no more than The
law of nature applied to nations"
ought also to notice here that the respondents
that this right of transit with slaves is strengthened by
that clause in the constitution OF the United States which
declares that "the citizens OF each Stale shall be entitled
TO all the privileges and immunes of citizens IN The
several States" The case in Indiana. on the other hand
expressly that the right does not depend upon any
positive law.
opinion OF the Judge who decided the Illinois case, with.
out due consideration. have always understood that
provision OF the constitution 10 mean (at least so far as
this case is coDcerned) that citizen who was absent
from his own State, and in other Sate was emit
tied while there all the privileges OF the czens OF
that State And have heard OF any other or dii-
ferent meaning being given 10 IT, II would be absurd TO
say that while in the sister State he entitled 10 all the
privileges secured to citizens by the laws OF all the sew
era States, even OF his own State for that would be
to confound all territorial limits and give 10 the States
not only entire community but psrec, confusion OF
laws Ii am right in this view OF the matter, The
clause OF the constitution relied upon cannot help the
respondent; for il he is entitled while here those priv
eses only which the citizens OF this State possess. he
cannot hold his slave.
must also here notice other similar grounds in.
sisted upon by The respondents counsel.
he cites Vaitel (B 2, oh. 8, g. 6l) TO prove that the
goods OF individual regards other States the
goods OF his State have already shown that by the
law OF nature, about which alone Vaitel is always
speaking, slaves are not goods; and may add that
what Vae says 10 the passage TO which he refers has no
connexion with the night OF transit through a foreign
country Besides, 10 the case from Illinois, referred TO
by respondents counsel, the court distinctly declare
Willard agt People, Scammons Rep, A7ll that they
+" cannot see the application TO this case oil the law OF
condition OF and securing the right OF property in this
slave and regarding the slave as part oil the wealth OF
Louisiana and obligation OF comfy TO respect and
enforce that right"
The respondents counsel also refers those provisions
OF the constitution OF the United States which relate to
fugitive slaves and TO the regulation oil commerce among
the several States With regard 10 the first oil these pro-
visions. which the counsel insists recognises and gives
property slaves, il sufficient 10 say, that although
the supreme law OF the land in respect TO fugitive slaves
and such entitled TO unquesoning obedience from ALL
il s so far everything else Is concerned the same as
II there were no such provision IN The constitution
This has been held in almost without num-
ber and held in each OF the three cited by the
respondents counsel, and upon which have before com
mented.
Az for the provision OF the constitution in relation to
commerce among the States, il hs. been often held that
Notwithstanding this provision the States have the power
implicitly reserved 10 them OF passing all such laws as
may be necessary for the preservation, within the Stale
of health order and the we'll being OF society, or laws
which usually called sanatve and police regulations
Passenger cases, Howard G. r., ESQ License cases.
h., 5o4. Blackbrd Greek Marsh Company, Peters,
$50 New York against Min, Ill Peters, 100 Brown
against State OF Maryland IL Wheat, 4l9. Groves against
Slaughter, is Peters, sill Laws regulating or entirely
abolshing slavery, fobidding the bringing OF slaves
into State, belong to this class OF laws and right TO
pass those laws affected by the consu Tuition OF the
United States.
This view OF the subject is taken by the three cases
upon which the counsel mainly RELIEF. And even II all
these were not so, apprehend that the constitution,
commerce in slaves, by certain distinct and specific pro-
visions (vz those in relation 10 the importation OF slaves
from abroad and the return OF fugitive slaves) has there
by taken the element OF slavery out OF these general pro-
visions in relation 10 commerce and having legislsied
separately upon the subject OF slavery to very limited
al - a. - H. -