Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-11-20

least as natural right between the States which com
pose Union.
But we are to look further than this and to wha
the law of nations il when the property which strange
wishes to take with him is slave
The property which the writers on the law Of nations
speak OF is merchandise nanimate things and by thu
law of nature these belong to their owner But those
writers nowhere speak of right to pass through for
egn country with slaves as property On the contrary
they all agree that by the law of nature alone
have property in slaves And they also hold that
where slavery is established by the local law,
not have that full and absolute property in person which
he may have in an inanimate thing. (Putfendorf Is. g.
CHI g. s. ~ 1t scarcely, therefore, be said that
when writer's the law OF nations maintain that strangers
have right to pass through country with their mer
chandse property, they thereby maintain their right
to pass with their slaves
But the property merchandise spoken of by writers
on the law of nations which the stranger may take with
him. being inanimate things, can have rights
and the rights Of the all that be thought Of
1t therefore to look still further and to
what is the state of things by the law of nature af-
fectng the rights of the slave when owner finds him
SELF from necessity, with his slave in country where
slavery is not legalized or Is not upheld by law
1t is generally supposed that freedom OF the soil from
slavery the boast Of the common law or England ana
that great truth was brought to light Somersets
This is not So Lord Mansfield by means, far
the rest Of the world is concerned the pioneer OF free
DOM Whatever honor there may be in having first as
serted that slavery cannot exist by the law OF nature but
only by force Of local law that honor among modern ma
dence to the civil law The of Somerset did not oc
until the year 7 and in 1888 arose in France
in which it held that negro slave became free by
being brought into France rs Causes Celebres, 49,
But in truth the discovery that by nature all men
free belongs neither to England France but is
old ancient Rome and the law Of Rome repeatedly
sers that all by nature are Free and that slavery
subsist only by the laws of the State Digest B. l.
I. /, s. A, B. i, T. 5, IS. A. s.
The writers the law of nations uniformly maintain
the principle, viz that by the law of nature all men
Free and that where slavery is not established and
upheld by the law of the State there be no slaves
(Grotius B., 2 CHI d. s. H. Hobbies De Give B. l. ch l.
g. Pufendorf (Barbevrac Drot de la Nature b. b CHI
2, IS. l. =, b. q, CHI 3, s. 2.
The same writers also hold that by the law of nature
of men is subject to be reduced to sla
very than other Pufendorf, b. 3, oh. 2 s. 81
When we are considering master and slave in free
State where slavery is not upheld by law, must take
into view all these principles of the law of nature and
how they respectively be dealt with according
that law for it will be remembered that the master
claim nothing except by virtue of the law Of
ture He claims under that law right to pass through
the country That is awarded to him. But he claims in
addition, to take his slave with him; but upon what
grounds That the slave is his property. By the
law however, under which he himself claims that cannot
be for the law of nature says that there be pro-
perty in slave.
We must look still further to see what is to be done
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 the master; and it is just much
slaves right under that to be free it is the masters
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 cited by the respondents counsel all vest
the masters right OF transit exclusively upon The law of
nations and admit that he have it under any other
law have thus followed out that view perhaps at
necessary length in order to what it would lead
In order to prevent any msapprehension to the iden
ty Of the law Of nature and the law Of nations, will
close my observations upon this part Of the case with
that nj
6.) " The law Of nations is originally than the
law Of nature applied to nations"
ought also TO notice here that the respondents
sci, upon the authority Of the in Illinois, insisted
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 State shall be entitled
to all the privileges and immunites Of citizens in the
several States The in Indiana the other hand
says expressly that the right does depend upon
positive law.
think this remark have found it's way into the
opinion Of the judge who decided the Illinois without
due consideration have always understood that pro-
vision Of the constitution lat least far this
Is concerned that citizen who absent from his
State, and in other State, entitled while
there TO all the privileges Of the citizens of that State
And have never heard OF any other or different
meaning being given to it. 1t would be absurd to say
that while in the sister State he is entitled TO all the
privileges secured to citizens by the laws OF all the several
States Of his State for that would be 10
found all territorial limits and TO the States emily
entire community but perfect confusion Of laws If
right in this view Of the matter the clause Of the
constitution relied upon cannot help the respondent
il he is entitled while here to those privileges only which
the citizens Of this State possess he cannot hold his
slaves.
must also here notice some other similar grounds in
sisted upon by the respondents counsel
He cites Vattel (B. 3 ch. I, 81 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 Yattel is always speaking
slaves not goods; and may add that what Vattel
says in the passage TO which he refers has connection
with the right OF transit through foreign country Be
sides, in the case from Illinois referred TO by respon-
dents counsel the Court distinctly declare willard agt
People, scammons Rep. ALL that they cannst see
the application this Of the law Of nations in rea
ton to the domic Of the fixing the condition Of
and securing the right Of property in this slave, and
garding the slave part Of the wealth OF Louisiana,
and our obligation Of comfy TO respect and enforce that
right"
The respondents counsel also refers 10 those provisions
Of the Constitution Of the United States which relate to
fugitive slaves and to the regulation Of among
the several States With regard the Of these pro-
visions which the counsel insists recognises and gives
property in slaves IL is sufficient say, that although
the supreme law Of the land in respect 10 fugitive slaves
and such entitled TO unquestonng obedience from ALL
IL is far every thing else is concerned the
IL there such provision in the constitution This
has been held In almost without number and is
held in each Of the three cited by the respondents
counsel and upon which have before commented.
As for the provision Of the constitution in relation to
among the States IL has been often held that
Notwithstanding this provision the States have the power
implicitly reserved to them Of passing all such laws n
may be necessary for the preservation within the State
Of health ORDER and the webeng Of society, laws
which usually called sanatve and police regulations
Passenger cases. Uowdrd g. q. X. 2S3. License
) IL. 504. Blackbrd Greek Marsh Company, Peter,
$50. New York against Min, III Peters, l30 Brown
against State Of Maryland IL WLea 4la. Groves agt