The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-11-04
Froa the Ne,o Orleans Picayuns.
California Law of Slavery,

! We have already briefly nc ticed the decision o.
the supreme court Of California respecting the ap
plication for the discharge of several slaves intro
duoed into the State, while 1t was territory be-
longing to the United States. and before its admis
sion into the Union. We have since received the
opinion delivered in full by the chief justice
| (Anderson.) As the judgment of the highest tri
bunal in non savcholding State upon the rights
| of slave owner to a reclamation of his property
| it ia extremely interesting. ','y
II will be remembered that at the last session OF
the California Legislature an act was passed pro-
viding the means by which the owners of slaves
who took them into that country before the forma-
ton of the State might have State process assist
! them in arrestng the same with view to return
| ing them as slaves to the place from which they
were brought there. Under this act three slaves
were taken into custody; and it was a return to
habeas corpus sued out to obtain their liberty that
the court discussed the whole question Of slavery
and slaveholding as affected by the general law on
slavery, the Constitution Of the United States the
State constitution, and the law of Mexico existing
| anterior to the State constitution.
On the general law in regard to slavery, the
whole range of British and American decisions is
reviewed, in regard to the effect of a change of
domcil the Status of slavery, and the following
principles declared settled: First, that o tenn
porary residence OF a slave in free State, with or
without the consent Of his master, does not change
the place of his permanent residences; secondly,
that such residence does not change his servitude;
thirdly, that no matter what the political nsti
tutions of the State OF temporary residence, the
relations of the slave to his master determined
exclusively by the constitution and laws of the
country OF which he is properly an inhabtant, to
which he may return; and fourthly, that a slave
is property, and 30 to be judicialIy regarded.
These points are practically limited by the doc
trne that the tribunals of foreign State where
these matters might be tried, would not be re-
qured to give effect to the status Of slavery, how
ever legal it might be in the country to which the
lcgal residence of slave belonged, unless it had
it's laws to secure and carry the principle into
pppraton The examination ia confined hv ho
Supreme Court to the simple question, what con
sttutes legal change of residence and works a
forfeiture of the rights of the master.
The relations of the States towards each other
under the Constitution of the United States arc
next examined, and positions taken that slave
ry is political ne well as municipal institution,
recognized in the Constitution and by many laws
of Congress, and asserted distinctly to foreign ma
tions in more than one treaty. This political
character goes with the extent OF the national ter
ritory wherever il reaches, and the constitutional
rights and guarantees of the Republic attach
from the moment of the legal accession Of am
new soil. The ratification of the treaty with
Mexico vested in slave owners all the rights
which they possessed In the States previously y,
and no rights of Mexicans could continue un-
der any municipal law whatever which were in
conflict with the paramount law political rights
of the conqucrors. To regard the Mexican law
for the abolition o. slavery as in force would be to
do What the United States have power to do,
except in a certain form, by an amendment of the
munity secured to the slave States by the original
basis Of compromise, upon which the Government
framed. When California was acquired sit
became the property of all the people Of all
the statcs, and the right of emigration with oil the
property belonging to the citizens was inherent in
its use and possession"
The court proceeded further to rule that no
ganc or statute law of California can take away
any rights con6scate any property guaranteed
by the supreme law of the land. These negroes
being property, and so brought into California,
they remain so notwithstanding the clause in the
State constitution which abolishes slavery. That
clause, too, s to be construed merely directory
to the Legislature, which has never passed laws
to give il force. This principle has been determin
ed in similar cases by the Supreme Court Of the
United States The clause il imperative without
an act, nor could any such act have retrospect
i've effect to divest of their property legal
Iy possessed before. tf.... ...... ,... $50.
The State act, therefore, for rendering to their
owners slayes brought into the territory before the
adoption OF the constitution, is not only constitu-
tonal, but carries into effect a duty which the con
stitution could not discharge.
Some minor questions of law are further consid.
cred, but the above sketch covers the principal
grounds of the decision and "a the settled law of
free State they highly interesting to citizens
of the Southern States.