Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1852-1852, 1852-10-26
a.esaCalisornia Lawof Slavery,

eS[<3sSslk14VG1hIdt E<d1tf- S1dVeFys
We have already briefly noticed the decision
of the Supreme Court of California respecting
the application for the discharge of several slaves
introduced into the State while it was a Terrific
rB belonging to the United States and before its
admission into the Union. We have since re-
eeived the opinion as delivered in full by the
Chief Justice (Anderson.1 As the judgment of
the highest tribunal in non-savehodng State
upon the rights of the slave owner to a recama-
tion of his property, it is extremely interesting.
1t will be remembered that at the last session
of the California Legislature, an act was passed
providing the means by which the owners of
slaves who took them into that country before the
formation Of a State, might have State process
to assist them in arresting the same with view
to returning them as slaves to the place from
which they were brought there. Under this act
three slaves were taken into custody; and it was
on return to habeas corpus sued out to obai
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 decision. is
reviewed, in regard to the effect of a change of
domicil on the status of slavery, and the follow
principles declared as settled First, that a tenn
porary residence Of slave in free State, with
or without the consent of his master, does not
change the place Of his permanent residence !;
secondly, that such residence does not change his
servitude; thirdly, that no matter what are the
political institutions of the State Of temporary
residence, the relations of the slave to his mas
ter are determined exclusively by the constitu-
ton and law of the country Of which he is pro,
perly an inhabitant to which he may return;
and fouuhly, that slaveis property, and so to
be judicially regarded
These points are practically limited by the
doctrine that the tribunals of foreign State
where these matters might be tried would not be
required to give effect to the status of slavery,
however legal 1t might be in the country to which
the legal residence of slave belonged unless it
had its own laws to secure and carry the princi-
pie into operation. The examination is confined
by the Supreme Court to the simple question,
what constitutes a legal change of residence and
works forfeiture of the rights of the master.
The relations of the State towards each other
under the constitution of the United States are
next examined, and positions are taken that Sla-
very is political as well as municipal institution,
recognized in the constitution and by many laws
of Congress- and asserted distinctly to foreign
nations in more than one treaty. This political
character goes with the extent of the national
territory wherever it reaches, and the constitu
tional rights and guarantees Of the Republic at
tach from the moment of the legal accession of
any new soil. The ratification of the treaty
which they possessed in the States previously,
and no rights of Mexcans could continue under
any municipal law whatever, which were in con-
fct with the paramount law or political rights
of the conquerors. To regard the Mexican law
for the abolition of slavery. as in force would be
to do what the United States have no power to
do, except in a certain form, by an amendment
of the constitution. 1t would nullfy "a rolit--
cal immunity secured to the slave States, by the
original basis CT compromise upon which the
Government was framed. When California was
acquired {" it became the common property of
all the people of all the States, and the right of
emigration with all the property belonging to the
citizens was inherent in its use and possession"
The cours proceeded further to rule that no or
ganic statute law Of California can take away
any rights or confscate 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 aboshcs slavery. That
clause too is to be construed as merely directo-
ry to the Legislature, which has never passed
laws to give it force. This principle has been dc
termined in similar cases by the Supreme Court
of the United States. The clause, is imperative
without an act to give it fleet, norcould any such
act have retrospective effect to divest owners of
their property legally possessed before.
The State act, therefore, for rendering to their
owners slaves brought into the territory before
adoption Of the Constitution is not only consitu
tional, but carries into effect duty which the
Constitution could not disgrace.
Some minor questions of law are further con-
sidered, but the above sketch covers the princi-
pal grounds of the decision; and as the settled
law Of free State they are highly interesting to
citizens of the Southern States.-Picayune.
THE Prosperity UF oI-R TTppER DtSTRIcTs -