Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-11-27

lIut the property or merchandise spoken
OF hy writers on the law Of nations which
the stranger mny take with him, heng mere
inanimatc things, eau have no rights ana
the rights of tie owner arc all that can De
thought Of II is, therefore, necessary to look
still further aud to see what ~ the state OF
things, by tie law of nature, ms affecting the
rights of the slave when an owner finds
himself, from necessity, with his slave in
country where Slavery is not lcgalized or is
not upheld Ivy law.
II is generally supposed that freedom of
the soil from slavery is the boast of the com
mon law of England, aud that great truth
was brought to light in Sommersetts case.
This is not so. Lord Mansfield was 10y no
means, so FIR ms the rest OF the world is con
cerncd the pioneer of freedom. Whatever
honor there inny bo in having first asserted
that Slavery cannot exist hy the law of ma
ture, hut only by force of local law, that
honor among modern nations belongs TO
France, aud among systems of Jurisprudence
| to the Civil Law. The cuse of Somerset
| did not occur until the year 1772, and IN
| 1913 n case arose in France in which il was
/ held iliat.a negro slave hccnme free 10y being
brought in;o France. (l3 Cuuses Celebres,
49.)
But in truth the discovery that by nature
al men are free, belongs neither to England
nor France, but is MS old as Ancient Rome I;
aud the law of Rome repeatedly asserts that
all men Ivy nature are free, aud that slavery
can subsisl only 10y tic laws of the State
(Digesis, B. 1T |, ,. 4, B. |, +. D, IS. 4, 81
The writer's on the law of nations uni
iormly maintain the same principle viz: that
10y the law of nature all men nre free, aud
that where Slavery is not established aud up
held 10y the law of the State there can he no
slaves. (Grotiiis, B. 2, cit. 90, .. II, Hobbies
DE Give B. |, ch. !, =. 3. Puteudori bar
heyrnc) DroiI de la Nature Il. 3, eli. 3 ss. |, 2,
b. 6, clL 3, say
The snmc writer's also hold that by the law
of Nature, one race of men is no more sub
ject to be reduced to snvery than other races.
(Puiendorf Is. 3, ch. >, :. 8.
When we are considering n master and
slave in Free 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 are respectively to he dealt
with according to that law; for it will be
remembered that the master can now claim
nothing except by virtue of the law Of ma
tire. lie claims under that law n right 10
pass through the country. That is awarded
| To him. But he claims n addition to take
his slave with him; but upon what ground
| That the slave is his property. by the snne
| law, however, under which lac himself claims,
! that cannnot he for the law of nature says
that there can be 10 property in n slave.
We must look still further to see what is
to he done with the claims of the slave
There being now no law but the law of ma
turc, the slave must have all his rights under
that, as well as the master and it is just rs
much the slaves right under TINT to he free
ms it is The masters to pass through the
country. Ii is very clear, therefore, that the
slave has right 10 his freedom, aud that the
master cannot have right 10 take lin with
him.
As The cnses cited by the respondents
counsel all rest the masters right of transit
exclusively upon the law of nations, aud ad-
init that he cannot have il under any other
law, have thus followed out that view, per-
Iinps at unnecessary length, in order 10 see
to what, ii would lead. In order to prevent
any nrisapprelIension MS to the identity OF
the law of nature aud the law of nations,
| will close my observations upon this part
of the case with II citation, upon that point,
from Vuttel. (Prelmiuaries =. 6.) "The
law of nations is originally no more Than the
law of nature applied to nations"
! ] ought also To notice here that the re-
spondent's counsel, upon the authority of The
= cnse in Illinois, insisted that this right o
transit with slaves is strengthened by thn
clause in the Constitution of the unltet
States which declares ilnt "Thc citizens o
II each State shall lie entitled to all the priyil
eyes and nmunilies of citizens in the seve
: raj States" The case in Indiana, on tn
: other hand, says expressly that the right doe
q not depend upon any positive law.
think this remark must have found it
way into the opinion Of the Judge who deci
u leh the Illinois case without due considern
u ton. have always understood that prOvis
ion of the Constitution TO mean lat least S
n fur as this case is concerned) that ciiZe
= who was absent from his own State, and i
= some other State, was entitled while there I
S all tie privileges Of the citizens OF that Stnt,
If Aud have never heard of any other or di
u lerent meauing being given to it. Ii wonl
II he absurd 10 say TINT while in the sistC
n State he is entitled TO all the privileges S,
i cured to citizens hy the laws OF all the sevi
Il raj States or even of his own State; for tlli
e would he to coniound all territorial limit
and give TO the Stntes NOT only an entil
q community hut perfect confusion of law
= II am right in this view of the matter, III
il clause of the Constitution relied upon cal
c not help the respondents; for it he is enritle
Z while here to those privileges only whic
5 the citizens Of this Safe possess, he canu'
# hold his slaves.
must nlso here notice some other simili
v grounds insisted upon by the respondent
II counsel
r lie cites Vattel (B. ., cl. 8, s. sl) to prov
5. that the goods of an individual us regnrC
o other Slutes are the goods of his State.
= have already shown that by the law OF NJ
r, turr, about which alone Vnllel is nlwa,
., speaking, slaves are not goods; aud | ma
i add llut what Valtel snys in the passage
which he refers has no conneXion with ii
d right of transit through "A foreign country
q Besides, in the case from Illinois referred
&C by respondents counsel, the Court distinct
declare (Willard Us. People, Scammon
W Rep. All that they cannot see the applies
4. lion TO this cnse OF the law of nations in r.
,o lntion TO the domicil of the owner Fl yin0 n