Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1852-11-20
Che Dailp i)ireiniou


III IL generally supposed that ffceunn oi tho
soil from Slaveryis is the boast of the common
law Of England. and that great truth was
brought 10 light in Sommersetts case. This is
not AZ. Lord Mansfield was by no means,so far
as The rest Of the world il concerned. the pio-
nrer ot freedom. Whatever honor there may
he in having first asserted that Slavery cannot
exist hy the law of nature, but only by force
of local law, that honor among modern nations
belongs to France. and among systens Of ju-
risprudence To the Civil Law. The csc Of
Sommcre.t did not occur until the year l772.
and in 1873 case arose in France in which it
was held that u negro slave became free by
lcng brough, into France. (l3 Causes Cele-
hrrs. 19).
But in truth tho discovery that by nature all
men are fiee belongs neither to England nor
France. bur is as old as ancient Rome; and
the law Of Rome repeatedly asserts that all
men hy nature are free, and that Slavery can
sub~is only Ivy tho laws of the State. (Dlgests,
B |, T. |, g. 4, B. |. T. 5. IS. 4. 81
Tho writer's on the law of nations uniformly
maintain the same principle. viz: that by tho
law of nature all men are free, and that where
Slavery is not established aud upheld by the
law of The State there can be no slaves. Gro
lins b. q ch. 22. g. IL, Hobbies De Give B.
|, ch. /, =. 3 Pufendoff rbeyrac) Droit de
la Nature b. 3, ch. 9. S. |, g b. 6. ch. 3, s. 81
The same writers also hold that by the law
Of Nature one race of men is more subject
to be reduced 10 slavery than other roces.--
Pufendorf B. 3, ch. g, g. 8.
When We are considering n ma ster and slave
in Free State where Slavery Ia not upheld
bv law, We must take into view all these prln
cipes Of the law Of nature. and see how they
re respectively To be dealt with according to
that law for it will be remembered that the
master can now claim nothing except by vir-
tue Of the law of nature. lie claims under
that law right to pass through the country
That is awarded TO him But he claims in ad.
dition to 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 TINT cannot be-; for the law of
nature snys that there can be 10 property IN
slave.
We must look still further TO see what is to
he done with the claims of the slave. There
be ng now no law but the law Of nature. the
slave must have all his rights under tlat,as ell
as the master, and it is just as much the slaves
right under that 10 be free as il is the masters
to pass through the country. 1t is very clear.
therefore. TINT the slave has right 10 his iree-
dom, and that the master cannot have right
TO take him with him.
As the cases cited by the respondents coun.
sci all rest the masters right OF transit exclu-
svcly upon the law of nations, and admit that
he cannot have it under any other law, havo
thus followed out that view, perhaps at unncc-
essary length in order to see to whatit would
lead. In order to prevent any misanprehen.
sion as to the identity of the law of nature and
the law of nations, | vii close my observa''
tionsupon this part of the case with citation
upon that point, from Vattel. (Prellnlnalres
q. o. "The law of nations is originally no
more than the law oil nature applied to ma
tons"
ought also TO notice here that the respondents
counsel, upon the authority otthe case IL ILL.,
nos. insisted that this right Of transit with
slaves IS strengthened by that clause in the
Constitution OF the United States which de.
cIarrs that The citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all the privileges and immuuiles of
citizeus in tho several States" The ca.e in
Indiana on the other hand. says expressly that
the right does not depend upon any positive
law.
think this remark must have found ts way
into the opinion of the Judge who decided the
Illinois case ithout due consideration. have
always understood that provision Of tie Con.
s,tntion to mean lat least so far as this Case is
concerned) that citizen who was absent from
his own State. and in some other State was
entitled " hle there to all the privileges OF the
cizens of that Statel And have never heard
Of any oher or different meaning being gwen
to il. ltuoud be absurd to say that while In
the sister Safe he is entitled to all the privile-
.es secured to citizens by the laws of all the
several States or even of his own State; for that
" onld be to confound all territorial limits and
give TO the States not only an entire commu'
niry, bu, perfect confusion oflaws, II am
righ in this view of tae matter, the clause ol
the Constitution relied upon cannot help the
respondent; for if he is entitled while here &c
those privileges only which the citizens of thi;
State possess, he cannot hold his slaves.
must also here, notice some other similar
grounds insisted upon by the respondents
counsel.
| He cites Vattel (B. 2, ch, s. S.. 81 to prove
that the yoods of an individual as regards other