New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-08

United S;stes the free use Of the Dsvigste Fh"'9
leading INTO the Mississippi aud St Lawrence, can Dc
legtimstely construed az authorizing sevehoding,'
sDy purpose within The territory Of OHIO '"o
express prohibitions OF slayeholdipg IN me
and in the State Constitution. AUTHORIZES cIV'u'
ord l7s7; Const. L. s., Art 4, sec. 2; ~, Str
-: Somersets Case 20 State Trials !; IL Ma''uis
Louisiana Rep. 4Oi Walkers Mississippi heP' ID
yvono-,. Rcn a. Marshslls Ky. Rep. 40; Il
Pickerine's Rep. 2l6 Senator Wakers Argument 10
po.or,s Ron ADD. p; Mclean 6O3; West. Law
.JourpaI 81; La. Rep. 49, Wheaton, a7ii L>w
Rep. 2e2; Ohio, 1861
IT The Fugitive Slave Act OF 1873, under which
Hopposs claimed the right TO hold Watson for the
puTnose of taking him before magistrate, was un-
constitutional and void. This point was fully argued.
III. The right 70 reclaim escaping servants was by
the ordinance Of l7s7, limited 10 of servants
escaping from the ORIGINAL States.
Counsel insisted that the articles Of compact in the
ordinance Of 1877 were Of perpetual obligation, unless
altered by the common consent Of the States aud peo
pie in the Northwest Territory and of the States that
that no such alteration had been made that the crd
nance in terms absolutely prohibited Slavery, thereby
eecting the immediate emancipation Of all the slaves
in the Territory, providing OILY tha, persons held TO
service in the ORIGINAL States might be reclaimed
that this provso then, now, the only exception
10 the prohibition against slavehoding, aud that ths
exception cannot be extended topersons escaping FROM
States admitted into the Union since the PRONUNCIATION
Of the ordinance, q Mclean 34l, $40; Ohio
Rep. 49,
". That upon the acquisition Of the Territory Of
Louisiana by the United States under the treaty Of
1903 with France Slavery ceased TO be aIega relation
in that territory, and that all laws authorizing slave
holding in IT, or in States created out Of IT. uncOn
stitutional and void.
Under this head they insisted that at the time of the
adoption Of the Constitution Of the United States ths
settled policy and understanding of the nation VICE
that Slavery Should be restricted within its existing
limits and within a convenient time, finally abolished
by legislative authority that the amendment Of the
Constitution which declares that no person shall be
deprived Of liberty without due process oflaw, was in
accordance with this policy and Understandings that
this amendment made it impossible for Congress TO
legisate for the extension continuance Of Slavery,
and also impossible that Slavery should exist in any
Territory Of the United States; that independently Of
this amendment, Congress had poEer under the
Constitution TO create sustain the relation Of master
and slave; that this relation originating in and up
held by positive law, flowing from sovereign author
ity, must cease in a territory which exchanges a
IclgU power, ChphDlc VI buhtdlhDS hHu CIthtihS
relation for Incapable Of creating sustaining it,
that, independently Of oil this the treaty with France
which guarantees TO all " TIE INHABITANTS of the ter
rory liberty and the privileges OF citizens Of the
United States extnguishod Slavery in the Terri Dry;
that State or is competent to enslsve one part
Of Its inhabitants, having been once free to another
part, such act being a violation not only OF the
United States Constitution but Of the fundamental
principles on which the Constitution itself stands;
that Slavery, therefore, and is illegal and unconst
tutionsl in Arkar sas and Watson, having been taken
there, was emancipated and could not afterward be
retnslaved. Cited, United States Court, Amendment
So Madison papers, 1929; IS Peters Rep, 5o7;
Walkers Miss. Rep, 81; McLean's Rep, COZ;
Treaty with France United States Land Laws, 43;
Reevess His. Com. Law, 249
You will see that the subject fully and thoroughly
discussed and that, although the case decided
against the Slave Watson, on the fact of territorial
limits the great principle established that Slavery
il purely local and that the slave-owner has right
of passage with his property through q Free State.
Judge Read, in a border State and border city,
serted in lsi5 the principle of the Lennon case.
FAiladeJAia, Aug. ], 1855 JUNIOR COUNSEL