New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-08
LETTERS FROM THEPEOPLE.
SALMON p. CHASE.
- De EoitO, q Ten. y. Tri6aae


some errors, which beg permission to correct. The
"outspoken hostility Of the Hor. 5. 7. Chase to
Slavery dates from rluch eerier period than 1875.
About TEN years bes1,e that, ,ro engaged
rel In what was called The Matilda Slave Case one
part Of which ia zeported in eight Ohio reports. He
then took the serle constitutional views which he has
ever spce 50 ably maintained. From that time he
was regarded the able advocate OF the rights o;
Freedom and the Free States. HIS moderation aud
courtesy teryard opponents were well known a.
his fnnncs9 and courage in the assertion OF what he
believed 20 be constitutional lafy. In the numerous
contests before the courts prior to lsi5, which
made ncinnah battle-ground of Freedom, Mr.
Chase vas ever ready 10 give either professional or
pecuniary aid. He senior counsel in the ce'eora-
ted cases Of JoDee IS. Vsnzandt, which were com
nenecd in 1912, and sone Of his best efforts were
made in them. You viii see, then, that Mr.. Chase
liberalism Is OF some twenty years growth instead OF
ten az your correspondent, " An American would
have IL The fact that Mr. Chase volunteered his
vices in the Watson case, hardly deserves the special
mention made Of L. The writer knows the internal
history ofevery Of the kndn Cincinnati, between
1871 and 1871; there never fee paid offered, or
expected in any Of them, except IN ore where jour
ney TO Washington was made by counsel and full
Argument written out
The Watson case or, 70 the legal title, the case
Of The State osOhio Hopes was most important
in IT, results. The decision # Judge Read gave the
rule on which every court in Ohio has since acted;
and whatever the Judges political proeivities may
have been, he hardly deserves the unmeasGlei con-
demnaion meted out to him by your correspondent
He said:
"Ifa master bring his slave into the state Of Ohio
he loees all power him. The relation OF master
and slave is strictly territorial. If the master take
bic slave b. vOnd the influence of the law which creates
the relation IT fsthere il nothing 70 support y and
they stand as man 10 The slave il free by the
laws of the State to which he has been brought By the
master and there ia law authorizing the master to
force him back 10 the State which recognizes and en-
forces the relation Of master and slave. At one time
1 was of opinion he bad the right Of passage through
Free State with his slave This probably would
harmonic with the spirit of the Compromise upon
this subject. But upon more careful examination,
an satisfied the master mus, lose his slave If he brings
him into Free State unless the slave voluntarily
turns q state of slavery because the master loses
all power over the slave by the law Of the State to
which be has brought him; and there is other law
authorizing him TO remove him. The Constitution of
the United States only recognizes the night OF recap
ture of fugitive held to service in State escaping
INTO another. The person owing service must escape
from the State where such service Il owed into another
State" "Bence, if Mr.. HOppess brought
bis slave into the State of Ohio, or permitted him to
come here he hes authority to detan him in custo-
dy or to remove him from the State"
The doctrine Of this decision has since been the set
tied one OF the Ohio Courts Judge Read was per-
baps a Pro-Navery Democrat " in private life, but
he would not degrade tho ermne by leaning in favor
of Slavery while on the Bench. We respect him
than IL be had professed liberalism in parlors and
acted slavecstehDg in Office.
The case turned on the single point whether Ohio
and Kentucky exercised concurrent jurisdiction
the river Ohio. The counsel for Hoppess, IN. c.
A. IL. Ia. lfoIoo 81
McLeso, biz cousiD,) contended that the Act of
Cesson Of Virginia vested concurrent jurisdiction
over the Ohio in the States its opposite shores and
this act and the Ordinance of l7s7 secured to the c
zens Of all the States the right of navigating the river
and as incident TO this right, that of touching at
either shore; that the citizens Of Slave States nav
eating the river would have the right of taking with
them their slaves, and might hold such slaves while
on the river whether the boat in which they should
be might be fastened 10 the shore not that Watson
did in fact escape from the boat and might therefore
be reclaimed.
This view was sustained by the Court. The Virginia
Act of Cession had been repeatedly recognized by
Ohio Courts, in sustaining the titles of all the land
held by grant from Virginia 10 the military district
That act ceded the lands "to the northwest of the
"River Ohio but made no oesson of the river. In
setting Of Kentucky as State, however, Virginia de-
cIared that the jurisdiction the river should be
common or concurrent 70 the States bordering upon
it. Whatsoever may be thought of the decision it is
tain that the Ohio Courts had repeatedly decided that
the jurisdiction Of Ohio and Kentucky for the service
OF civil and criminal process concurrent over the
water within the banks Of the river without reference
to high or low water mark. As it was admitted that
Watson, the man claimed, had left the boat without
the permission of Hopes, the claimant Judge Read
sent the parties before magistrate, under the law
of l793
As it may be of some interest, and particularly to
lawyers, will give the points made in the case by
watsens counsel. Your correspondent seems TO have
been present only on the last day of the argument,
when Mr. Chase closed. The opening argument, COW
crng all the points, was made by William Birney; he
was answered by n. C. Mclean Judge VIM. John
ston followed for Watson; and NJ. n. Mclean and S.
r. Chase closed for their respective sides. give the
points from notes made at the time:
/. Admitting that Watson was a slave before ar
irving at Cincinnati, he became free the
boat on which he was passenger came within the
State of Ohio, and any seizure and confinement Of
him by Hoppess was an illegal assault and imprison
ment.
Under this head watsons counsel insisted that the
middle Of the River Ohio was the true boundary be-
tween Ohio Indiana and Illinois, upon side of the
river and Kentucky the other side: FIRST because
the United States. having conquered the territory
west OF the AIeghanies from Great Britain to which
power this territory had been ceded by France in 1903
had title superior TO that of Virginia under its char
ter, which had been long before adiudged forfeited
and NULL and when they received the cesson of vgnia
merely compromised dispute retaining the territory