The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-08-16

The Wheeler Case-Can Slavery Exist in a
Free State.

The Wheeler Case-Can Slavery Exist in a
Free State.
Some days ago one Wheeler, Minister to
Central America and STAKEHOLDER of course,
landed in Philadelphia. which happens to lie
in free State though some of its citizens re-
gret the unfortunate location greatly. and with
him was a piece of female property, called for
convenience In using and selling, Jane John
son, with its increase, two smaller bits of prop
erty, aged seven and eleven. An individual
who fanaticalv believed that the piece Of prop
erty would ike TO undergo a trans formation.
more easy and painless in that locality than
along the Red or Savannah rivers, into human
being, and resolutely bent on dissolving the
Union, and drenching the country in gore,
and all that sort of thing, hinted 10 the female
chattel in question that it had nothing to do
to realize such aspiration than to step on
shore, off the boat where it had been deposit
ed by its owner. The property. with a mad
forgetfuness of the happiness il had hitherto
enjoyed and british disregard Of the ''pa-
ternal care that would watch over it in old
age" stepped on shore, and became woman,
instead of a piece of Wheeler's estate, ap-
praised at $3.50 Wheeler, desiring his piece
Of colored goods. procured one Kane (name
spelled a little differently from his great an
cestorl to demand of the individual who had
told Il (now her) to effect this transformation
called Williamson, why lie did't bring back
said goods. Williamson replied that he had
not the property in his possession, and could
not Kane thought this reply ''illusory,"
''evasive," an fact and sent the mpudent fel
low to Jail for making it, and then declared
further that Williamson had not only lied about
having the property, but had told lie to the
property-thst it was not free as in North
Carolina. Here is what he says:
That | know of no statute in PennSy lyania
which affects to divest the rights of property
of Il citizen of North Carolina acquired and
asserted under in the laws of that State, be-
cause he has found it needful or convenient to
pass through the territory of Pennsylvania
That am not aware that any such statute
if such one were shown, could be recogni-
zed valid in court of the United States.
That is, without a positive enactment dives
ting the right to slave property in free State,
slaves can be held in them, for certain purpo-
ses; and if such an enactment We're made; it
would be invalid under the Constitution of
the United States.
The Louisville Journal adds gloss to the
same effect, that the title to slave property in
a slave State continues in free State till a
court decides it unlawful, in other words, in
free State a slave voluntarily brought within
its limits by his master, must sac for his free
dom. The master is entitled to him, till it ca
be shown that he is entitled 10 his freedom.
his is nothing more nor less than the Cal
houn doctrine, that by the Constitution of the
United States, Slavery goes with the slavehold- .
er eUery 1chere till forbidden by positive law.
Whatever servile Courts may hereafter decide
the past at least is safe This 9isv'' et .en9,
decisions on this point. Slavery, says Judge
Kane, accompanies Shareholder into free
State. so far as to allow him to retain his
property while passing through it, unless tor
bidden by positive law, or more briefly, posi-
tive law is not needed TO legahze slavery for
such purpose. 1t exists without law. Is
this view sustained by the courts of the coun-
try, North or South? 4
The decisions certainly settle the question
whether slavery can exist for any purpose,
without positive law. The right of transit
with slaves is clearly destroyed by them, ,
as the ri ght to sell or whip. No amount of
logical aeuteness. or legal perversion can es-
tablish a ri gbt to travel through State with
slaves where slavery does not exist. without a
positive law permitting it. Outside Of the
State legalizing that relation, ii ceases for aH
purposes. But positive law, the Constltu-
ton of the United States, allows It's continu-
ance in one solitary case, fugltIves from labor.
If there is any authority in solemn and deeply
studied decisions of high courts Judge Kane
opinion is not law, and never was. \ slave
is free the moment he touches the soil of
free state. unless it be shown that he is fug
tive, and the burden of that proof falls upon
the master. II Is rot the slaves place TO sue
for his freedom, but his masters to show that
he is not entitled to freedom-that lie comes
within the exception made by the law. Prop
eriv, Of the slave description. Gin North Car
olina," is not slave property in Boston," not
withstanding the decision of the Louisville
Journal, until the law says mot" II is not (,
property at all, antil IL be prore,i so to BE-,
der some law recognized by Massachusetts,.
Let us look moment at the consequences
OF a recognition OF this doctione by our courts.
A master passing through Indiana with TWEEN
ttv slaves, concludes not to pass faster than a
few miles dav, and lets his niggers drive
hogs for some drover, at dollar piece per
diem. AS the relation exists during the tran
sit saws Kane, Just as in North Carolina. of
course the owner has a perfect rightto pocket
all his slaves can make on the road. Ii he
thinks il would paw to stop couple of weeks
on one farm, and hire his niggers out to help
harvest AZ good wages, and then 20 on TO the
next farm, sill passing through the State, and
repeat the operation, and continue for wear.
who shall stop him? Is he not passing
7 throurh2" Aud Is there any law, prescrib-
inr how fast a man shall travel, to make his
Journey legal passage" under Judge kane's
new dispeusatiln? Shall cruel .abolltionists'
hurry the righteous man, his maid servants
and his man-Servants his asses and whatever
..plua Ter" he NAV have, by laws declaring
that If he don't make his passing through"
in a mighty few DAYS, he shall hose all his
preuertvs Fhae would dissolve the Union
outright, IL would nt exist the smallest ap-
preaciable fraction of second after such an
eaorni;v was enacted
This decision Is of vital consequence 10 the
free States L is a virtual destruction Of their
sovereignty in regard TO slavery, subjeeting