Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1857-06-02

had, in several, instances, come INTO the
State of Ohio, and after remaining q short
time, in doing the errands on which ne was
sent, had voluntarily Lut probably IN lg-
norance of his rights, returned into Ken
tucky and resumed his residence with An
derson. After the giving Of the notes,
Poindexter labored awhile for Anderson
for wages, and then took up his residence
in Ohio. '9H peI pI, 1p sGa OH rl,
| The case in the Common Pleas was SUBJ
mitted to the court for trial, and judg-
mentr was rendered for the defendants.
And to reverse that judgment, this petl-
ton in error is prosecuted. .1r.fr.
Two questions properly arise IN this
case. i.f ~isdt i4r . GfCa v'Grt..al.
1. 1t is contended for the plaintiff that
the case, by the comfy of nations and States,
is to be determined, by the ter toct contrac-
t0s, and that by the laws of Kentucky,
where the note sued on was executed, it
was valid note. l
Now, granting, for the sake of the argu-
ment, what do not admit, but what, on
the contrary, deny, that the ler locs is to
decide the validity of this note how then
stands the case? % ..
Under the laws of Kentucky, slave
is incapable of contracting, He can hold
no property. He can acquire no rights.
His domestic relations even are ignored.
He has not right to the child he has be-
gotten, to nurture it, nor to the wife ne has
Chosen and cherished to protect her. Ac-
cording to the theory of those laws, the
slave belongs to the master as property,
and descends to his heirs as real estate.
No contract can increase the liabilities OF
the one, or the power of the other. "A
contract of emancipation imparts to the
slave no legal right and imposes on the
master no legal obligation. 1t is simply
nupatorv and void. The promise OF the
slave to pay money in consideration OF such
a contract is null. Being null when made
nc subsequent act of emancipation on the
part of the master, can impart to 1t any
new force. 1t thus results logically from
the theory of the slave code OF Kentucky
that the note which the plaintiff now seeks
to enforce here was invalid there. And
moreover, by chapter SO, article 8, OF the
revived Statutes Of that State, and which
seems to be still in force, emancipation ex
cept by deed, or last will and testament
executed in conformity to its provisions, II
prohibited. So that, under the Legislation
of Kentucky, Poindexter has never .ye
been legally emancipated and therefor'
rendered competent to contract.
Q. But, we think it otherwise, coult
this note be enforced by judicial procedure
in Ohio? By the laws of nature. all per
sons are free. No human being Is born
or can be born, a slave. The laws-by
stretch of courtesy so called-of partlcu
lar countries or States, may subject certai
persons, and this subjection, which con
sstitutes slavery, originating in force am
and fraud, and upheld by local laws whic
adopt and sanction the original wrong
NAV attach Immediately after birth, as tn
effect of positive law in derogation OF mai
ural right. But it still remains true, ths
the absolute and equal freedom OF all pei
sons at birth, is fundamental principle
t. American institutions, proclaimed with IL
dependence, and incapable OF abrogatlol
This principle, was, by the ordinance
1887 impressed on the soil of Ohio, b.
fore there was an organized communl'
within her limits; it is fundamental In III
organizations; and her laws, her pollc,
and the convictions, the morals, and u
religion of her people, are instinct with
spirit. s.a" :,
&, The moment any person comes with
the territorial limits of Ohio, his person
rights are ascertained and determined
the constitution and laws Of Ohio. The
is no exception to this rule, save in Il
case of person, who being held to seryl
in another State, escapes into this. =
, such a case, the constitution of the Unit
States declares that the fugitive "shall
delivered up on claim of the party to who
such service or labor may be due"
There is nothing in this article OF col
pact which gives any sanction to that s.
verv. the essential element OF which IS
ter serted property in man; nothing incons
irt tent with the purposes of the Trainers
a that Constitution, clearly manifested
by their debates as reported by Mr.. Madist
yet to avoid all recognition of "the idea, Il
IN there may be property in man''-od MI
be ison papers, 139, 80. I
1g 1t establishes no rule which does J
led apply to all "persons held to service;
US takes up and deals with the broad and g.
.a eral relation of master and servant, /
the has nothing whatever to do with the re
ate ton of owner and property. ;,
ur- When, therefore, person held a.
opy slave in another State, he ceases to be, !
is proper sense of the word slave. A
the Courts of Ohio, apprehend' "o
the decline to recognize or enforce any @
,eat tract of purchase or sale wherever made
reat which he might be the subject while vi
the in our limits. The relation of subject
to as property, created by the local law OF
h l State he has left, cannot follow HIM oey'
we the limits of the sovereignty which est
lshed it. In Ohio he is a man; liable
roof may be, to be delivered upon good cli
and proof, but yet "a man or "psrso'' b
, in to service and, in every other resi-
his than this, free man.. When once SO
tiff, livered up and taken back to the 5
It to fror, which he escaped, the relation {