Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-04-02

A slave is brought to England from one of
its islands, where slavery was introduced and
maintained by the mother country. Although
there is no law prohibiting slavery in England,
vet there is no law authorizing it, and for
near century its courts have declared that
the slave there is free from the cocrsion of
the master. Lords Mansfield and Stowell
agree upon this point, and there is no dissent
ing authority.
There is no other description of property
which was not protected in England, brought
from one of its slavs islands. Does not this
show that property in human being does not
arise from nature or from common law, but,
in the language of this court, sit is mere
municipal regulation, founded upon and limit
ed to the range of the territorial laws" This.
decision is not mere argument, but it Is the
end of the law, in regard to the extent of
slavery. Until it shall be overturned, it is
not point for argument; it is obligatory on
myself and my brethren, and on all judicial
tribunals over which this court exercises an
appellate power.
1t is said the territories are common prop
erty of the state, and that every man has a
right to 60 there with his property This is
not controverted. But the court say slave
is not property beyond the operation Of the
local law which makes him such. Never was
truthmore authoritatively and justly uttered
by man. Suppose a master of a slave In
British island owned million of property i'll
England, would that authorize him to take
his slaves with him to England The Com
stitution in express terms recognizes the status
of slavery as founded on the municipal law:
" No person held to service Or labor in one
state, under the lars thereof escaping into
another, SHALL" &c. Now, unless the fugl-
tive escape from a place where, by the NUM-
cipal law, he is held to labor, this provision
affords no remedy to the matter. What can
be mora exclusive than this? Suppose
slave escape from a territory where slavery
is not authorized by law, can he be re-
claimed?
In this case a majority Of the court have
taid that slave may be taken by his master
into territory of the United States, the same
as horse Or any other kind Of property.
1t is true, this was said by the court, as also
many other things which are Of no authority.
Nothing that has been said by them, which
has not direct bearing on the jurisdiction of
the court against which they decided, can
be authority. [ shall certainly not regard it
as such. The question of jurisdiction being
before the court, was decided by them, au-
thoratively, but nothing beyond that ques-
ton.
Under this head shall chiefly rely on the
decisions of the Supreme Courts Of the South
em States, and especially of the States OF
Missouri
In the LIST and I'd sections Of the 9th ar
ticle Of the Constitution of Illinois, it is de-
clared that, neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude shall hereafter be introduced into
this state, otherwise than for the punishment
of crimes whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted and in the I'd section it is
declared that and violation Of this article
shall effect the emancipation Of such person
faom his obligation to service. In Illinois a
= right of transit through the State is given
the master with his slaves. This Is matte!
whish, as 1 suppose, belongs exclusively to
f the State.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois, in the case
: of Jarrot VS.. Jarrot, 2 G$lmer, I, hid:
IS After the conquest Of this territory by Vir-
+. gnia, she cedad 1t to the United States, and slip
! ulated that the titles and POSSESSIONS right:
l.. and liberties of the French SETTLERS should be
% guaranteed to them. This, it has been contend
ed secured them the possession Of those negroes
as slaves which they held before that time, ant
/ that neither Congress nor the Convention hat
e power to deprive them of it; or, in other wo,ds
d that the ordinance and Constitu ton should no
n be interpreted and understood as applying tt
d such slaves, hen it is therein declared tina
!; there shall be neither slavery nor unvountar,
!, serviude in the Northern Territory, nor in TIN
: state of Illinois, otherwise than in the punish
n ment Of crimes. But it was held that thos
y rights could not be thus protected, but mus
'e yield to the ordinance and Constitution"
n The first slave case decided by the Su
Is preme Court of Missouri, contained in tn
= Reports, was Winny agt Whitesides, l Mis-
r, souri, Rep. 473 at October Term, 1924.
J. appeared that more than twenty-five year
# before, the defendant with her husband, hal
IS removed from Carolina to Illinois, and brough
% with them the plaintiff; that they continues
n to reside three or four years, retaining tn
r plaintiff as slave, after which they remove
V, to Missouri, taking her with them.
1t The court held that if slave be detaine
Il in Illinois until he be entitled to freedom tn
in right of the owner does not revive when h
III finds the negro in slave state.
lie That when slave is taken to illinois b
$, his owner, who takes up his residence there
is the slave is entitled to freedom.
c. In the case of Lagrange VS.. Chouteau,
he Missouri Rep. 20, at May term, 1928,
IN was decided that the Ordinance Of 1877 wa
e. intended as a fundamental law for those VIII
ne may choose to live under it, rather as pena
Sc statute.
is That any sort of residence, contrived O
w permitted by the legal owner of the slave
r. upon the faith Of secret trusts or contracts
in order to defeat or avade the ordinance, an
Mt thereby introduce slavery de tacto, would Ell
ed title such slave to freedom. ---.
at In Julia agt Mckinney, 3 Missouri ReT
/; 219, it was held, where slave was settle
he III the state of Illinois, but with an intentio
US on the part Of the owner to be removed a
O. some future day, that hiring said slave to
ne person to labor for one or two days, and re
'h ceiving the pay for the hire, slave is entitle
IN to her freedom, under the second section q
the sixth article of the constitution of Iii
~ nois.
ct Rachel agt. Walker "A Missouri Rep. 35C
of June Term, 1856 is case involving, i
u every particular, the principles of the cas-
on before us, Rachel sued for her freedom, an
IS. it appeard that she had been bought as
as slave in Missouri by Stockton, an officer {
he the army, taken to Smelling, where he wa
at stationed, and she was retained there as
i