The Washington union., 1857-05-30

q
then removed TO the State of Missouri and sold
slaves and in the action before they not only
claimed as slaves, but majority Of my brethren have
held that their being returned Missouri the status
of slavery attached to them.
able 10 reconcile this result with the respect
due to the State of Illinois Having the rights of
sovereignty the State of Missouri in adopting cons
tuition perceive reason why the Institutions OF
Illinois should not receive the same consideration
those of Missouri Allowing TO my brethren the same
right of judgment that exercise myself must be per-
mittcd TO say that il seems TO the principle
laid down will enable the people of a slave State To
introduce slavery into free State, for longer or
shorter time, may suit their convenience and by
returning the SLAVE TO the State whence he brought
by force otherwise the status of slavery attaches
and protects the rights of the master and deies the
sovereignty of the free State There is no evidence be-
fore that bred Scott and his family returned to
Missouri voluntarily The contrary is inieTabe from
the agreed 'ln the year 1888 DR.. Emerson re-
moved the plaintiff and said Harriet and their daughter
Eliza from Fort Smelling the State of Missouri where
they have ever since resided This is the agreed
and it be inferred from this that Scott and family
turned to Missouri voluntarily, He removed which
shows that he passive, slave having exercised
no voltion the subject He did not resist the master
by absconding force But that not sufficient TO
bring him within Lord Stowelfs decision he must have
acted voluntarily 1t would be mockery of law and an
outrage his rights to coerce his return and then claim
that il voluntary and that ground that his former
status of slavery attached.
II the decision be placed on this ground it is fact for
else the fact should be distinctly admitted presump
ton against the plaintiff in this respect say with conf
dence, is not authorized from the facts admitted.
In coming to the conclusion that voluntary return by
Grace her former domic slavery attached Lord Stow
ell took great pains TO show that England forced slavery
upon her colonies and that it maintained by
acts of Parliament and public policy and in short,
that the system OF slavery not only established by
Great Britain in her West Indian colonies, but that il
popular and profitable to many of the wealthy and infu
entia people Of England who engaged IN trade or
owned and cultivated plantations in the colonies No
read his elaborate views and not be struck with the
great difference between England and her colonies and
the free and slave States of this Union While slavery in
the colonies of England is subject to the power of the
mother country, States especially in regard to sla
very independent resting upon their sovereign
ties and subject only to international laws which apply
to independent States
In the case of Williams who was slave in Granada
having run away to England, Lord Stowell said
1.-THE four judges all concur in this that he slave
in Granada though free in England, and he would
have continued free in all other parts of the world
except Grsnada.'
Strader u.s. Graham 40 Howard ST. and Is Curtis 3O5)
has been cited having direct bearing in the case be-
fore in that the court say ut exclusively
in the power of Kentucky to determine for itself whether
the employment of slaves in another State should
should not make them free their return. No ques-
ton was before the court in that case except that of u
risdiction And any opinion given any other point
ober dict,m and Of authority. In the conclusion OF
his opinion the Chief Justice said In every view of the
subject, therefore, this court has jurisdiction OF the
case and the writ of must that ground be dis
missed. -
In the case Of Spencer Negro Dennis, Is Gill Rep,
32 the court say
once Free and always free, is the maxim of Mary
land law upon the subject Freedom having vested
by no compact between the master and the liberated
slave by any condition subsequent attached by the
to the gift of freedom, state of slavery be
reproduced
In Hunter Us. Butcher, Il Leigh, l72
By n statrlte of MARYLAND OF 1896 all slaves brought
into that State reside declared free yrgnian-
born slave is carried by his mnster to Maryland the
ter settled there and keeps the slave there in bondage for
twelve years, the statute in force all the time then e
brings him as slave to Virginia. and sells him there.
Adjudged in action brought y the against the
purchaser, that he is free.
Judge Kerr, in the case, says:
Agreeing, l do, with the general view taken in
this by my brother Green, would not add word
but to mark the exact extent to which | to so.
The law of Maryland having enacted that slaves carried
into that State for sale TO reside shall be ree and the
owner of the slave here having carried him to Maryland
and voluntarily submitting himself and the slave to that
law, it governs the case.
In every decision of slave prior to that of Dred
Scott Emerson, the supreme court of Missouri
sdered it turning upon the constitution of Illinois the
ordinance of 1881, the uri-compromse act Of
1920 The court treated these acts in force and held
itself bound to execute them by declaring the slave to
be free who had acquired domcl under them with the
consent of his master
The late decision reversed this whole line of adjuca
on and held that neither the constitution and laws of
of the States acts of Congress in relation to Terrific
rcs could be ucally noticed by the supreme court of
Missouri This is believed to be in conflict with the de-
csos Of all the courts in the southern States with
exceptions of recent cases.
In Marie Louise Morat a a., 90 Louisiana Rep,
4T5,) it hold, whore slave having been taken
to the kingdom Of France other country by the owner
where slavery is tolerated operates the condition
Of the slave and produces immediate emancipation; and
that where slave thus becomes free the master
reduce him again to slavery.
Josephine Poultney, Louisiana Annual Rep, 329,)
wheTe the owner with slave into State in
which slavery is prohibited with the intention of residing
there the slave will be thereby ennncpated and their
subsequent return to the State of Louisiana cannot re-
store the relation of master and slave. To the same Inn
port are the OF Smith u.s. Smith, as Louisiana Rep
AL Thomas u: Generis, Louisiana Rep. 4S3 Harry
a. ys Decker and Hopkins Walkers Mississippi Rep
36 It held that slavcs within the jurisdiction of
the Northwestern Territory became frcemen by virtue of
the ordinance of l7S7 and assert their claim to free
dom in the courts Of Mississippi Griffith Fanny,
Virginia Rep. I43) II decided that negro held in
serviude in Ohio under deed executed in Virginia. is
entitled to freedom by the constitution of Ohio
The case Of Rhodes Bell e Howard, 307 is Cur
ts 1872 involved the main principle in the before
us. person residing in Washington city purchased
slave in Alexandria, and brought him to Washington
Washington continued under the law of Maryland Alex
andria under the law of Virginia The act of Maryland
Of November, 1885, q afaxcys Laws, 35l declared any
who shall bring any negro, mulatto, other slave
into Maryland such slave should be free The above
slave by Of his being brought into Washington
city, declared by this court to be free. This it ap
pears to me- is much stronger against the slave
than the facts in the case of Scott.