The Washington union., 1857-05-30

Emerson turned upon the construction OF a missouri
statute was there any established rule OF property
which could have Tightully influenced the decision On
the contrary the decision oyerruled the settled law for
thirty years.
This is said by my brethren to be Missouri question
but there nothing which gives it this character except
that it involves the right 20 persons claimed slaves
who reside in Missouri and the decision made by the
supreme court Of that State Ii Involves right caimed
under an act OF Congress and the constitution of Illinois
and which cannot be decided without the consideration
and construction Of those laws But the supreme court
Of Missouri held, in this case, that it will not regard
either of those laws without which there be-
fore II and Dred Scott having been slave remains
slave In this respect it is admitted this Is Missouri
question: which has but side if the act OF
Congress and the constitution of Illinois not recog
fised
And does such constitute rule of decision for
this court--a case 10 be followed by this court The
of decision long and uniformly maintained
established comfy law between Missouri and the
free States and Territories where slavery prohibited
which must be somewhat regarded in this Rights
sanctioned for twentyeght years ought and cannot
be repudated with any sembance of justice by or
two decisions influenced, declared by deternna-
ton to couneract the excitement against slavery in the
free States.
The courts of Louisiana having held for q series of
years that where master took his slave to France, or
any State he entitled TO freedom and that on
bringing him back the status of slavery did not attach,
the legislature of Louisiana declared by act that the
slave should not be made free under such circumstances
This regulated the rights of the master from the time the
took effect But the decision of the Missouri court
reversing former decision affects all previous decisions
technically made the principles, unless such de-
csons protected by the lapse Of time the statute OF
limitations bred Scott and his family beyond all con-
troversy free under the decisions made for twenty
eight years, before the OF Scott Emerson. This
was the undoubed law of Missouri for fourteen years a
ter Scott and his family brought back TO that State
And the grave question arises, whether this law may be
dsregarded to enslave free persons am strongly
inclined to think that rule of decision well settled
not to be questioned cannot be annued by single de-
cson of the court Such rights may be imperative uri
der the decision in future but cannot we'll perceive
how it can have the same effect in prior cases
1t is admitted that when former decision Is reversed
the technical effect of the judgment Is to make all pre-
yious audicatons the question erroneous But
the before not that the law had been
ously construed but that under the circumstances which
then existed, that law would not be recognised and the
for this is declared to be the excitement against the
institution of slavery in the free States While la
ment this excitement much as any one cannot as
sent that it shall be made basis of judicial action.
In 1916 the common law, by statute was made part
of the law Of Missouri and that includes the great prn
cipes of international law These principles cannot he
abrogaed by judicial decisions 1t will require the
exercise of power to abolish the law to intro
duce it, international law ID founded in the opinions
generally received and acted by civilized nations and
enforced by moral sanctions IL becomes more author
ative system when it results from special compacts,
founded modified rules adapted to the exigencies OF
human society: it is, in fact, international morality,
adapted the best interests of nations And in regard
to the States of this Union the subject Of slavery ii
eminently fitted for rule of action, subject to the
federal constitution. stThc laws OF nations but the
natural rights of man applied TO nations" tVattel)
If the law have the force of statutory enact
ment in Missouri it is clear it seems to me, that
slave who by residence in Illinois in the service Of his
master becomes entitled to his freedom, cannot again be
reduced to slavery by returning to his former donc in
slave State 1t is unnecessary 10 say what legislative
power might do by general act in such case but it
would be singular If freeman could be made slave by
anfu ip,iig md he
still extraordinary this could be donc not only in
the absence of special legislation but in State where
the common law is in force
1t is supposed by that the third article in the
treaty of ceson of Louisiana to this country by France
III 1903 may have bearing this question. The
article referred to provides hat the inhabitants of the
ceded territory shall be Incorporated into the Union and
enjoy all the advantages of citizens Of the United States
and in the time they shall be maintained and pro-
teced in the free enjoyment Of their liberty property
and the religion they profess.
As slavery existed in Louisiana at the time Of the
it is supposed this guarantee that there should lie
no change in its condition.
The to this is, in the first place that such
subject does not belong to the treaty making power and
any such arrangement would have been nugatory And
in the second place. by admissible construction the
guarantee be carried further than the protection of prop
erty in slaves at that time in the ceded territory And
this has been complied with The organization Of the
slave States of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas
bced every slave In Louisiana at the time Of the cession
This every ground of objection under the treaty
There is therefore pretence growing out Of the treaty.
that any part Of the territory of louisiana ceded be
yond the organized States, is slave territory.
Under the fifth head to consider whether the
status of slavery attached to the plaintiff and wife their
return to Missouri.
This doctrine is not asserted in the late opinion of the
supreme court Of Missouri and up to 1852 the contrary
doctrine uniformly maintained by that court.
In its late decision the court say that it will not give
effect in Missouri to the laws Of Illinois, the law Of
Congress called the Missouri Compromise This the
frf tla
court would not take notice, judcially Of those laws
In 1851 the court of appeals of South Carolina ecog
nsed the principle that slave, being taken to free
State, became free, Commonwealth Peasants, 10
Leigh Rep, 697 In Betty Horton the court of ap
pcas held that the freedom of the slave acquired by
the action of the laws of Massachusetts, by the sd slave
being taken there Is Leigh Rep.r 6l5)
The slave States have generally adopted the rule that
where the master by residence with his slave in State
or Territory where slavery is prohibited the slave
entitled to his freedom everywhere This the settled
doctrine Of the supreme court of Missouri 1t has been
held in Mississippi, in Virginia. in Louisiana former
ly in Kentucky, Maryland, and in other States.
The law where contract is made and is to be
ted governs it, This does not depend upon comfy but
upon the law Of the contract And IT, in the language Of
the supreme court of Missouri the master by taking his
slave to illinois, and employing him there as a slave,
emancipates him efectually by deed of erancipa
tion is it possible that such act Is not matter for ad
udicaton in any slave State where the master may take
him Does not the master assent to the law when he
places himself under it In a free State2
The States of Missouri and Illinois are bounded by q
line. The prohibits slavery the other ad-
mts it. This has been done by the exercise of that SOW
eregn power which appertans to each Weare bound to