Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-04-09

land law upon the subject. Freedom having
once vested, by no compact between the mas
ter and the liberated slave, nor by any condi-
ton subsequent, attached by the master to
the gift of freedom, can state of slavery be
reproduced"
In Hunter agt. Butcher, l Leigh, 172:
by statute of Maryland Of 1896 all
slaves brought into that state to reside are de-
clared free; Virginian born slave is carried
by his master to Maryland the master settled
there and keeps the slave there in bondage for
twelve years the statute in force all the time ;
Then he brings him us slave to Visgipia, and
sells him there. Adjudged, in an action
brought by tho man against the purchaser, that
he is free.
Judge Kerr, in the case, says:
Agreeing las do,with the general view taken
in this case, taken by my brother Green, |
would not add a word, but to mark the exact
extent to which | mean to 90 The law of Ma
ryand having enacted that slaves carried into
that state for sale OF to reside shall he free and
the owner of the slave here hafine carried him
to Maryland, and voluntarily submitting him
self and the slave to that law, it governs the
case"
In every decision of slave case prior to
that OF bred Scott agt. Emerson, the Supreme
Court Of Missouri considered it us turning
upon the Constitution of Illinois, the ordi-
nance of 1887 or the Missouri Compromise
act of 1920. The court treated these acts
as in force, and held itself bound to execute
them, by declaring the slave to be free who
e had acquired domici under them with the
consent OF his master.
The late deuisio reversed this whole line
Of adjudication, and held that neither the
constitution aud laws of the states nor acts
oil Congress in relation to territories, could
he judlclalIy noticed by the Supreme Court
= of Missouri. This is believed to be in con-
! fict with the decisions of all he courts in
y the southern states, with some exceptions Of
recent cases.
. In Marie Louise agt. Morat ct al, 70
n Louisiana Rep. 475,) it was held where Il
q slave having been taken to the kingdom of
France or other country by the owner, where
q seVery Is not tolerated, operates on the con-
j ditlon Of the slave aud produces immediate
= emancipation, and that where slave once
v becomes free, the master cannot reduce him
. again to slavery
= Josephine ayt, Poutney, Louisiana An
II nual Rep, 329,) " Where the owner removes
!. with slave into a sta e in which slavery is
r prohibited, with the intention of residing
# there, the slave will be thereby emancipatcd.
r; Anal their subsequent return to the state of
4 Louisiana cannot restore the relation Of mas
Il ter and slave To the same import are the
is cases of Smith agt. Smith, (13 louisiana
= Rep, AL !; Thomas at. Geueris Louisiana
~ Rep, 1888; Harry ct al. ogt. Decker and
IS Hopkins; Walker ayt. Mississippi Rep, &c.,
it was held that Slaves ,Jithn the jurisdil.
= ton of the Northwestern territory, became
=, treemon by virtue OF The ordinance Of 1887
and can assert her claim to freedom in the
,s courts Of Mississippi Il Griffith agt Fanny
# Virginia Rep, 147,) it was decided that
~ negro held in scrvitnde in Ohio, under deeC
executed in Virginia. is entitled to freedom
II by the constitution of Ohio.
" The case of Rhodes at. Bell, 2 Howard
le 3O7; 10 Curtis, l52, involved the mail
II, principle in the case before us, A persol
rs residing in Washington City purchased slav
n. in Alexandria and brought him to Washing
to ton Washington continued under the law Q
1t Maryland, Alexandria under the law of Viz
" gna The act of Maryland November
N 1875, 2 Nloxey's Laws, 35l, declared any on
n WAC snail bring any negro. mglatto or otis.
or stave into Maryland, such slave should be free
The above slave, by reason of his being brough
&c into Washington City, was declared, by thi
ne court, to be free. This, it appears to me, i
le a much stronger case against the slave thai
IL the .a:ts in the case Of Scott
.e In Bush at. White g Monroe, 104) tn
e. court say:
~ -" That the rdnance was paramount to tn
ne territorial laws, and restrained the lgislativ
n power, there us tfectualy us IL constitution i
j. IN organz d state 1t was II put lie act Of til
H. Union, and part OF the supreme law of til
land. and as such, this curt is as much boun
to take notice Of it, as it "an be of any othe
T. law "
ed
| !; In the case Of Rankin ayt. Lydia, befor
e. cited, Judge Mills speaking for the Court c
t. Appeals OF Kentucky, says
ng Ii by the positive provision in our code
~ we can and must hold our slaves in the one CASE
st and statutory provisions equally positive decd
q against that right in the other and liberate til
d" slave; he must, by an authority equally in
I.S perons, be declared free Every argnmer
II which supports the right Of the master on or
lis SIDE based upon the force of written law mu
he equally conclusive in favor Of the slave. whe
ID. he can point out in the statute the clause whc
bo secures his Freedom
I'D And he further said:
on Free people of color in all the states are,
ay Is believed, quasi citizens or at least dcnizcn
he Although none'of the states may allow the
the privileges of nfice and suffrage, yet all 9TH
IN. civil and conventional rights are secured
oil them at least such rights were evidently secure
va to them by the ordinance in question for Il
'a' government of Indiana. If these rights a
Try vested in that or any other portion of the Unit,
ed States can 1t be too compatible with the spir
lie OF our confederated government to DENY. the
ye- existence in any other part. Is there less conf
,;n existing between state and state, or state al
Voc territory than exists between the despolc 20
, "a, ernmens Of Europe"
~ These are the words of learned and gre
W. Judge, born and educated in slave State
D;s now come to inquire, under the 9th al
+he last head, whether the decisions Of Il
,er Supreme Court of Missouri, on the duestit
his before us, are binding on this court?"
of While we respect the learning and high i
tb- telgence of the state courts, and consid
10 their decisions, with others, as authority, v
cir follow them only where they give a constructs
or to- the state statutes. On this head consid
emf myself fortunate in being able toturn to t
decision of this court, given by Mr.. Justi
va Grier in Pease agt. Peck, a case from tt
NO. State of Michigan, rs Howard, $685. decid
% in December term, 1855. Speaking for Il