The Washington union., 1857-06-04

The rule established by Lord Stowe and thus
sanctioned by New Englands great jurist, and APP
proved by the bar, has been acted upon in numerous
cases in State tribunals, and in the Supreme Court
in every where the question has arisen The
owners title TO his property is lost though his
ability 10 assert it may be suspended An action
upon note is barred in this District in three years.
and the remedy suspended; but, taken to New York.
il would be available for six. The District law
neither affects the right title although provides
a remedy for only limited period. Formerly, the
States furnished, or allowed remedies to sojourning
owners for different periods; some, like New York,
extending to nine months These exceptions to their
general laws did not constitute the basis of the
owners rights, because not derived from them, but
gave him remedies for limited times, This is the eff
feet of the State laws referred to.
The Missouri Compromise act (the Wisconsin act
is the same has this effect only 1t says slavery
and involuntary servitudc otherwise than the pun
ishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have
been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby forever
prohibited. This act, if valid, deprives the owner
of the means of controlling his slave by the agency
of the law but is far from saying that he foreits his
title by taking him north of that line. If the slave
came without his consent the same section provides
remedy for his compulsory return There is no
attempt in this act to legslate away the owners
title, though it provides statutory of pro-
tecting it.
1t does not declare the effect of coming or return
ing with slave 1t does not say if the slave comes
with his he shall be free, or if he returns with
him he shall not be slave. The act has no such
effect as has been attributed to it, It is more linn
tied in it's operation than the State enacments, which
sometimes declare that slaves coming within their
limits shall be free. But neither the act of Congress
nor of any State attempts to declare that any laws
shall attach to and follow the person, and affect the
rights Of the owner on leaving their territory Such
declaration would be idle. State cannot send its
mandates where it has jurisdiction to enforce
them, can the slave carry its authority with him.
If the laws of State attach to and follow the per-
son, those first attaching must prevail Conradicto-
ry laws cannot both attach at the same time. But
were it otherwise, and the laws of one State
displaced those of others and attached themselves,
then those last attaching must prevail Ineither case
it would be those of Missouri and the plaintiff would
the judgment of the court clearly right. The as
sumption that the owners consent to the marriage of
Scott to Harriet manumitted them both too strongly
resembles petifogging to be seriously considered and
is only to be noticed because Mr.. Justice Curtis in
cautiously adopted it. 1t is rule of law recognised
by the tribunals of the world that the minds of the
parties must meet before contract can be made be-
n A l,,o
the property of unless intends to give or sell it.
There is no evidence that Dr. Emerson the then
owner, by allowing the marriage, intended to manu-
nit the parties to it while the acts of all parties
clusively repe any such presumption If the owner,
by consenting to marriages among slaves manumits
them, then it is unquestonabe that the of the
colored race in the southern and middle States
Free If there had been law at Fort Smelling that con-
sent to marriage should be evidence Of manumisson
there would be plausibility in the assumption There
being none it is less rational than to say that the
like consent given by father to the marriage of his
minor children would confer the capability of
veying real estate If Scott and Harriet incompe
tent to contract legal marimony, then the marriage
was invalid 1t is irrational as well illegal, in
seeking to avoid this consequence, to deprive an
owner of his property against his consent and con
trary to his intentions 1t is to be regretted that SO
falacious argument finds place in the published
opinion of 80 learned and able Judge.
Under neither of these assumptions can the plain
tiff sustain the position that the defendant de-
prived of his property by the actual nanumission
of Scott and wife by DR.. Emerson. This ground Of
defence is most ample and conclusive. Indeed since
the decision Of the Supreme Court in Strader Gra
ham, 10 Howard, and the numerous concurring ru-
lings in several State courts cited by Mr.. Justice
Nelson the common opinion Of the Judiciary and the
bar has been in harmony with the views expressed
by Judge Story and by the court in this
Mr. Justice Curtis rests his opinion on this point
principally npon the ground that the plaintiff was
taken to Fort Smelling north of the compromise line,
and he insists that the sojourn there manumitted
him, apparently not relying upon the effect assumed by
others resulting from the laws of Illinois We have
shown that this law has such provision or effectas
is claimed But if it has, then it is unconstitutional
and void In 1882, at the close of the revolution, u
treaty of limits was entered into between the United
States under the Confederation and Great Britain,
by the Sd article of which the latter relnqushed all
her claims east of the Mississippi West of the Al
leghanes, nearly the whole of the territory
thus surrendered was a wilderness, and occu-
mi r Il