Weekly national intelligencer., 1857-06-27

cord No submission to the court on of facts
was made 1t was trial by jury in which certain ad-
missions made by the parties were the evidence The
jury were not only competent but were bound to draw
that evidence every inference which, in their udg
ment exercised according to the rules of law 1t would
The circuit court took from the jury the power
to draw any nferences from the admissions made by the
parties and decided the for the defendant This
course can be justified here If at ALL only by Its ap
pearng that upon the facts agreed and all such infer
of fact favorable to the plaintiff case as the jury
might have been warranted in drawing from those ad-
missions the law was with the defendant. Otherwise,
the plaintiff would be deprived of the benefit of his trial
by jury by whom, for aught we can know those infer
ences favorable to his would have been drawn.
The material agreed bearing this part OF the
case are that Dr. Emerson the plaintiffs maser resided
about two years at the military post of Fort Smelling,
being surgeon in the army of the United States, his
domic of origin being unknown; and what fany thing,
he had done change his domic prior to
his residence at Rock Island, being also unknown.
Now it is true that under circumstances the re-
sidence of military officer at particular place, in the
discharge of his official duties does not amount to the
acquisition Of technical domicL But it cannot be
affirmed with correctness that it does There
being actual residences and this being presumpve evil
dence of domic all the circumstances of the case must
be considered before legal conclusion be reached
that his place of residence is not his domici If mill
ary officer stat ned at particular post should enter
tain expectation that his residence there would be in
definitely protraced and in consequence should remove
his family the place where his duties to be dis
charged, form permanent domestic establishment there,
exercise there the civil rights and discharge the civil
duties of an inhabitant, while he did and mani
tested no intent have,s domic elsewhere think
one would say that the fact that he himself
liable to be called away by the orders of the Govern
would prevent his acquisition of technical domcil
at the place of the residence of himself and his family
In other words do not think military officer incapa
BILE of acquiring domcil( Bruce v. Bruce Bos. and
Pull, 230; Munroe v Douglass Mad. Ch. r., 232.)
This being so, this stands thus there was evi-
dence before the jury that Emerson resided about two
years at Fort Smelling, in the Territory of Wisconsin
This may may not have been with such intent to
make it his technical domicil The presumption is that
it was. 1t is laid down by this court in Ennis v.
Smith, IA How and the authorities in support of the
position there referred to. His intent ques
ton of fact for the jury Fitchburg Winchendon
Cush., 1907
The was taken from the jury If they had power
to find that the presumption of the intent had
not been rebutted cannot say, this record that
Emerson had not his technical domic at Fort Smelling
But, for which shall proceed to give, do
not deem necessary in this determine the ques
ton of the technical domicil of DR.. Emerson.
1t must be admitted that the inquiry whether the law
of particular country has rghtully fixed the status OF
person. that in accordance with the principles of in
ernatona law that status should be recognised in other
Jurisdictions ordinarily depends the question whe-
her the person domiced in the country whose laws
asserted to have fixed his status But in the United
States questions of this kind may arise, where at
tempt to decide solely with reference to technical domi
cil tested by the rules which applicable to changes
of places of abode from country to another, would
not be consistent with sound principles; and, in my
judgment, this is one of those
The residence of the plaintiff who taken by his
MASTER DR.. Emerson, slave, from Missouri to the
State of Illinois, and thence to the Territory of Wiscon
sn must be deemed to have been for the time being and
until he asserted his separate Intention the
the residence of his masa and the inquiry, whether
the personal statutes of the Territory rghfuy
tended the plaintiff and ought, in accordance with
the rules Of international law to be allowed to hx his
status must depend upon the circumstances under which
Dr. Emerson went
there's and upon the further question whether any thing
there righfuly done by the plaintiff to those
personal statutes to operate on him.
DR.. Emerson officer in the army of the United
States He went into the Territory discharge his duty
to the United States. The place of the urisdic
on of any particular State and within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the UHited States 1t does not appear
where the domicl of origin of Dr. Emerson was, nor
wber not he had lost it and gained another domi
cil of what particular State if any, he citizen
On what ground it be denied that all valid laws of
the United States constitutonay enacted by Congress
for the government of the Territory rghuly extended
officer of the United States and his servant who
went into the Territory to remain there for an indefinite
length of time to take part in its civil military affairs
They were not foreigners coming from abroad Dr. En-
citizen of the country which had exclusive
jurisdiction the Territory; and not only citizen
but he went there in public capacity In the service OF
the sovereignty which made the laws. Whatever
those laws might be, whether of the kind denomnated
personal statutes not far they intended by
the legislative WILL constitutionally expressed ope-
rate on MIN ana his servant ana on the relations between
them, they had righful operation; and other State
or country refuse te allow that those laws might
rightfuly operate the plaintiff and his servant, be-
cause such refusal would be denial that the United
States could by laws constituionay enacted govern
their own servants. residing their Territory
which the United States had the exclusive CONTROL and
in respect to which they independent sovereign
Power Whether the laws il question were consti
tutionally enacted, repeat more, is separate
question. But assuming that they were and that they
operated directly the status of the plaintiff consider
that no other State country could question the right
ful power of the United States to legslae consist
emily with the settled rules of international law could
refuse gnse the effects Of such legislation upon
the status of their officers and servants valid every
where. s.
This alone would in my apprehension, be sufficient to
decide this question. si.,.ss SIS asa
But there other facts stated On the record which
should not be passed 1t is agreed that in the year
1885, the plaintiff while residing in the Territory, was
married, with the consent of DIR. Emerson Harriet
named in the declaration his wife, and that Eliza and
Lizzie the children of that marriage the first named
having been born the Mississippi river north Of the
line Of Missouri and the other having been born after
their return to Missouri. And the inquiry s whether
after the marriage of the plaintiff in the Territory with
the consent of Dr. Emerson any other State country
can consistently with the settled rules of International
law, refuse TO recognise and treat him free
when suing for the liberty Of himself his wife, and the
children Of that marriage II Is in reference to his
status viewed in other States and countries THAI The
contract Of marriage md the birth Of children
strictly material At the time il is proper to OBJ
serve that the female to whom he married having
been taken to the military post of Fort Smelling
slave and Dr. Emerson claiming also to be her
at the time of her marriage her status and that of the
children of the marriage, also affected by the Aame
considerations 58isa4 es -
If the laws of Congress governing the Territory of
Wisconsin constitutional and valid laws there can
ho Of