The Carolina Spartan. [volume] (Spartanburg, S.C.) 1852-1896, 1857-07-02

10 mere 'nat lts iuli scope and meaning
should be sought.
There it is applied not only to land, but
also 10 certain res mobiles" slaves, &cf
and was used as protection notSonly in
war, but also in peace, whenever any ma
tion did not respec: the Romans property
within its limits. This is SO important a
proposition, that we must give in full the
chief authorities for it,
"The law of postliminium prevails either
in war or pace" (postliminii jus compeit
aut in bello aut in pace" -Fr. 5, pr. h. {.
"1n peace the postlminium is also given,
Tor If we have neither friendship nor hos.
| pitality, nor treaty made to establish
! friendship with any nation, even though
not hostile TO us, still, whatever of ours
comes into their possession becomes theirs;
and the same is the case with whatever of
theirs comes TO u.s."
And again. when stating that there was
no jus poSttimiRa between the Romans and
! tneir allies, the question is asked: "For
what is the need of the Law Of Postlimini-
um between us and them, since they retain,
on our soil, both their liberty and the do
minion over their property, as fully as il on
tH9ir own; and since the same is true Of us
| when with tbem.'
whatever we lose in war, or even toiM-
ont acar, if we recover il again, we are said
to regain il by the Law OF PostIiminium."
! Compare, also, section Of this fragment,
which states that person was deemed 10
te entitled 10 the benefit Of the Law Of
Pos,limnium (postliminio rediisse) as soon
rs he crossed the bounds Of an allied nation,
because he was, for the first time, safe
there by the public authority.
From careful perusal OF the above, is il
not apparent tha, this law applied to all
those countries within whose limits the
Roman was not safe by the public autho.i-
ty," (pubiico nonaine tutus,) and where he
did not retain "the dominion over his
property" (dominium reruna Suaram;) and
that these two circumstances really deter
mined its application
Having thus presented brief outline OF
the jas posaiminii in its application to
slaves, and having shown that, though its
practical importance has greatly diminished,
it is still fully recognised as part Of the
law OF nations of the present day, may not
the Southern States fairly claim that the
occasion-ditfereut, it is true, from that
which Grotus, really contemplating the
case of the Algerine pirates, foretold-has
arisen, and the time come when it should
be revivedi The Northern, and most, il
not all, Of the European States, refuse TO
recognise and protect within their limits
our property in slaves. There, we are no
longer in this regard "safe by the public
authority no longer retain "the domin-
ION over our property" With them we
have no treaty assuring US of our rights
and international law must decide every
question arising among nations, (ard con
sequently. between the States OF this Uuion,)
which has not been settled by treaty.
These remarks recall to us one of the
most remarkable condolences between an
cient and modern times. The law we have
just described existed among the Romans
probably from the very foundation of their
city, and perhaps earlier. Certainly it was
of such antiquity that even in Cicero's time
its origin had become doubtful. Times
change, and the law is either forgotten or
recollected only as one OF the curious relics
OF the past. Century after century rolls on,
and the times changing once again, the
question recurs--not in Italy, however,
but in England; not in the metropolis Of
|
The mightiest nation OF antiquity is TO be
measured in legal knowledge with the
mightiest race o. modern times; the one
whose laws have been termed its "most
magnificent production "more maguifi-
cent" than It's conquest of the world; the
other, still engaged in forming its systera,
but one which We believe will, when fully
developed by Anglo-Saxon enterprise and
! knowledge, as far excel that OF Rome rs the
commerce Of the former race excels that of
! the latter State, and as much as Christiani-
/ ~ can raise human nature above the pre-
! cepts of Heathenism. Not Scayola, nor
! kutus, nor Labeu, nor Sabinus, nor Procu
lus, nor the united voices Of Papinianus,
| Ulpanus, Gaius, Paulrs and Modestinus
were called from their closets TO answer a
! question studied and elaborated for centu.
ries; but single modern Judge, in the heat
and excitement Of warm dispute, was to
/ decide, almost on the spur Of the moment,
new and important case. And apparant.
! Iy without any assistance from this ancient
law, without reference TO it, but complain
ing that the case had been but indtierently
| argued, Lord Stowell decides, in 1927, in
the case of the slave Grace, q Hagg. p. 04l
exactly in accordance with the law of his
mighty predecessors; and when desirous of
having his opinion confirmed, lie sends it
for comment to another distinguished An
glo Saxon Jurist-Justice Story-he finds it
fully confirmed Can any law claim high
er human sanction!
Mr.. Justice Mclean. in his dissenting
opinion in the Dred Scott case, relies, inter
at'd, upon international law as a part Of the
common law of Missouri, to prove that
bred, having gone into Illinois, became
free, and that "once free for an hour Cho
was) forever free and did not become a
slave again by his return to Missouri And
Mr.. Justice Curtis repeats the idea in his
dissenting opinion. They evidently consid-
er 1t one of their strong points, and cite
seyernl decisions from iihnrnnt Snn1hnrn