Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-05-21

When, therefore, e person held as slave
in another State escapes into this State, he
ceases 10 be, in any proper sense of the
word, slave. And the Courts of Ohio, |
appre hend, would decline to reconize or en-
force any contract of purchase or sale,
wherever made, Of which he might be the
subject while thus within our limits. The
relation of subjection as property, created
by the loral law of the Sra'e he has left.
cannct follow him beyond the limits of the
sovereignty whi h established it. In Ohio.
ne is man; liable, il may be, 10 be deliver
ed up on due claim and ,roof, but yet q
man, "a person held 10 service, ;" and, in every
| other respect than this, free man. When
nnce so delivered up, and taken back TO the
Stale from which he escaped, the relation
| of slave may reattsch under the local law
Until then, subject only to this liability, be
remains Tree.
In the case now before this Court. there
was no escape from Kentucky into Ohio
Pointexier came into Ohio. on several oc-
casions. with the consent or by the order of
the plaintiff. So coming, he was beyond
the reach of the local flaw which had en-
slared him, and subject to no claim Jas a
fugitive servant. So coming, he became
entitled 10 The full benefit of the express
prohibition Of slavery by our State Consti-
tuition. To all intents and purposes what
soever, he was tree; his condition and status
was that OF a freeman; his mssier,rbv con-
sentlne 10 his coming, must be held to have
consented TO his freedom, which, whether
he consented or not, was established by law.
And being thus free, wherever he might go
or be taken. he could not again be 'enslavei
by aIy law which this Court can recogn re
| as valid.
| And his doctrine has been frequently
held, even IN States where enforced proper
ty in men, with all its repulsive features and
odious attributes. is sanctioned and upheld
by the local law. Marie Louise .. Marat.
9 L. R. AIS, Smith .. Smith, Is L R. 444
If person held as slave can be brought
or sent into Ohio for one hour, anc still re-
| tain his status as slave, then the same
thing can be done for day, week, month,
year, lifetime; and thus this institution.
the shame of our country and the opprobrium
of Christendom, be virtually established on
soil so early, so often, and SO solemnly de-
voted to absolute freedom.
From the Declaration of Independence
until very recently. it was never questioned
that, in the United Ststes, a person once
legally free is always free. The doctrine
has teen regarded as part of American
common Law. Courts have differed as to
facts which constitute little TO freedom,
but have, almost with one mind, concurred
in the doctrine that no man once free, can
be again enslaved except for crime In my
judgment.--and such understand TO be the
Judgment also of four of the FIVE members
of this Court Poindex,er having come
| into free State otherwise than by escape,
was free; and having thus become free,
could not again be reduced to slavery. And
this opinion governs the decision Of a ma
jority of the Court; because, if free, the
note given in consideration of emancipation
was without consideration, and therefore
void.
But, it IS said that the note was at least
given in consideration of a compromise and
release Of a doubtful claim. and therefore is
valid. Not so; the promise was made By
Poindexter while under duress, and wrong
tui duress. in consideration of release from
that usurpeG dominion, and therefore inn
poses no valid obligation either in morals or
in Law. Parsons on Contracts, / SO; Mays
o. Cincinnati, o. 8 r. 96s.
| W. tk,& ~ Ko,t,,,t,, bo-
been decided that person held as slave
| in that State, who may have been taken for
TEN porary purpose, into Free Safe, and
brought, or coming back again, is not there
| by enfranchised, but is remanded to the con-
diion in which he was be lore held; and il
is urged thai the principle Of international
and interstate comfy requires us to reco g
nize and enforce this rule. The clear and
sufficient answer TO this claim is, that comfy
is not matter to be demanded as a right
else it would cease to be com itv. Like
courtesy among individuals. how far the
principle of State comfy shall be carried
in any case or class ,cf cases. is at the dis
cretion of thee.State called on for its exer-
else. And no State of the civilized world
has evers felt itself bound to carry the doc.
trine of comfy to the exten Mt Of subverting
it's own established policy.
But, 1t is said, It is no part of the policy
Of Ohip to discourage emancipation in Ken.
tHckv. This is true; and it is also true thai
it is no part of the policy of Ohio to encour-
age emancipation in Kentucky. Ohin has
Loihing TO DO with the subject o. emanci-
patton in Kentucky. But she has some
thing TO de with the status of persons CON-
ing within her own jurisdictions; and it is
properly part of her policy to see TO it thai
violation of ,he rights growing out of that
status shall not, in her courts, be recognized
az valid foundation of legal obligation
l The enslavement by local authority of q
man once free, presents the monstrnsiiy o
a legalized wrong; it is iniquity intensified
and hard eped into law; and, when the sub.
ject is legitimately before us, it is due tc
that principle of righteousness which is the
soul of all law worthy Of the name, and il
becomes Us, ss the administrators of suct
law. to protest against. condemn, and, as
far as may be, consistently with corstitu
tional obligation, TO nuAJy it, because ii Il
0rong, rather than to lend it an indirect
sanction through morbid exaggerat!on o
of the spirit of courtesy.
The policy OF Kentucky is to uphold the
! claims of masters. Her courts, upholding
this policy, refuse to recognize any obliga
lion of cumity or otherwise, to enforce the
Ohio rule of Freed IN. Coliinsu. America
9, B. Mo nroe, 572.
The fundamental organic and unremiltet
T policy of Ohio IS, to maintain the rights o.
men; and her tribunals, giving just efec
to this policy. must not permit themselves
to be moved, by the plea of comfy, to turn
aside from :hc p ain path it prescribes tt
the support OF the Kentucky rule of slavery
This policy of Ohio, is hers by virtue of Eel
a I