Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1857-03-28

/
carry with him into free territory the laws of
his state Let us test fiiis theory. If this
may be done by master from one slave stale,
II may be done by master from etefy other
slave state This right is supposed tn be cons
rected with The person of the master by virtue
of the local law. Is il transferable May il
he negotiated, as promissory note or bill oi
exchanged If il be assigned to a man from a
free state, may he coerce the slate by virtue Of
it! What shall this thing be denominated i
Is Il personal or real properyl Or is it an in
defnable fragment Of sovereignty which every
person carries with him from his late domicil !
One thing is certain, that its origin has been
very recent, and it is unknown TO the laws Of
any civilized country.
There iseno other description of property
which was not protected in England, brought
from one Of its slave islands. Does not this
show that property in human being does not
arise from nature or from common law, but, in
the language Of this court, "it is a mere muni-
cipal regulation founded upon and limited 10
the range Of the territorial laws I" This de-
cison is not a mere argument, but j, is the end
of the law, in reeatd 10 the extent of slavery.
The first slave case decided by the supreme
court of Missouri was in 1924. In that case
the court held tina, if a slave be detained in IL
linois until he be entitled to freedom, the right
Of the owner does not revive when he finds a
negro in a slave state, and that when slave is
taken To Illinois by his owner, who takes up
his residence there, the slave is entitled 10 free
dom. Judge Mclean quotes repeated decisions
/ Of tho m nm fl,S ,ud al, 10,
favor of freedom. The case of DEED Scott
against Emerson, previous 10 Emerson's sale Of
Scott 10 Sandford, was the first that was decid-
ed differently. The change, as the Judges say
was for The reason 'ihat times are not as they
were when The former decisions on this subjec,
were made" Chief Justice Gamble dissent
ed, and declared that "a citizen Of Missouri
who removes with his slave to Illinois has no
right 10 complain that the fundamental law OF
that state 10 which he removes and which he
makes his residence, dissolves the relation be-
tween him and his slaves.
/ When Dred Scott, his wife and children were
removed from For Smelling 10 Missouri ia 1888,
they were free as the law was then settled and
continued for fourteen years aferward, mp 10
1859, when the decision was made. Prior to
this, for nearly thirty years, as chief justice
Gamble declares, the residence Of master with
his slave, in the stale of Illinois, or in the ter
ritory north Of. Missouri, where slavery was
prohibited by the act called the Missouri com
promise, would manumit the slave as effectual-
( ly as if he had executed deed Of emancipa-
tion and that an officer of the army who takes
his slave into that state or territory and holds
him there as slave, lberates him the same as
anv nihar riiisap a.A d".-- "a. 49,. -L~->> -.;---
ions; and that on the return Of the slave to Mis-
souri, his former condition Of slavery did moi
attach. Such was the settled law Of Missouri
until the decision Of Scott and Emerson.
Judge Mclean discusses at length the ques-
tion whether the status of slavery attached to
the plaintiff and his wife on their return TO Mis-
souri,. This question is so nearly identical
with the last that we need not reproduce it. II
it be proved that removal to free territory eman-
cpates the slave, and makes him free man
his return TO a slave state does not make him Q
slave unless there be special laws upon thai
point, none Of which exist in Missouri M.
merous decisions in slave states are cited upor
this point, all pointing in one direction. One
of the Louisiana decisions is
"Where the owner removes with q slave into 9
state in which slavery is prohibited. with the nten
tion of residing there, the slave will be thereb,
emancipated And their subsequent return to thu
state of Louisiana cannot restore the relation o
master and slave"
In the Mississippi courts, it has been decided
that
"Slaves within the jurisdiction of the northwcs
tern territory, became freemen by virtue of the or
dinance of 1887 and can assert their claim to free
dom in the courts of Mississippi
Thus have been the decisions uniformly il
the slave states, through the whole history O
the country under the constitution.