Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1857-06-02
PoMEROY, TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1857.

stitution. To all intents 1f purposes
whatsoever, he was fieeI y 1pditionand
sfatus was that of freema bis master.
by consenting to his comm upst be held
to have consented to il, ch. whether
he consented or not was 4Dhshed by
law. And being thus free therever he
might go or be taken, he n pot again
be enslaved by any law N. th this Court
can regocnize as valid. IN,
And this doctrine had ben frequently
held. even in States where I'orced prop
erty in men, with all its rel '4igefeatures
and odious attributes, Il 'Ictioned and
upheld by the local law. Te Louise o.
i Marat, 8 L. B. 475, Smith 4. smith, 13,
L. r. 454.
If a person held az lave can be
brought or sent into Ohi1 'o| oneahour,
and still retain; his stdIsts q ! 1--WE then
the same thing can be done for a day, a
week, month, a year. a 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 devoted to absolute
freedom.
From the Declaration of Independence
until very recently, it was never questioned
that, in the United States, person once
legally free is always free. The doctrine
has been regarded as part of American
common law. Courts have differed as to
facts which constitute title to freedom,
but have, almost with one mind, concur
, red ir. the doctrine that no man once free,
can be again ensaved except for crime. In
my Judgment, land such understand to be
the Judgment also of four of the five mem
bers of this Court-Poindexter, 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
majority Of the Court; because, if free,
the note given in consideration of emanci.
3 patton, was without consideration, and
? therefore void. e. .u
But, it is said that the note was at leas
given in consideration of a compromise
and release of adoubtful claim, and there
fore is valid. Not SO; the promise was
9 madeby Poindexter while under duress
h and wrongful duress, in consideration 0
: release from that usurped dominion, ant
). therefore imposes no valid obligation eithe
in morals or in law. Parsons on Con
n tracts, 3l9; Mays o. Cincinnati, L. y. 3
It r. 268.
e We are aware that in Kentucky it ha
been decided that person held as siav
d in that State, who may have been taken TO
e temporary purpose, into Free State, an
; brought, or coming back again, is nc
!. thereby cnfranchised, but is remanded I
q the condition in which he was before held
/ and it is urged that the principle of intel
n national and interstate comfy requires u
l. to recognize and enforce this rule. In
d clear and sufficient answer to this claim il
il that comfy is not matter to be demande
,, as if right, else it would cease to be CON
le ity. Like courtesy among individual
t. how far the principle of State comfy sha
at he carried in any case OF class of cases,
r at the discretion of the State called on IL
of its exercise. And no State of the civilize
n- world has ever felt itself bound to carr
n. the doctrine of comfy to the extent
of subverting its own established policy. :.
e. But, it is said, it is no part of the polio
ty of Ohio to discourage emancipation
er Kentucky. This is true; and it is all
v, true that it is no part of the policy OF Oh
he to encourage emancipation in Kentuck
its Ohio has nothing to do with the subJe
of emancipation in Kentucky. But s.
in has something to do with the stGt'ts
,al persons coming within her.own jurisdl
by ton; and it is properly part of her poll
ire to see to it that violation of the rigt
he growing out of that status shall not,
ice her courts, be recognized as a valid fou
In dation of legal obligation. l
ed The enslavement by local authority OF
be man once free, presents the monstrosity
,m a lecalized wrong; it is iniquity intensifi
and hardened into law; and when the 81
M iect is legitimately before US, it is due
la that principle of righteousness which
as the soul of all law worthy of the name, a
TO- # becomes us, as the administrators
of such law, to protest against, condemn, a
in az far as NAV be, consistently with. c'
on. stitutional obligation, to mallity a6eca'
hat Il is ,Crong, rather than to lend it an in
od. rect sanction through morbid exagge
N ton Of the spirit of courtesy.
not The policy OF Kentucky 49, 10 upn
1t the claims Of masters. Her courts,
en- holding this policy, refuse to recognize
but obligation OF comfy or otherwise, to.
ela- force the Ohio rule of Freedom. Col
.T .. America Q, B. Monroe, 572.
s The fundamental, organic and unren
IN ted policy of Ohio is, to maintain
And rights of men; and her tribunals, CIV
uld lust effect to this policy, must not per
on themselves to be moved, by the plea
!, OF comfy, to turn aside from the plain ?
lth- it prescribes to the support Of the K
ton lucky rule of slavery. This policy
the Ohio, is hers by virtue of her own so'
ond eion choice. She will, trust, never
tab nit it to be called in question. lfshe d.
j. 1t she will doubtless find suitable organs
alm the utterance of her altered will, but Al
held humble member Of this Court, l can ne
pect consent to become the medium Of its
ue render.
n