The Washington union., 1857-05-30
SsN>&
The supreme Court of the United states.
THE DRIED SCOTT CASE.
lcoAcLusIos or JrDoE McLEAS's oPlMos. ]
The oaeiqi Rqmt,

he accompany his master into State Territory where
slavery is prohibited such slave cannot be said TO have
the service Of his where his services were e
gaiized And If slavery be limited to the range OF the
territorial laws how the slave be eoerced TO serve In
State Territory, not only without the authority OF
law but against its express provisions what gives Ihe
master the right 10 control the viii Of his siayef The
local law which exists in form But where there
such law the master control the VIII OF the
slave by force Where slavery exists, the presunp
tion without regard TO color Is IN ayor on freedom Un-
der such jurisdiction may the coored man be levied ON
as the property of his master by creditor On the de-
cease the MASTER does the slave descend TO his heirs as
property Can the master sell him Any one OF all Of
these may be done TO the slave where he is legally
held to service But where the law does not confer this
power it cannot be exercised
Lord Mansfield held that slave brought into England
was free Lord Stowell agreed with Lord Mansfield in
this respect and that the slave could not be coerced in
England but her voluntary return to Antigua, the
place of her slave domicl her former status attached
The law Of England did not prohibit slavery but did not
authorize it, The jurisdiction which prohibits slavery Is
much stronger behalf of the slave within il than where
ii only does not authorize IL.
BY virtue of what law is it that master may take his
slave into free territory and exact from him the duties
OF save The law of the Territory does not sanction
IT, No authority be claimed under the constitution
Of the United States any law OF Congress VIII 1t
be said that the slave is taken property the same as
other property which the master may own To this
answer that coorcd persons are made property by the
law of the State and such power has been given to
Congress Does the master carry with him the law OF
does that enable him to his slave IN the Territory
Let this theory If this may be done by master
from slave State, it may be done by master from
every other slave State This right is supposed TO be
connected with the person of the master by virtue of the
local law Is it transferable May it be negotiated as
promissory note bill Of exchanged If it be assigned
to from free State, may he coerce the slave by
virtue OF itf What shall this thing be denomnatedf Is
it personal real property? Or is it an ndefinabe
fragment of sovereignty which every person carries with
him from his domici One thing is certain, that its
origin been very recent and it is unknown to the
laws of any civilized country.
slave is brought TO England from of its islands
where slavery was introduced and maintained by the
mother county,. Although there is law prohibiting
slavery in England yet there is law authorizing it
and century its courts have declared that the
slave there Is free from the coercion of the master Lords
Mansfield and Sowe agree upon this point and there is
no dissenting authority.
There is no other description of property which
not protected in England brought from of its slave
islands Does not this show that property in human
being does not arise from nature from the common
law but in the language of this court sit is mere mu-
nicipa regulation founded upon and limited to the
of the territorial lawsg This decision is not
guent it is the end of the law in regard to the
Of slavery Until it shall be overturned il Is not
point for argument it is obligatory myself and my
brethren, and all judicial tribunals which this
court exercises appellate power.
1t is said the Territories property OF the
States and that every has right to go there with
his property This is not controverted But the court
local law which makes him such Never truth more
authoritatively and justly uttered by Suppose
master of slave in British island owned million Of
property IN England would that authorize him to take
his slaves with him to England The constitution, in
express terms recognises the Of slavery founded
the municipal law No person held to service or la
bor in one State under The airs Neye escaping into
other shall, &C. Now, unless the fugitive escape from
place where by the municipal law, he is held to labor
this provision affords remedy to the master. Whist
be conclusive than this Suppose slave escape
from Territory where slavery not authorized by law
can he be reclaimed
In this case majority of the court have said that
slave may be taken by his master into Territory of the
United States the horse, any other kind of
property 1t is true this said by the court also
many other things which of no authority Nothing
that has been said by Them which has not direct bear
ing on the jurisdiction of the court against which they
decided be considered authority shall certainly
regard it such The question of jurisdiction being
before the court decided by them authorativcly
but nothing beyond that question slave is not
chattel. He bears the impress of his Maker, and is
amenabe to the laws of God and and he is destined
to an endless existence.
Under this head shall chiefly rely the decisions OF
the supreme courts Of the southern States and especially
Of the State of Missouri.
In the first and second sections of the sixth article of
the constitution OF Illinois it is declared that neither s
very nor involuntary servtGde shall hereafter be ntrodu
ced into this State otherwise than for the punishment Of
crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
and in the second section it is declared that any violation
of this article shall effect the emancipation Of such
from his obligation to service. In Illinois right of
transit through the State is given the master with his
slaves This is matter which, suppose belongs
clusively to the State.
The supreme court of Illinois, in the of Jarro
JaTot, q Gilmer, Z } said
After the conquest of this territory by Virginia. she
coded it to the United States and stipulated that the IL
ties and possessions, rights and liberties of the French
settlers, should be guaranteed to them This it has been
contended secured them in the possession Of those
goes slaves which they held before that time and that
neither Congress the convention had power to deprive
them of it or in other words that the ordinance and
constitution should not be interpreted and understood
applying to such slaves when is therein declared that
there shall be neither slavery involuntary servtude
in the Northwest Territory in the State of illinois,
held that those rights could not be thus protected but
must yield to the ordinance and constitution
The first slave case decided by the supreme court Of
Missouri contained in the reports, Winny White
sides, Il Missouri Rep, 49, at October term, 1924 II
appeared that, than twenty five years before the
defendant, with her husband had removed from Car
olina to Illinois, and brought with them the plaintiff
that they continued to reside in Illinois three or four
years. retaining the plaintiff slave after which they
removed to Missouri, taking her with them.
The court held that If slave be detained in Illinois
until he be entitled to freedom, the right of the
does not revive when he finds the negro in slave State
That when slave is taken to Illinois by his owner.
who takes up his residence there the slave is entitled
freedom
In the of Lagrange ps chouteau (2 Missouri Rep
20, at May term, 1929 decided that the ordi
nance of 1857 intended as a Fundamental law for
those who may choose to live under it, rather than as
al cfaf afnfa