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

In tBe case OF auceIssH U EolhufAtcI
and others, decided BY the Supreme Court
Of Ohio, on yesterday, the opinion OF ma
joriiy of the Court was delivered by Judge
Bowen; hut his cpinien is not yet ready
for pub cution, but " i'll appear in the next
volume of Reports, which will be ou, in
July, as We learn.
The points decided in the case are stated
in iie Court report published in to-day's
paper.
Judge Erihke:hoff, coDcurring with the
msioritr o. the Court, delivered a separate
opinion. stating the grounds of his concur
renee. On application, we obtained copy
Of Judge DrinkerhoF . opinion, which is as
sulIuws:-0. S. Journal.
BsIx1gRHorf. J.-For the reason that the
principles involved la this case are OF great
moment, and are now regarded with gener-
al and peculiar interest, will depart from
the ordinary usage of the Court as briefly to
state separately the grounds on which |
place mi concurrence in the Judgment We
are about 10 render.
The case made in the pleading and proof
is this:
Henry Poindexter, he Id as q slave in Ken.
lucky, executed, together with his code
PENDANTS as sureties, to the plaintiff, Ander-
son, who claimed legal right TO hold him,
the promissory note sued on in the Common
Pleas of Clermont county, in this State;
in consideration of which note, and others,
the plaintiff agreed to, and did release
Poindexter, from the slavery in which he
was held, and promising 10 give him his
"free papers," or deed of emancipation, SO
soon as this note, and other notes given at
the same time and for the same considera-
ton, should be fully paid. Before the CIV
ing of these notes, Poindexter, with the
knowledge and consent, and sometimes by
the direction of Anderson, had, in several
instances, come into the State of Ohio, and
after remaining short time, in doing the
errands on which he was sent, had voiuntar-
lily in ignorance of bis rights, returned into
Kentucky and resumed his residence with
Anderson. After the giving OF the notes,
Poindexier labored awhile for Anderson
for wages, and then took up his residence
in Ohio.
The case in the Connvn Pleas was SUBJ
mitled to the Court for trial, and judg ment
was rendered Tor the defendants. The
plaintiff then appealed to the District Court
which also gave Judgment for the defendants
And TO reverse that judgment, this petition
N error is prosecuted.
Two questions properly arise in this case.
/. |; is contended for the plaintiff that
the case, BY the comfy of nations and
States, is to be determined by the kr loci
ccnLractus, and that by the laws of Kentucky
here the note sued on was executed, it was
valid nose.
Now, granting, for the sake Of the ar
gumeat, what do not admit, but what, on
the contrary, deny, that the ler loci is 10
decide the validity of this note; how then
stands the easel
Under the laws of Kentucky, slave is
incapable of contracting. He can hold nc
property. He can acquire no rights. is
natural domestic relations were are ignor-
ed. He has not g right TO the child he has
begotten, to nurture it, nor to the wife he
has chosen and cherished 10 protect her.
According to the theory Of these laws, the
slave belongs to the master as property, and
descends to his heirs as real estate. Nc
contract can increase xe abilities Of the
one, or the power of the other. A contrac,
of emancipation imparts to the slave NJ
legal right, and imposes on the master nc
legal obligation 1t is simply nugatory anc
void. The promise of the slave to pay
money in consideration of such contract
is null. Being null when made, no sub
sci guent act o. emancipation on the part o
the master, can impart to it any new iorce
il thus results logically from the theory o
the slave code OF Kentucky, that the note
which the plaintiff now seeks to enforce
here was invalid there. And moreover, by
CHI pter 90, article 9, Ct the revised S-atutei
of that State, and which seems to be still
in force, emancipation, except by deed, o
last will and teste ement, executed IN confor.
nifty to its provisions, is prohibited. S,
that. under the legislation of Kentucky
Pointdexter has never yet been legal,
emancipat,d and thereby rendered c0mpe
tent to contract.
2. But, were it otherwise, could this not,
be enforced by Judicial procedure in Ohio
BY the laws OF nature, all persons are free
No human being is born, or can be born.
) slave. The laws-by stretch of couakes,
SO called-of particular countries or States
may subject certain persons to be held AM
treated as the mere transferable instrument
of other persons; and this subjection, " hicl
constitutes slavery, originating in force ant
; fraud, and upheld by local laws which adop
and sanction the original wrong, may attach
immediately after birth, as the effect O
positive law in derogstion Of natura! right
But still il remains true, that the absolute
and equal freedom of all persons at birth. il
a fundamental principle Q! American inst,
, tutIons, proclaimed with independence, AM
incapable Of abrogation. This principl,
was, by the ordinance Of 1887, impresse,
on he soil OF Ohio, before there was an or
gunizcd community within her limits; il i
| fundamental IN her organic ton; alway
, embodied in her constitutions; and her laws
her policy, and the convictions, the morals
and the religion OF her people, are iDstinc
> w,th its spirit.
r The moment any person comes within tn
r territorial limits vi OhIo, his personal right
are ascertained and determined by the con
stitution and laws of Ohio. There is n
exception to this .ule, save in the Gaze of
person. who being held % service in anoth
! er State, escapes into this. In -uch case
the constitution OF the United Stures de
clares thai The fugitive i'snuli be delivere
up On claim vi the party"
There is nothing in this article of ,om
aC; w llch 1iyeo auy sanction To ihat siay