Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-04-09
NATIONALITY OF SLAVERY.
Opinion of Judge Mclean.
D,oJ Ncott 7 II ~ Gan fnyd
Dred Scott Us. J. F. II. Sanford.
CONCLUDED.

OF the states do not take notice OF the laws
of other states, unless proved as facts, and
that every state has the right to determine
how far its comfy to other states shall extend :
and it is laid down that when there is no act
of manumission decreed in the free state, the
courts of the,slave states cannot be called to
give effect to the law Of the free state. Com
ity, it alleges, between states, depends upon
the discretion of both which may be varied
by circumstances. And it is declared by the
court "that times are not as they were when
the former decisions on this subject were
made" Since then, not only individuals but
states have been possessed with dark and
fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose graft
fcation is sought in the pursuit of measures
whose inevitable consequence must be the
overthrow and destruction Of our government.
Under such circumstances it does not behove
the state of Missouri to show the least coun-
tenance to any measure which might crafty
this spirit She is willing to assume her full
responsibility for the existence Of slavery
within her limits, nor does she seek to share
or divide it with others.
ChiefJustice Gamble dissented from the
other two Judges. He says
"In every slaveholdng state in the Unior,
the subject Of emancipation is regulated by
statute and the Iogms are prescribed iP with
sitishall be Effected Whenever the forms re-
CURED by the laws of the state in which the
master and slave are resi- lent are complied with
the emancipation is complete, and the slave is
free. II the right of the person thus enamel
pated is subsequently drawn in question in
another state, it will be ascertained and deter
mined by the law of the state in which the
slave and his former master resided aud when
it appers that such law has been compiled with
the right to Freedom will be fully sustained IN
tho courts of all the slaveholding states, al
though the act of emancipation may not be in
the form required by law in which the court
sits -
= In all such cases courts continually admin
lister the law Of the country where the right
was acquired and when that law becomes
known to the aourt, it is just as much matter
of course to decide the rights of the parties ac-
cording to its requirements as it is to settle the
title of real estate situated in our state by its
own laws.
This appears to me a most satisfactory am
swer to the argument of the court. Chief
Justice continues:
1.-The perfect equality of the different states
lies at the foundation of the Union. As the
institution of slavery in the states is one over
which the Constitution of the United States
gives no power to the general government, 1t
is left to be adopted OF rejected by the several
states, as they think best; nor can amy one
state or number of states, claim the right to in
terfere with any other state upon the question
of admitting or excluding this il stitulion. -
"A citizen of Missouri who removes with his
slave to Illinois, has no right to complain thai
the Fundamental law of that state to which he
removes, and in which he makes his residence
dssolyes the relation between him and his slave
1t is as much his own voluntary act as il hi
had executed 4 deed of emancipation No one
can pretend ignorance OF this constitutional
provision, and !" he says, "lhe decisions which
have heretofore been made in this state, and il
many other slavcholding states, give effect tt
this and other similar provisions, on the grounc
that the master, by making the free state the
residence Of his slapes has submitted his RICH
to the operation OF the law Of such state, AM
this, = he says,'' is the sitine in law as II regu
lar deed Of emancipation.
i lie adds, sss regard the question as seoHclu
4 siveiy settled. by repeated adideatipBss6f thi
court. and if Edoubted or denied the prophet,
OF those decisions would not feel myself an
moro at liberty to overturn them than woul
any other series of decisions by which the laN
of any other question was settled. There
with me, he says, "nothtng in the law relat
ing to slavery which distinguishes it from tn
law on any other subject or allows any NOR
accommodation TO the temporary public excite
ments which are gathered around it.
"In this state" he says, "it has been re
cognised from the beginning of the govern
ment as correct position in law, that mas
ter who takes his slave to reside in state G
territory where slavery is prohibited, thereb
emancipates his slave These decisions
which come down to the year 1887, SCENE
to have so fully settled the question that sine
that time there has been no case bringing
before the court for no reconsideration unit
the present. In the case Of Winny az
Whtesdes, the question was made in til
argument ''whether one nation would execu
the penal laws of another" and the court r.
piled in this language, Huberas, quoted in
Dallas, which says" Personal rights or di
abilities obtained Or communicated by IL
laws Of any particular place are Of natul
which accompany the person wherever
goes;" and the Chief Justice observed,
the case of Rachel agt. Walker, the act
Congress, called the Missouri Compromis
was held as operative as the ordinance
1887.
When bred Scott, his wife and childrt
were removed from Fort Smelling to Nilsson
in 1888, they were free as the law was thu
settled and continued for fourteen years ate
wards, up to 1852, when the above decisiC
was made. Prior to this, for nearly thir
years, as Chief Justice Gamble declares, Il
residence of master with his slave in Il
state of Illinois, or in the territory north
Missouri, where slavery was prohibited
the act called the Missouri Compromis
would manumit the slave as effectually as
, he had executed deed of emancipation al
!, that an officer of the army who takes h
slave into that state or territory and hol
him there as aslave, hberates him the sar
!. as any other citizen, and down to the abo
!, time it was settled by numerous and unifor
= decisions; and that on the return of the sla
3 to Missouri, his former condition of slave
did not attach. Such was the settled law
Missouri until the decision of Scott and Ell
+ erson
= In the case of Sylvia agt. Kirby, III Nj
1 souri, Rep. 434,) the court followed the abo
f decision, observing it was similar in all /
spects to the case Of Scott and Emerson.
This court follows the established constru
ton of the statutes of state by its Suprer
Court. Such construction is considered
e part of the statute, and we follow it i
I avoid two rules of property in the same stat
: But we do not follow the decisions of the
e preme Court of a state beyond statute
construction as rule of decision for Il