Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1857-05-21
The POindeXter Case..OpiniOr
of Judge Brinkerh0ff.
Judge Brinkerhoff said:

The POindeXter C0ses.OpiniOI
of Judge Brinkerh0ff.
i Judge Brinkerhoff said:
For the reason that the principles involv
ed in this cass are of great moment, anC
are now regarded with general and peculia
interest, l will depart from the ordinary
usage of the Court as briefly to state seper
ately the grounds on which l place my con
currence in the judgment VIC are about t,
enter.
The case made in the pleading and proc
is this:
Henry Poindextcr, held rs slave il
Kentucky, executed, together with his CO
defendants as sureties, to the plaintiff, An
derson, who claimed legal right to hole
him, the promissory note sued on in the
Common Pleas of Clermont county, thi.
State; in consideration of which note
and others the plaintiff agreed to, and die
release Poindexter from the slavery in which
he was held, and promising to give him his
free papers or deed of emancipation, sc
soon as this note, and other notes given a,
the same time and for the same considera
tion, should be fully paid. Before tho
giving of these notes, Poindexer, with the
knowledge and consent, and sometimes by
the direction of Anderson, had, in several
in tances, came into the State of Ohio. and
after remaining short time, in doing the
errands on which he was sent, had volunta
rily, but probably in ignorance of his rights
returned into Kentucky and resumed lii
residence with Anderson. After the Civ.
ing of the notes Poindexter labored while
for Anderson for wages, and then took up
his residence in Ohio,
The case in the Common Pleas was sub
mitted to the Court for trial, and judg-
ment was rendered for the defendants
The plaintiff then appealed to the District
Court, which also gave judgment for the
defendants. And to reverse that judement,
this petition in error is prosecuted.
Two questions properly arise in this case
1. 1t is contended for the plaintiff that
the case by the comfy of natl ms and states,
is to be determined by the lea loci contract
as, and that by the laws of Kentucky,
where the notes sued on were executed, it
was valid note.
Nova granting, for the sake of the argu-
ment, what l do not admit, but what, on
the contrary, deny, that the ler loci is to
decide the validity of this note, how then
stands the case!
Under the laws of Kentucky, slave is
incapable of contracting. He can hold no
property. He can acquire no rights. His
natural domestic relations even are ignored.
He has not right to the child he has be-
gotten, to nurture it, nor to the wife he has
chosen and cherished, to protect her. Ac-
cording to the theory of those laws, the
slave belongs to the master as property,
and descends to his heirs as real estate
No contract can increase the liabilities of
the one, or the power of the other. A
contract of emancipation imparts TO the
slave no legal right, and imposes on the
master no legal obligation. 1t is simply
nugatory and void. The promise of the
slave to pay money in consideration of such
contract, is null. Being null when made,
no subsequent act of emancipation on the
part of the master, can ilnpart to it any new
force. 1t thus results logically from the
theory of the slave code of Kentucky, that
the note which the plaintiff now seeks to
enforce here was invalid there. And more
over, by chapter 90, article 9, of the tevis-
ed Statutes of that State, and which seems
to be still in force, emancipation, except by
deed, or last will and testament, executed
in conformity to its provisions, is prohibit
ed. So that, under the legislation of Ken
lucky, Poindexter has never yet been le-
gally emancipated and thereby rendered
competent 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 luman being is born, or can be born,
slave. The laws, by stretch oecourtesy
so called, of particular countries or State,
may subject certain persons to be held and
treated as mere transferable instruments of
other persons; and this subsection which
constitutes slavery, originating in force and
fraud, and upheld by local laws which adopt
and sanction the original wrong, may at
tach Immediately after birth, as the effect
of positive law in derogation of natural
right. But still it remains true, that the
absolute and equal freedom of all persons
at birth, is a fundamental principle of
American institutions, proclaimed with in
dependence, and incapable of abrogation.
This principle was, by the ordinance of ITS,
impressed on the soil of Ohio, before there
was an organized community within her
limits; it is fundamental in her organiza-
ton; always embodied in her constitution;
and her laws, her policy, and the convic-
tions, the morals, and the religion of her
people, are instinct with its spirit.
The moment any person comes within
the territorial limits of Ohio, his personal
rights are ascertaincd and determined by
the constitution and laws of Ohio. There
is no exception to this rule, save in the case
of a person, who, being held to service in
another State, escapes into this. In such
case, the constitution of the United
States declares that the fugitive "shall be
delivered up on claim Of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due"
There is nothing in the article Of COM
pact which gives any sanction to that sla-
very, the essential elements of which is as
serted property in man; nothing inconsis-
tent with the purpose of the Trainers of
the Constitution, clearly manifested in their
debates as reported by Mr.. Madison, to
avoid all recognition of "the idea that there
l.