The Washington union., 1857-05-30

under stockton
1.-The officer lived in Missouri Territory at the time he
bought the slave; he sent TO a slngehodng country ana
procured her this his voluntary act, done without
any other than that OF his convenience and he
and those claiming under him must be holden TO abide
the consequences OF introducing slavery both In Missouri
Territory and Michigan contrary to law and ON that
ground Rachel declared to be entitled to freedom
In to the argument that, an officer OF the
army the master had right take his slave into free
territory the court said authority of law the gov
eminent compelled him to keep the plaintiff there as
slave.
Shall it be said that because an officer Of the army
slaves in Virginia, that when officer and soldier, he
is required to take the command of fort in the nom
sayeholding States and Territories, he thereby has
right to take with him many slaves as VIII suit his IN
terest or convenience 1t surely cannot be law II this
be true the say then is also true that the conye
nience supposed convenience of the officer repeas as
TO him and Others who have the character, the or
dinance and the act of 1921 admitting Missouri into the
Union and also the prohibition OF the several laws and
constitutions of the non -sayeholding States
In Wilson Us. Melvin "A Missouri r., 592l 1T appeared
the defendant left Tennessee with an intention of residing
in Illinois, taking his negroes with him. After month
stay Illinois he took his negroes to St Louis and hired
them then returned to Illinois On these facts the in
crior instructed the jury that the defendant was
error, and the judgment was reversed
The case of Dred Scott rs Emerson (5 Missouri r.,
6s2 March term, 1889 win now be stated. This case
involved the identical question before Emerson hay
ing since the hearing, sold the plaintiff to sandford the
defendant.
Two Of the judges ruled the case the chief justice dis
senting Ii be improper state the grounds Of
the opinion of the court, and Of the dissent
The court say: Cases Of this kind not strangers IN
court Persons have been frequently here adudged
be entitled to their freedom the ground that their
masters held them in slavery in Territories States III
which that institution is prohibited From the first case
decided in court it might be inferred that this result
brought about by presumed assent OF the MASTER
from the fact of having voluntarily taken his slave to
rhnrat tlp al
list But subsequent base the right TO exact the
forfeiture of emancipation they term it, ON the ground
it would SEEM that it the duty of the courts OF this
State TO carry into effect the constitution and laws oil
other States and Territories regardless of the rights the
policy the institutions of the people Of this State
And the court say that the States of the Union in their
municipal concerns regarded foreign to each other
that the of State do not take notice of the
laws OF other States unless proved facts and that every
State has the right to determine how far its comfy to
other States shall extend and 1t is laid down that when
there is act of manumson deceed to the free State
the courts of the slave States cannot be called TO give
effect the law of the free State Comfy, it alleges,
between States depends upon the discretion of boh which
may be varied by circumstances And 1t is declared by
the court g that times not they We're when the
former decisions this subject made. Since then
only individuals but States have been possessed with
dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gra
cation is sought the pursuit OF measures whose nevta
BILE consequence be the overthrow and destruction
of government. Under such circumstances it does
not behoove the State of Missouri TO show the least
tenance to measure which might gratiy TINS spirit
She is willing her full responsibility for the
stence of slavery within her limits does she seek to
/ share or divide it with Others
Chief Justice Gamble dssented from the other two
| Judges. He says
g In every slaveholdng State in the Union, the sub
ect Of emancipation is regulated by statute and the
forms prescribed in which shall be effected When
the forms required by the laws of the State in which
the master and slave resident complied with the
emancipation is complete and the slave is free Ii the
right of the person thus emancpated is subsequently
drawn in question in another State it viii be ascertaned
and determined by the law Of the State in which the slave
and his former resided and when it appears that
such law has been complied with the right to freedom
will be fully sustained in the courts of all the slavehod
ing States although the of emancipation may not be
in the form required by law in which the court sits
In all such cases, courts continually administer tho
law of the country where the right acquired and
when that law becomes known to the court il is just
much matter of to decide the rights Of the par
ties according to its requirements it is to settle the
title of real estate situated in State by it's
! laws =
This appears to me satisfactory to the
/ gllment of the court Chief Justice continues
Ihe perfect equality of the different States lies the
foundation of the Union AS the institution cf slavery
in the States is one over which the constitution OF the
United States gives power to the general government
it is left to be adopted rejected by the several States
they think best any State, or number Of
States claim the right interfere with any other State
upon the question of admitting excluding this nsttu
ton.
"a citizen of Missouri, who removes with his slave to
Illinois, has no right to complain that 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 much his voluntary act ii
he had executed deed OF emancipation, No
pretend ignorance of this constitutional provision and
he says the decisions which have heretofore made
in this State and in many other savehoding States give
effect to this and other similar provisions the ground
that the master by making the free State the residence
OF his slave has submitted his right to the operation Of
the law of such State and this, he says lis the
in law as regular deed of emancipation
He adds
~ regard the question conclusively settled by
pcated adjudicatons of this court and if doubted
denied the propricy of those decisions would not feel
myself any more at liberty to ovcrturn them than
would any other series of decisions by which the law Of
any other question settled There is with me- he
says nothing in the law relating to slavery which dis
tnguishes it from the law any other subject allows
any accommodation to the temporary public excite
ments which gathered around it.
In this State he says, t has been recognised from
the beginning Of the government correct position in
law that master who takes his slave TO reside in State
Territory where slavery is prohibited thereby enanc
pates his slave" These decisions, which down
the year 1887 seemed to have fully settled the ques
ton that since that time there has been bringing
before the court for reconsideration until the pres
ent. In the of Winny Whitesides, the question
was made in the argument ''whether nation would
execute the penal laws of another and the court replied
in this language (Huberus, quoted in Dallas) which
says personal rights disabilities obtained commu
ncaed by the laws of any particular place of nature
which accompany the person wherever he goes Z; and
the Chief Justice observed, in the of Rachel