Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-04-03

slave into a State in which Slavery is pro
hibted, with the intention Of residing there,
the slave will be thereby omancipated And
their subsequent return 10 the State Of Louis
lana cannot restore the relation Of master and
slave To the same import are the cases Of
Smith VS.. Smith. ,l3 Louisiana Rep. All;
Thomas VS. Geners, Louisiana Rep, 4s3
Harry ct al. VS.. Decker and Hopkins Walk
er vs.. Mississippi Rep. 36,) it was held that
"Slaves within the jurisdiction Of the North
Western Territory, became irccmon by virtue
of the ordinance Of 1897. and can assert their
claim to freedom in the Courts Of Mississippi
] Griffith VS. Fanny, Virginia Rep, l43, it
was decided that negro held in servitude in
Ohio. under deed executed in Virginia, is
entitled to freedom by the constitution Of Ohio.
The case Of Rhodes Va. Boil, ? Howard
307. 5 Curtis l52 involved the main prin-
ciple in the case before us A person resid-
ing in Washington CITY purchased a slave in
Alexandria and brought him 20 Washington
Washington continued under the law Of Mary
land Alexandria under the law of Virginia
Tho act OF Maryland Of November, l796,
Moxeys Laws, 35l, declared any one who
shall bring any negro, mulatto or other slave
into Maryland. such slave should be free.
The above slave, by reason Of his being
brought into Washington City, was declared,
by this Court, to be free This, it appears to
me, is a much stronger case against the slave
than the facts in the case Of Scott
In Bush ys White . Monroe, l04), tho
Court says
"Ihat thc Ordinance paramount to the territorial
laws and restrained the legislative power there as eeo-
tualy as constitution in an organized State II was
public Of the legislature Of the Union, aud part Of
hc Supreme law OF the land. and suoh this Court is
much bound to take notice Of H. as it can be Of any
In the case Of Renkin VS.. Lydia, before
cited, Judge Mills, speaking for the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky. says.
lf by t6o positive provision in our Code we can and
must hod o slaves pm t9e enc case ana .ttutory pio-
visions equally positive decide against that right in the
other, and berate the saye he must, By authority
equally tnpedons be declared free Every argument
which supports the right of the master on one side based
upon the foceo wriiteuaw must be equally conclusive
ia favor Of the slave when he can point out in the stat
ute the clause which secures his freedom.
And he further said
"Frce people nj color n a tho States are, it is beley
ci, quasi citizens at least deuizcn, Although none Of
Suffrage yet all other civil and conventional rights
secured 90 them at el-t such rights were evidently se
onmcut Of Indians II these sights are vested in that
or any other portion Of the United smtcs can it be
compatible with thc spirit Of our concderated govern
meni TO deny their existence In any other part Is there
less comfy existing between State and state, or State
and Territory than exists between the despoie govern
ments OF Europe"
These are the words of a learned and great
Judge, born and educated in Slave State.
VI.
now come to inquire, under the 9th and
last head whether the decisions of the
supreme Court Of Missouri, on the question
before us. binding on this Court -
While we respect the learning and high in
telligence of the State Courts, and consider
their decisions with others, as authority, VIC
follow them only whore they give construc-
ton to the State statutes On this head |
consider myself fortunate in being able 70
turn TO the decision Of this Court, given by
Mr.. Justice Grier, in pease vs. Peck, case
from the state Of Michigan IS Howard,
5s9,) decided in December term 1855.
Speaking for the Court, Judge Grer said
Owe entertain the highest respect for thar learned
Conrt lthe supreme Court ot Michiganl, and in any
question affecting the construction Of their own laws
where entertain any doubt, would be glad TO be re-
leved from doubt and responsibility by reposng their
decision There are it is true, many dea to be found
in decisions avcrrng that the Courts Of the United
States are bound TO follow the decisions Of the State
Courts the construction Of their own laws But al
ihlush uAa may pc clrie' le rAthef siIong express
ion of general rule, il cannot be received as the annuu
ciator OF maxim Of universal application According
w our reports iurmsh many Gases OF cAecpuons 70 w. 10
a eases where there settled construction Of the laws
Of State, 10y ts highest judcature established by adj
mitied precedent 70 s the practice Of me Courts OF tue
United States TO receive and adopt IT, without criticism
or further inquiry When the decisions Of the State
Court not consistent, we do not feel bound to follow
the last II IL is contrary c1nvctions-aud
much TINS tho where, amer long Ol
consistent decisions some new light suddenly springs up
excited public opinion has ELECTED doctrines
subyers,c Of former safe precedent"
These words, it appears to me, have
stronger application to the case before US,
than they had to the cause in which they
were spoken the opinion of this Court, and
regret that they do not seem to be as fresh
in the recollection Of some of my brethren,
as in my own. For twenty-eight years, the
decisions Of the Supreme Court Of Missouri,
were consistent on all the points made in this
But this consistent course was sud
denly terminated whether by some new light
suddenly springing up. or an excited public
opinion, or both, it is not necessary to say.
In the case of Scott VS.. Emerson in 1852 they
were overturned and repudiated.
This, then, is the very case in which seven
Of my brethren declared they would not fol-
low the last decision, On this authority
may well repose. ] can desire no other or bet
ter basis.
But there is another ground which deem
conclusive, and which | will restate,
The Supreme Court of Missouri refused to
notice the act of Congress or the Constitution
Of Illinois, under which bred Scott, his wife
and children, claimed that they are entitled to
freedom
This being rejected by the Missouri Court
there was no case before it, or least it was a
case with only one side And this is the
case which, in the opinion of this Court, we
are bound to follow The Missouri Court
dsregards the express provision of an act of
Congress, and the Constitution Of sovereign
State, both Of which laws for twenty-eight
years it had not only regarded but carried
into effect.
If State Court may do this, on a question
involving the liberty Of human being, what
protection do the laws afford SO far from
this being Missouri question it is a question
within the 25th section Of the Judiciary act.
whore a right to Freedom being set up under
the act Of Congress, and the decision being
against such right, it may be brought for re-
vision before this Court, from the Supreme
Court of Missouri.
think the dgment of the Court below
should be reversed
COURT AND CONSTITUTION.
From the Albany Evening JournaLl
Judge fancy requests the American people
to believe that the trainers of the Constitu-