Weekly national intelligencer., 1857-06-27

voluntarily goes with his slave in inre into State or
country which does net permit slavery exist and the
slave there contracts marriage without the consent of
his master for In this case it is agreed Dr. Emerson
did consent; and no further question can arise con-
cernng his rights far their assertion is nconsist
ent with the validity Of the marriage Nor do know of
any ground for the assertion that this marriage was in
fraud of any law of Missouri 1t has been held by this
court that bequest of property by master to his
slave by necessary implication entities the slave to his
freedom because only as freeman could he take and
hold the bequest lLegrandv Darnall, 2 Pet r. 664
1t has also been held that when master goes with his
slave to reside for indefinite period in State where
slavery is not tolerated this operates as an act of
mission because it sufficiently expressive of the
sent of the master that the slave should be free y
Marshalls Ken. r., 40; IA Martins Louis. r. 40I !
What then, shall say of the consent of the master
that the slave may contract lawful marriage attended
with all the civil rights and duties which belong to that
relations that he may into relation which none
but free man can assume-a relation which involves
only the rights and duties of the slave but those of
the other party to the contract and of their descendants
to the remotest generation In my Judgment there can
be eectual abandonment of the legal rights of
master over his slave than by the consent Of the master
that the slave should enter into contract of marriage
in free State attended by all the civil rights and obi
cations which belong to that condition
And any claim by DR.. Emerson, or any one claiming
under him, the effect Of which is deny the validity Of
this marriage and the lawful paternity of the children
born from II wherever asserted is, in my judgment,
claim inconsistent with good faith and sound reason as
well as with the rules of international law. And go
further: In my opinion law of the State of Missouri
which should thus annu marriage lawfully contracted
by these parties while resident in Wisconsin not in fraud
of any law Of Missouri of any right of Dr. Emerson
who consented thereto would be law imparing the OBJ
legation of contract and within the prohibition of the
Constitution Of the United States. (See Wheat, 629,
To avoid misapprehension on this important and
difficult subject, will state distinctly the conclusions
at which have arrived They are:
First. The rules of international law respecting the
~ c1o
laws of another State country upon the of the
slave while resident in such foreign State or country
are part of the common law of Missouri and have not
been abrogated by any statute law of that State.
Second The laws Of the United States constutionally
enacted which operated directly on and changed the
status of slave coming into the Territory of Wisconsin
with his master who went thher to reside for an inde
mite length Of me in the performance of his duties as
officer of the United States, had rghtful operation
the status of the slave and it in conformity with
the rules of international law that this change of status
should be recognised every where
Third The laws of the United States in operation in
the Territory of Wisconsin at the time of the plaintiff
residence there did directly the staus of the
plaintiff and change his status to that of free man.
Fourth The plaintiff and his wife were capable of
contracting and with the consent Of Dr. Emerson did
contract marriage in that Territory valid under its
laws and the validity of this marriage be ques
toned in Missouri, by showing that in fraud
of the laws of that State of right derived from
them-which cannot be shown in this case Because the
paster consented to it.
Fifth. That the consent of the master that his slave
residing in country which does not tolerate slavery,
may enter into lawful contract of marriage attended
with the civil rights and duties which belong to that con-
dition eectual act of emancipation And the law
does not enable DR.. Emerson any claiming under
him. to assert title to the married persons slaves
and thus destroy the obligation of the contract of
rage and bastardize their ISSUE and reduce them
slavery.
But is insisted that the supreme court of Missouri
has settled this case by its decision in Scott Emerson,
5 Missouri Reports, 576 and that this decision is in
conformity with the weight of authority elsewhere and
with sound principles If the supreme of Missouri
had placed its decision the ground that appeared
Dr. Emerson never became domciled in the Territory
and its laws could rightfully operate him and
his slave and the facts that he there reside in
definitely, officer the United States and that
plaintiff was lawfully married there with Dr. Emersons
consent left out of view, the decision would find
support in other cases. and might not be prepared to
deny Its correctness But the decision is not rested
this groudd SThe domcl Of DR.. Emerson in that Terri
{tory is not QUESTIONED in that decision it is placed
on broad deeal of the operation in Missouri of the
law of any foreign State country upon the of
slave, going with his master from Missouri into such for
egn State country though they went thither to
become, and actually became, permanent inhabitants of
such foreign Srte country, the laws whereof acted
directly the of the slave and changed his status
to that Of a freeman.
To the correctness of such decision cannot assent
In my Judgment the opinion of the majority of the
In that case is in conflict with its previous decisions with
States, and with fundamental principles of private inter-
national law Mr. Chief Justice Gamble in his dissenting
opinion in that case, said:
regard the question concusvely settled by repeated
adudicatons of this court and doubted denied the pro-
prety of those DECISIONS would feel any
liberty t. overturn them than would other series of de-
csions by which the law other had been
settled There is with nothing in the law of slavery which
Distinguishes from the law any other subject allows
any accommodation the temporary exctements which
have gathered around it. -. But in the midst of all
such excitement it proper that the judicial mind calm and
balanced should adhere principles established
when there feeling disturb the view of the legal
questions upon which the rights of parties depend"
In this State has been recognised from the beginning of
who takes his slave reside in State Territory where
slavery prohibited thereby emancipates his slave Win
ney o. Whitesides, Mo-. 473 LIE Grange a. Chouteau,
Mo- 20; Milley Smith, ib, SO; Ralph Duncan Mo,
194; Julia Mckinney ib 270 Nat Ruddle, ib., 400;
Rachel .. Walker, NO., $50; Wilson Melvin, 592)
Chief Justice Gamble has also examined the decisions
OF the courts of other States in which slavery estab
shed and finds them in accordance with these preced
ing decisions OF the supreme court of Missouri to which
he refers
would be useless parade Of learning for me go
the ground which he has SO fully and ably occupied
But it is further insisted bound to follow this
dec sion DO not think In this it is to be de-
ermined what laws Of the United States in opera
effect on the tatus Of the plaintiff Could the plaintiff
contract lawful marriage there? Does any law of the
State of Missouri impair the obligation of that contract
Of marriage destroy his rights husband bastardze
the issue Of the marriages and reduce them state Of
slavery? i
These questiapes4 4xhsch arise exclusively under the
ad awsSof the United States, this court,
under the Constitution ADD laws of the United States has
the righttn autbority ftallyto decide And if look
beyond these Questions, come to the consideration
Of the laws Of Missouri until displaced by statute
not alleged TO or do not require the status of the