Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-04-09

lllC IlSul ~ DClSOlip CldllllCN DO SluNOo VIM ~
sides in Missouri, and the decision was made
by the Supreme Court of that state. 1t in
wolves right claimed under an act OF Con-
gress and the constitution of Illinois, and
which cannot be decided without the consid-
Grafton and construction of those laws. But
the Supreme Court of Missouri held in this
case, that it will not regard either OF those
laws, without which there was no case before
it, and bred Scott, having been slave, re-
mains slave In this respect it is admitted
this is Missouri question: case which has
but one side, if the act of Congress and the
Constitution Of Illinois are not recognized.
And does such case constitute rule Of
decision for the court-a case to be followed
by this court? The course of decision so long
and so uniformly maintained established a
comfy or law between Missouri and the free
states and territories where slavery was pro-
hibited, which must be somewhat regarded in
this case. Rights sanctioned for twenty-eight
years ought not, and cannot be repuuiated,
with any semblance of justice, by one or two
decisions, influenced, as declared, by deter
mination counteract the excitement against
slavery in the free states.
The courts Of Louisiana having held for a
series of years that where master took his
slave to France, Or any free state, he was. ems
titled to freedom, and that on bringing him
back the statute of slavery did not attach, the
legislature of Louisiana, declared by an act
that the slave should be made free under such
circumstances. This,r egulated-the rights Of
the master from the time the act took effect.
But the decision of the Missouri conrt, re-
versing former decision, affects all previous
decisions, technically, made on the same prin-
ciples unless such decision are protected by
the lapse of time Or the statute Of limitations.
Scott and his family, beyond all controversy,
were free under the decision made for twenty
eight years, before the case of Scott VS.. EN-
erson. This was the undoubted law of Mis-
souri, for fourteen years after Scott and his
family were brought back to that state. And
the grave question arises, whether this law
may be so disregarded as to enslave free per-
sons. | am strongl y inclined to think that
rule of decision SO well settled as not to be
questioned, cannot be annulled by a single de-
cision of the court. Such rights may be in
operative under the decision in future; but
cannot well perceive how it gave the same eff
feet in prior cases.
1t is admittsd that when a former decision
is reversed, the technical effect Of the judy
ment is to make all previous adjudicatons Oh
J the same question erroneous. But the case
before us was not that the law had been En-
roneously construed, but that, under the Cir
cumstances which then existed, that law
would not be recognized, and the reason for
this is declared to be the excitement against
the institution of slavery in the free states.
! While | lament this excitment as much as
any one, cannot assent that it shall be made
a basis of judicial action.
, In 1916, the common law, by statute, was
made part OF the law of Missouri; and
that includes the great principles of iuterna-
tlonal law. These principles cannnt be abb
rogated by judicial decisions. 1t will require
the same exercise Of power to abolish tho
common law, as to introduce it. lntorna-
, tionaI law is founded in the opinion generally
received aud acted on by civilized nations,
aud enforced by moral sanctions. 1t becomes
a more authoritative system when it results
from special compacts founded on modified
rules, adopted to the eXigencics, OF human
society it is in fact an iSternatianal morali-
81 ty, adapted to the lest interests of nations.
And in regard to the states Of this Union, on
\ the subject Of slavery, it is cminently fitted
- :. for rule CT action, subject to the Federal
: Constitution. The laws of nations are
!. but the natural rights of man applied to ma
G tons" (VutteL)
e If the common law have the force of q
statutory enactment in Missouri, it is clear
as it seems to me, that a slave who, by a res
= delce i'll Illinois in the service of his master
l. becomes entitled to his freedom, cannot agair
s. be reduced to slavery by returning to his for
II mer domci in slave state. 1t is necessary
y to say what legislative power might do by :
s, general act in such case, but it would b'
d singular if freeman could be made a slave
re by the exercise Of u judicial discretion. AnC
it it would be still more extraordinary if th
il could be done, not only in the absence o
t. special legislation, but in state where thu
lie common law is in force.
tie 1t is supposed by some that the third ar
e. ticc in the treaty Of cession of Louisiana t.
A this country, by France, in 1903, may hav
S. some bearing on this question. The artic!
lie referred to provides that the inhabitants 0
re the ceded territory shall be incorporated int
he the Union and enjoy all the advantages o
in citizens Of the United States, and in tn
Of mean time they shall be maintained and pro
e, tected in the free enjoyment Of ther liberty
of property, and the religion they profess
AS slavery existed in Louisiana at the tim
IN OF the cession, it is supposed this is guar
ri anty that there should be no change in it
en- condition.
r. The answer to this s. in the first place
IN that such subject does not belong to tn
ty treaty-making power; and any such arrange
he ment would have been negatory And, i
ne the second place, by no admissible construc
Of ton can the guaranty be carried further tina
~ the protection Of property in slaves at tina
e, time in the ceded territory. And this ha
if been coupled with. The organiza ion c
ld the slave states of Louisiana, Missouri, Al
lis kansas, embraced every slave in Lousian
DIS at the time Of cession. This removes ever
ne ground of objection under the treaty. Their
We u.s. therefore, no pretence growing out Of til
m tr atty, that any part of the territory {
We Louisiana, as ceded, beyond the organize
ry state is slave territory.
of Under the fifth head we were to conside
NJ whether the status of slavery attached t
the plaintiff and wife, on their return
is Missouri.
We This doctrine is not asserted in the lat
e. opinion of Supreme Court of Missouri, an
up to 1852 the coatrary doctrine was uu
&C. formly maintained by the court.
ne In Its late decision the court say that
as will not give effect in Missouri to the laws