The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-04-02

L
| Sithin the prohibition of the Constitution OF
| he United States. (See Whea., 629, 695, $685.
| To avoid Misrepresentation on this important
nd difficult subject, win state, distinctly, the
| exclusions at which have arrived. They are:
= First The rules of international law respect
| ng the emancipation of slaves, by the right
| al operation of the laws of another State or
| country upon the status of the slave, while
AAsident in such foreign State or country, are
art of the common law of Missouri, and have
OF been abrogated by any statute law of that
| tate.
| Second. The laws of the United States, con-
| itutionally enacted, which operated directly
N and changed the status of slave coming
ito the Territory of Wisconsin with his master,
| no went thither to reside for an indefinite
l. Myth of time, in the performance of his duties
a. an officer of the United States, had right
il operation on the status of the slave, and it
i in conformity with the rules of International
/ W that this change of status should be rec
lnised everywhere.
| Third. The laws of the United States, in
,eration in the Territory of Wisconsin at the
| time of the plaintiffs residence there, did act
| rectly on the status of the plaintiff, and
| G ,auge his status to that of free man.
| Fourth. The plaintiff and his wife were
| ,pable Of contracting, and, with the consent
Q Doctor Emerson, did contract marriage in
| t at Territory, valid under its laws and the
,lidity Of this marriage cannot be questioned
| l. Missouri, save by showing that it was in
aud of the laws of that State which cannot
b shown in this case, because the master con-
| q nted it.
Fifth. That the consent of the master that
| b $ slave, residing in a country which does not
t erate Slavery, may enter into a lawful con.
II oct of marriage, attended with the civil rights
ID duties which belong to that condition, is
| a effectual act of emancipation. And the law
| es not enable Doctor Emerson, or any one
| c, shining under him, to assert title to the
| n arried persons as slaves, and thus destroy the
| O legation of the contract of marriage, and
| b stardizs their issue, and reduce them to Sla-
Ivry.
| But it is insisted that the Supreme Court of
lssouri has settled this case by its decision in
s OFT ys. Emerson, Is Missouri Reports, 576;
al that this decision is in conformity with the
W light of authority elsewhere, and with sound
pr nciples. If the Supreme Court of Missouri
hi placed its decision On the ground that it
al peared Doctor Emerson never became dom-
eli I'd in the Territory, and so its laws could not
r htfully operate on him and his slave and
| tn facts that he went there to reside indefinite
| ly So an officer Of the United States, and that
tn plaintiff was lawfully married there, with
d, ctor Emerson's consent, were left out of
| VII W, the decision would find support in other
| ca es and might not be prepared to deny its
co rectness. But the decision is not rested on
| th, ground. The domici of Doctor Emerson
| In hat Territory is not questioned in that de-
| cis on /; and it is placed on a broad denial of
| tn, operation, IN Missouri, of the law of any
| 70, lgn State or country upon the status of a
sls re, going with his master from Missouri into
| SUI foreign State or country, even though they
| ws It thither to become, and actually became
| pc nanent inhabitants of such foreign State or
CO ntry, the laws whereof acted directly on the
| sto US of the slave, and changed his status to
thss of freeman.
% the correctness of such decision l can
| noc assent. In my Judgment, the opinion of
the jority of the court in that case is in con-
fo with its previous decisions, with great
wei hit of judicial authority in other slave
hol 1ing States, and with fundamental principles
of fivate International law. Mr.. Chief Justice
Ga sble, in his dissenting opinion in that case,
sail
~ regard the question as. conclusively set
tles by repeated adjudications of this court; and
| if rdoubted or denied the propriety of those
| dec sions, | would not feel myself any more at
| libsLty to overturu them, than / would any
othvs series of decisions by which the law upon
anYslother question had been settled. There is
witk me nothing in the law of Slavery which
| distinguishes it from the law on any other sub
| ject or allows any more accommodation to the
Temporary excitements which are gathered
| aro>nd it. 4. But in the midst of
all tach excitement, it is proper that the Judi
cial mind, calm and self-balanced, should ad-
| hereto principles established when there was
no ceiling to disturb the view of the legal aues.
ton upon which the rights of parties depend"
I" IN this State it has been recognised, from
the BEGINNING of the Government, as correct
posi- ion in law, that the master who takes his
slavs to reside in State or Territory where Sla-
j very is prohibited, thereby emancipates his
/ slav-." (Winney ps. Whitesides, l Mo-. ALB:
LIE range rs. Chouteau, Mo-, 20; Milley Us.
Smi b, Ib-, &c; Ralph us. Duncan, No, 1874;
JUL Us. Mckinney, h., 270; Nat us. Ruddle,
h., 100; Rachel rs. Walker, A Mo-, $50; vii.
son g. Melvin, 1929
Grief Justice Gamble has also examined the
deci ions of the courts of other States in which
| Slsv Try is established, and finds them in &C.
cord 1nce Wi tn these preceding decisions of the
| Supaeme Court of Missouri to which he refers.
Itwould be useless parade of learning, to
60 O er the ground which he has so fully and
ably occupied.
B, it is further insisted, we are bound to
follo,y this decision. l do not think so. In
this ase, it is to be determined what laws of
the ,nited States were in operation in the Ter
ritor OF Wisconsin, and what was their effect
on Il status of the plaintiff could the plain.
tiff tntract q lawful marriage there-does any
| law { the State of Missouri impair the obliga-
| ton If that contract of marriage, DESTROY his
right as husband, bastardize the issue of the
mar, age, and reduce them to state of Sla.
very
II csc questions, which arise exclusively un
der te Constitution and laws of the United
Stat>s, this court, under the Constitution and
laws Of the United States, has the rightful au.
thors,g finally to decide. And if we look be-
yond these questions, we come to the consider.
atioE whether the rules of international law.
whics are part of the laws of Missouri until
dispt eced by some statute, not alleged to exist,
do OF do not require the status of the plaintiff.
as Fl ed by the laws of the Territory of Wiscon.
sin, % be recognised in Missouri Upon such
a gu ,stion, not depending on any statute or To-
cal sage, but on principles of universal iuris.
pru, nee, this court has repeatedly asserted it
could not hold itself bound by the decisions of
State courts, however great respect might be
felt for their learning, ability, and ipartiality
{see Swift os. Tyson, l6 Peters r., l; Carpen.
ter g. the Providence ms. Co. h., 495 Fox.
croft rs. Mallet, How, 1853 (; Rowan Us. Run
nelle, How, l34D
Some reliance has been placed on the fact,
that the decision in the Supreme Court of Mis-.
souri was between these parties, and the suit
theirs was abandoned to obtain another trial in
the courts of the United States.
IG Homer vs. Brown, l6 How, asa, this
couss made a decision upon the construction of
d, rise of lands, in direct opposition to the
unas imous opinion Of the Supreme Court of
Mas achusetts, between the same parties, re-
spec ing the same subject matter the claimant
havi Il become nonsuit in the State court. in
orde to bring his action in the Circuit Court of
IL INIT d 0rnt +