Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1857-05-22
FREEDOM AND sLAvEzY-THr PouDUrxn

tracts entered into by the slave while
under the control of his master, which |
has recently been decided by the Su-
preme Court of Ohio, is exciting some
attention in various quarters, and has,
as might have been expected, drawn |
from the party journals on both sides,
structures in conformity with their
respective allegiances. The decision
of the Court was delivered by Judge
Bowen, and has not been published.
A concnrring opinion by Judge BRIN-
KERHoFy, appeared in the columns Of
papers here and in Columbus; and
an opinion dissenting from some of
the views expressed by the majority
of the Court, was delivered by Judge
BARLEY. The facts of the case, as
stated by Judge BRfNKERHoFF, were
as follows:
Henry Poindexter, held as a slave
in Kentucky, executed, together with
his odefendents as sureties, to the
defendent Anderson, who claimed a
legal right to hold him, the promisso-
ry note sued on in the Common Pleas
of Clermont County, in this State, in
consideration of which note, and 9TH
ers, tho plaintiff agreed to and did
release Poindexter from the slavery
in which he was held, and promising
to give him his free papers, or
deed of emancipation, so soon as
this note, and other notes given at
the same time and for the same con-
sideration, should be fully paid. Be-
fore the giving of these notes, Poin-
dexter, with the knowledge and con-
sent, and sometimes by the direction
Of Anderson, had, in several instan-
ces, come into the state Of Ohio, and
after remaining a short time, in doing
the errands on which he was sent,
had voluntarily, but probably in ig-
norance Of his rights, returned into
kentucky and resumed his residence
with Anderson. After the giving Of
the notes, Poindexter labored awhile
} for Anderson for wages, and then
took up his residence in Ohio.
Both in the Common Pleas and in
the District Court, judgment was
) rendered for the deficient, which to
} reverse, petition in error was prose-
cuted in the Supreme Court. The
, points decided in the opinion Of the
majority Of the Court are set down
for publication by the official reporter
as follows
, l That neither Ohio nor kentucky
, can demand an abrogation of the
! Constitution and municipal laws of
the other, as u matter of comfy; and
il person, claimed as a slavein Ken
{ lucky, comes into Ohio by the direc-
ton or consent Of his owner, even
( for temporary business purpose, the
Constitution and laws of Ohio oper-
} ate on the condition of such person,
: and'efiect his immediate emancipation
r 2 When person held in slavery by
the municiple law Of the State in
which he lives, once becomes free by
: virtue Of the laws of another country
. or State into which he goes by the
, consent of his owner, il is not in the
7 power Of the latter ever TO reduce
him again to his former condition OF
servitude, under any law which this
ttiii itbOSitiLC 40 Ndiias
7 3 BY the laws Of Kentucky, a per.
, son who is held and treated as slave
= has no capacity to make any contract
whatever; and promissory notes Civ.
en- 70 his mastor by himself and sure
ties for him, in the purchase of his
g freedom, are illegal and void as tc
( both principle and sureties.
The refusal of the courts Of Ohio
q TO enforce contract between master
|. and slave in Kentucky, made upon
' condition of emancipation, strikes us
as perfectly legal and proper. 1t il
n indeed, nothing more than the recog
milton of the lee loci--the law under
= which the contract was executed, o.
q which neither party has the right Il
: complain. Had the defendent, con,
4 tinuing in Kentucky, executed hi'
Q part of the obligation TO the last far
!. thing. he could not under the law,
/ Of that State have enforced a cores
\ ponding execution as against th,
!. other party. In the words of Judg,
n BRINKERHoFF:
= Under the laws Of Kentucky, {
= slave is incapable Of contracting
n He can hold no property.-He car
!. acquire no rights. His natural domes
tic relations even are ignored. He hal
. nota right to the child he has begotten
n TO nurture ii, nor to tho wife he hal
n chosen and cherished TO protect her
) According to the theory of those laws
/. the slave belongs TO the master n
O property, and decends TO heirs as rea
O estate. No contract can increase tn,
# liabilities Of one, or the power Of the
- other. A contract Of emancipation
" imparts to the slave no legal right
and imposes on the master no lega
n obligation. IL Is simply nugatory
/ and void. Tho promise Of slave I,
n pay monoyin consideration Of such ,
n contract, Is null. Being null wher
|. made, no subsequent act of enamel
# patton on part Of the master, can i'm
part 10 IL any new force. IL thus 70
n suits logically from the theory OF th,
! slave code Of kentucky, that the not,
i which tho plaintiff now socks 10 en-
o force here was invalid there. Ant
Q moreover, by chapter 90, article 9, o.
n the revised Statutes Of that State
/. and which seems still 10 be In force
!. emancipation, except by decd, or last
' will and testament, executed in con
!. iormity TO It's provisions, is prohib
$ tied. SO that under the Legislature
!. of kentucky, Poindexter has never
been legally omancipated and thore.
: by rendered competent TO contract
9 On. Com.
-----<-ssN~e---
4 HOW TO KILL CATTERprLLARs.
A correspondent Of the Cincinnati Com
| .,ereS.y sava. u Noxv IA the time 10 DESTROY