The Washington union., 1857-06-04

that on returning TO Missouri, the laws OF Illinois
were left behind and not carried thither, and have
effect there. If the defendant could not carry the
laws of Missouri with him the plaintiff could not
those of Illinois or Wisconsin Upon this principle,
the laws of each State would fall from the citizen at
its boundaries, to be resumed there upon his return
Ownership of property would depend upon locality
and not upon rights resting upon acquisition of title
In journey from Texas TO Maine and back they
might be lost and reinstated many times; the owner
performing act but pursuing a lawful journey.
Upon this principle the ship carriage we have
built the have constructed, or the Bibles
we have printed or bought in New Hampshire, may
cease to be ours in Connecticut, become ours again
in New York, be lost to us in New Jersey, and re-
stored in Pennsylvania. Collinss steamers might
to be his in liverpool by the laws of England,
and be restored by those Of New York. The title
of George Law gallant boats might be nullifed by
the laws of Texas, and become his under those of
Louisiana. The emgrant might be deprived of his
title to his team, and perhaps be deprived of his
wife and children, by Mormon or other laws, before
finishing his intended journey The right Of an Ameri
citizen to his property depends upon no such
principle. His title to whatever he owns can only
be Invested, in the words of the constitution, by
'.due process of law" by regular judicial proceed
ings, and not by legislative enactments If title
to property rests solely upon the laws of State
where it has its origin, such laws, in legal effect,
create contract between the owner and the State,
that it shall remain his until he legally transfers
or abandons his claim; and statute Of that or
fvin yio
provision which forbids the States to pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts" A State which
passes law comforting rights to property, it has
ever been held cannot enact another impairing the
obligation rights thus created This is the reason
why the charters of corporations cannot be taken
away by legislation when the power to do is not
reserved The title to property lawfully acquired,
although its voluntary transmission may be regulated
by local rules, rests upon the common law of
the world. If it is movable, it continues in the
owner, wherever such property goes, whether to
China, Japan, Sweden, England Mexico, or America.
Everywhere the title will be valid, even though
there may be law for its protection, the appro-
pirate tribunals may have jurisdiction or be forbid
den to extend their aid for such purpose. An Eng
ish merchant may own his opium in China, although
its introduction is forbidden by express law until it
is forfeited under its police laws. A law by Kansas
declaring that Connecticut clocks should cease to be
the property of the owner entering that Territory
would be nullity, and the title remain unaffected.
The title to every article sent or received by our
ships remains perfect everywhere, and we send our
ships-ofwar to compel all mankind to respect it.
The same rule governs upon the western plains and
Rocky mountains, even among the hunters and trap
pers, and is often respected among savages
The suppositon of different rule has resulted
from assigning an illogical and wrong reason for
right and proper act. When anowner becomes fully
domiciled with his slave in free State that act does
not divest the former of his property In suit for
freedom this fact might be proved evidence, not
of the conclusive effect Of State law upon the own
er's property, but as tending to show manumission,
and, standing by ITSELF might be deemed conclusive
The natural presumption arising from these facts
would be an intention to manumit, but il might be
repealed by proof of transient visit temporary So
lourn shpwreck, or other repelling circumstances
and certainly proof that the slave returned with the
owner to a slave State would be conclusive against
the former 1t is error to suppose that the laws
of the free States confer freedom upon slaves coming
within their limits. They have no power to do So
But they can and often do, Immediately or periods
more or less remote, refuse the owner the use of
their courts and officers to aid in their apprehension
return and thus in effect render them free so far
it depends upon the laws and agency of the State
1t is conceded by all that the constitution recog-
nises slavery, by providing that 'no person held to
service labor in State under the laws thereof
escaping into another, SHALL in consequence of any
law regulation therein, be discharged from such
service labor but he shall be delivered up on the
claim of the party to whom such labor or service
may be due" This not only declares the rights of
the owner, but imposes duty upon the States how
far now complied with their laws and the history of
the times will show. The States are nowhere clothed
with power to legisate upon the title to property
sanctioned and protected by the laws of other States
and acknowledged as such in the constitution Tho
recognition of the title to slaves by that instrument
demonstrates that it did not intend to allow the States
to destroy such ttle by annuing contract or other
wise. The assumption that, in respect to title and
the evidence upon which it passes from the owner,
there is radical difference between different kinds
of property, all alike recognised by the constitrl-
ton and laws, can have no foundation in right or
law. When Lord Mansfield discharged Somerset.
claimed in England as q slave he in effect simply