The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-20
The Polndsxtsr Slave Case.

The POindextsr Slave Case.
eUPRgNI COURT or 0aIO.
Hon. T. w. Barley, Chief Justice; Hon J. X Swan Hen
J. Brinkerhos, Hon. O. Bowen and Hon J. Scott, justices
FRIDAY, May 9, 1887.
John Anderson w. Henry Pondexter ana others. Error
70 the District Court Of Clermont county.
Bowen, delivered the opinion Of the Court holding:
mat neither ONO nor Kentucky can demand An alb
roeston OF the constitution and municipal laws OF tho
other a. matter OF comfy and IL person claimed ~
slave Kentucky, comes into Oh by the direction or
cons. nt oil his owner, even for Temporary bwin per
Pse the constitution and laws OF Ohio operate the
itop Of such person, and effect his immediate emanopa
@ When person held in slavery by municipal law
OF the State which he lives becomes free by virtue
Of the another country or State into which he gos
py NE consent OF his owner, not in the power OF the
latter ever to reduce him again to his former condition
servude under any law which this court can recognise
g. BY laws Of Kentucky, n person sho n held and
u,Med as slave has no capacity 10 make any contract
Whatever, and promrsory notes given tn his master by
himself and sun cites for him. In the purchase of his FREQ
com, are Illegal and void, Az TO both principal and
BARLEY On. j. dissenting from some of the views ex-
pressed IN the opinion Of the majority of the 70
one OF inc gounas OF the decision based his conclusions
in the case upon the following points
list That althor Oh the removal OF negro slave from
Kentucky into Ohio for the purpo Of residence change
Of domc has the effect TO emancpate the Save ye, by
the comfy Of nations and the still higher obi. atoms rest
Ing on the people of the several States of the
Union in the free eocia intercourse With
each other authorized by the constitution Of the United
Sstea negro held as slave In Kentucky does not be
come free by simply passing through Ohio journey
with, by permission of his master in this case
by SEEING sent GRAND into Ohio and returning mme
da,ely into Kentucky and this comfy between State,
and nations cannot be construed To infringe the funda
mer tai and local law of domicil Of either State.
I'd That the contract in this case being every other
In Kentucky, where, by the LEGAL law as expounded by
the courts Il that State slave does not become free by
simple sejourn iere in free State, could not have
been hout sdefh ion on the ground that Pondextor
was free at the time he gave the note.
On the other points, 10 sit
LIST. That Ponde1er, under the laws Of Kentucky, be-
ing slave, had no legal ca pacy to make contract with
b master and I'd, that the mere execuory promise Of
Anderson to Pondexter free future PERIOD being
wholly void by the laws of Kentucky was not legal and
valuable consideration for the notes. the CHIEF Justice
CURED with the majority of the Court in the judgment for
the defendants.
JUDGE BRINKERHoFF's OPINION.
Bril- kerhon J-For the reason that the principles in
garded with general and peculiar interest, win depart
from the ordinary usage Of the court briefly 70 state
separately the grounds which place my concurrence
In the judgment we are about to enter.
The case made in the pleading and proof s this
Henry PoindeXter, held ~ slave in Kentucky, execu
ed, together with his co defendants as suretes, 70 the
painf, Anderson, who claimed legal right 70 hold him,
the promlsory note sued on in the Common Pleas Of
Clermont county in this State in consideration OF which
no,e and otherr the plaintiff agreed to- and did release
Poindexer from the slavery in which he was held, and
promising to give ham his "fIee papers or deed
notes given at the same time and for the same consid
GRAFTON, should be fully paid Before the giving Of these
notes. PondeXter, with the knowledge and consent and
sometimes by the direction OF Anderson, had 10 several
instances into the State OF Ohio and after remaining
voluntarily but probably in ignorance Of his rights,
turned Kentucky and resumed his residence with An
derson After the giving Of the notes. Pondexter abored
while for Anderson for wages, and then took up his
residence In Ohio
The case IN the Common Pleas was submitted to the
court for trial and judgment was rendered for the de-
fen dants The plaintiff then appealed TO the District
Court which ao gave judgment for the defendants Aud
to reverse that Judgment this petition in error prose-
cuted.
Two questions properly arise in this case
l. II is contended for the plaintiff that the case, by the
OF States be determined by tho
1 loci eotydas and that by the laws OF Kentucky where
Inc note SUED Cd M ho ssSs ~ .ha. do NOT
admit what the contrary, deny, that the ls loci
70 decide the validity Of tho note, how then stands the
Under the laws OF Kentucky slave Is incapable OF
contracting, lie can hold no property. He can &C
qure rights His natural domestic relations even
ignored He has not right TO the child he has
bego,ien TO nurture it, nor TO the wife he has chosen
OF those laws, the slave belongs 10 the pro.
pery and descends to his heirs real estate No contract
Increase the liabilities Of the one, the Of the
other. contract Of emancipation imparts 70 the save
legal right and imposes pom the master no legal ob
CATION. IL Simply nueaa ana void Inc promise OF
tract, is NULL Being null when made, no subsequent act
Of emancipation he part Of the master can mpart 10 It
any force II thus results logically, from the theory
OF the slave code OF Kentucky that the note which the
| plaintiff seeks 10 enforce here invalid there
And moreover. by chapter 49, article OF the Revised
Statutes Of that State and which seems TO be still In force
emancipation, except by deed or last will and testament,
So that the Legislation Of Kentucky Pondexer has
never yet been legally emancpaed and thereby rendered
But were otherwise, ooud this note be enforced by
judicial procedure In Ohiof By tho laws OF nature all
persons are free No human being is born or can be
born sslave The laws by stretch Of courtesy, Called
OF particular countries or States may subject certain
be held and treated the mere transferable In
srumenn OF other persons and this subsection, which
constitutes slavery originating In force and fraud and up
held by local laws which adopt and sanction tho original
wrong may attach Immediate amer birth IA the effect OF
positive law In derogaton of natural right But still 1t re-
that the absolute and equal freedom OF all
birth Il fundamental principle OF American ins
tutions, proclaimed with independence and incapable OF
abrogauon. This principle was by the ordinance OF 1884,
impressed on the soil OF Ohio before there orga
nizcd community within her limits; "a fundamental In
her organ Zauon-always bodied In her consu
her laws her policy, and the Convictions the mora and
the religion Of her people, instinct with iB spirit
The moment any person within the territorial
limits OF Ohio, bis personal rights asceraned and do
ternined by the constitution and laws Of Ohio There
exception " this rule In the OF q person,
who, being held 10 service In another sae escapes into
this In such case, the constitution Of the United StAcs
dsclAres that the fugitive shall bs delivered upon claim
Of The party whom such service labor may DO due"
There nothing In this article OF compact which gives
'sy sanction 70 that slavery, the essential elements Of
which asserted property la man-no,hiug inconsistent
with the purposf the trainers Of that constitution clearly
avoid AM reooSnitIop % the des that there NAV be
property In man I'D Madison Papers, ,l2p, 30.
establishes no rule which does no, apply equally 70
the broad and general relation OF nacr and servant
but has nothing whatever 70 do with Tie relation Of owner
when therefore, a person held as a dave In another
State escapes into this state he ceases TO be, any proper
sense Of tho word, slave. And the courts of Ohio,
prebend, would decline 10 recognize enorce any con-
tract OF purchase sale, wherever made, OF which he
might be the subject while thus within our limits. Tho
relation OF subsection property created by the local
law OF the State he has le, cannc follow beyond the
limits OF the sovereignty which es,ab he'd H. In Ohio no
Is man, liable, II may be, 70 be delivered up on due
claim and proof, but yet man. person held 70 SER
vice." and in every other respect than this free man.
when delivered up, and taken back 10 the State
from which he escaped, tho relation Of slave may
attach under the local lay. Until then, subject only
10 this liability, he remains free.
In the before this court there was no escape
from Kentucky into Ohio Pondexter came into Ohio
several with the consent by the ordcr OF the
plaintiff So coming he became entitled 10 the full bcnnt
OF tbs express prohbiuon OF slavery by our STATE
constitution. To all intents and purposes wbatso-
soeyer he was free bis condition and status
that OF a freeman; his master, by oon.enuns 70