The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-02-04
THE NATIONAL WASHINGTON, D. G, FEBRUARY 4,

ne goes wi yindica,e his right why, Is it because
saeh ano every Of these States has statute declarine
man shali have property in horses No sir
ina u.s. by the universal consent Of man
hnpos morse y he subject Of properly and when the
was made to him Il rests upon no statue and upon
no ;pscsiasen Of philosophy goes back % the earles
this broad earth and gave Il 70 man cor home He gave
i TO him 70 cultivate He filed the land with cae and
man. and He gave him this commission: Have thou do
minon over the hsh Of the and the fowls of the air
ON he eTssPn a ss
image ofGod-Ho never said, have thou dominion
him" No; He reserved that last great work. man, fol
That is the distinction II is that has beer
recognised by every writer who has written upon
where civilization has instituted cours II has been &C
knowedged by States more freely, readily more
as shall show by reference to decisions in Virginia
Maryland and Louisiana More, sir: tho doctrines O
snS o.
out dissenting voice, by the unanimous unconadictet
concurrence Of every member Of that court called the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The first authority TO which ask the attention of the
Senate on this point is the opinion Of the Supreme Cour
Pngg the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to BE-
found in 10 Peters, S94 IA Curtis 42i. The say
BY the general law of nations, nation is bound ,e
rial domnions, where it 10 in opposition its policy
and institutions in favor of the subjects of other
IL o
comfy, and not matter of international right The
state of Slavery is deemed be municipal regula
on founded upon and limited to the range of the terrific
rial laws" t-fA
The court then proceed quote several recogn
sing this principle Judge Mclean, in his opinion in tn,
bred Scott case, 10 Howard, lao, after quoting tina
authority, proceeds to say:
"There some contrariety of opinion among tn.
judges on certain points ruled in Prggs cas but there
was none in regard to the great principle that Slavery
limited the range of the laws under which il is sane
toned"
That, then, the deliberate, solemn opinion of the
court, collectively and individually The same doctrine
is recognised in Jones vanzandt, Mclean, Circu
Court reports page $780, where the learned Judge
"sI.very is local in its character II depends upon tn.
If person held to Slavery 20 beyond the Jurisdiction
where he is so held and into another sovereignty where
be he law Of States had he OF he
United States adopted regulation upon the subect
This would have been the law of the States had there
to the contrary and than that the frameSs Of the
CONSTITUTIONS each and every one of them, unders
the law They understood ne law to be- At the time o.
held 10 service or labor by virtue of the local law of the
State in which he was held and going into another State
became and to Prevent the operation of that
al pri cple, they inserted this provision
"Tha person held to service labor in one State
under the laws thereof escaping into another SHALL in
consequence of any law regulation therein be
ed from such service labor but shall be delivered ur
claim of the party to whom such service or labor
due" :
caring that should be free by going from one
State to another, if the who framed that instrument
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
and the decision of the Circuit Court which Judge
Mclean Presldes; will now read decision from Mar
Marin, SERIES 4Ol the Supreme Court of Louisiana
decided, according to the head note:
the owner of slave remove her from Kentucky to
Ohio, amino morandi, she becomes free, tpso faeto'
In the course of the opinion the court say:
eve conclude that the Constitution of the State OF
Ohio emanclpstes so faeto, such slaves whose
them State with the of residnr
there; thai the plaintiff having been voluntarily removed
into that State by her then owner the latter subms him
self with every member of his family white and black
and of the property brought with him. TO the
operation of the Constitution and laws of the State and
thst according 10 them Slavery could exist in his
houseSlavery Did not exist there, and the plaintiff
accordingly eectuay emancpa,ed, by the operation
the Constitution if by the act and deed of her former
owner"
The doctrine is also found in another opinion OF
that cour-he Supreme Court the State of ouisi
% case Wis nse s aes
abstract OF the case is:
"The fact of slave being taken to the Kingdom of
France other country by the owner where slavery
the condition of the slave and produces immediate eman-
cipation."
from Louisiana to France where Slavery prohibited
by law, the slave, fpso Jaco became free and when he
came back into Le1saus the master could not reduce
decision the Supreme Court of the United States have
deraken to say that the condition of Slavery was only in
eriy; and that when he came back TO slave State he
could be again reduced to Slavery but such is the
doctrine of the of Louisiana and such has not been
the doctrine of other courts.
have also from the Court of Appeals of the
State of Maryland, IA Harris and McHenry a1s where
appears that the petitioner stated his claim to freedom
under the laws of the State of Pennsylvana for
Maryland held that by taking slave out of MARYLAND
and carrying him into Pennsylvania, he became free He
came back and resided in Maryland but the give
0f tho fact ofh
ter carrying him into Pennsylvania, and he became free
All these decisions proceed the assumption that Sa
Now, sir have from the State of Virginia.
which think is stronger than any of those which have
read In Hunter o. Fucher, Il Leigh, III, find this
decision:
"By of Maryland of 1896 all slaves brought into
that State to reside declared free. Vrgnia-born
slave is carried by his to Maryland; the master
settles there and keeps the slave there in bondage for
twelve months the staiu in force all the me then he
judged, in an action brought by the against the
purchaser, that he Is free.n
SO that you will il is not the free States who alone
slaves when they come into their territory but as long
ago 1885, the Stale of Maryland manumted the Ell
planter went from Virginia into Maryland and resided
there with his slave until the slave became free and then
went back into Virginia. and UNDERSTOOD reduce the
slave TO his possession again. but the highest court in
Virginia held that by going into Maryland the slave be-
came Free and by going back to Virginia he did not
return to state of servitude That is the doctrine
of Virginia.
Let me state one other authority have still stronger
case. II is Fulton Lewis, Harris and John. on a
case in the Court of Appeals in Maryland:
DAT the trial, The following facts were admitted in evil
dence John Levan married man. being native and
place in July 1793 flying from disturbances which then
existed there endangerng the Ives and property of the
inhabitants, and brought with him into this State three
negroes of whom the peutoner (now appelieel is one
who he then and before owned a slave That i'm Nav
1884, he sold the petitioner, as slave 10 William GLENN,
who sold him such TO the defendant (the appellant
That said Levant arrived Baltimore August 1893
and continued to reside there until time in 1895
when he returned 10 the West Indies. The defendant
hereupon prayed the direction of the to the ury
that if they believed the facts, the petitioner no, en-
titled his freedom. This opinion the court (Sco,t
give but directed the jury upon these facts
the petitioner free The defendant excepted and
the verdict and judgment being against him. he appealed
Chief Jusice and Buchanan Nicholson, Earle, Johnson
and Martin, Justices. II IT.
"GIenn, the appellant commended that the act of
17s3 chapter o. under which the petitioner claimed his
freedom meant only voluntary Importation of slaves
and. importation arising from absolute necessity
produced by over which the owner in this case
had and could have no control"
But the judgment was affirmed, and the slave went Free
he into Mary land by tempest by
the of Providence and not by the voluntary
srngenty did the State of Marysnd construe
this right properly in slaves local right that they
determined that even when the act of God contrary 10
the of his MASTER brought The slave there be-
came see , and 50 tnsy gave e nun s his freedom
Scott case, he read dissenting opinion from the late
ruling in the State of Missouri That dissenting opinion
was pronounced by Judge Gamble, who said:
ain this State (Missonr it has been recognised, from
the beginning of the Government, correct position
law, that master who takes his slave TO reside in
State Territory where Slavery is prohibited, thereby
eman cipates his slave.n ~
Judge Curtis goes on to say
Chief Justice Gamble has also examined the decisions
of the of other States in which Slavery establish
ed finds them in accordance with these preceding
decisions ofthe Supreme Court of Missouri to which he
refers. lfi r-L
u. would be useless parade of learning for me 60
the ground which he has SO fully and ably occu
pied"
In the opinion delivered by Judge Mclean, in the bred
Scott case, he declares: tH
There is nation in Europe which considers itself
bound his q fugitive slave, under the
civil the law of nations On the contrary the slave
il held be treaty. obligation,