The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-07-20
THE MISSISSfPPIAN.
The State of lEississippi---High Court
Of Errors and Appeals---April Term,
1859. .ss s.-ss :, - :

IADH
Finley Hisrn. Ez'Or. Dissenting opinion
Edward BrsdeauIt and wife. Justice Handy.
TIE frst question in this case is whether the aP;
Ana upsn that point / think there Is = clear and
very .tecidssf prepohderanee Of evidence, showing
thss she vas not the daughter Of Hall The stron-
ssrasiss,s 81 Hail. Il appears that she had been for
: -, time member Of his family, first in New
Yark md Afterwards in New Orleans; and al
thoush he called her his child n CANNON converse
IoI, and frequently spoke Of hsf e saen e andhl
tsrenr persons, ret he repeatedly declared under
~ rsast solemn circumstances that she was not MS
,biia except b his having taken her into ms IAN
Nv and supportinR, and edueating her, having no
cb;ldran hiuiseiE These declarations we're made
seriously and under sueh clscnmssances =
CONFIDENTIAL friends and to the priest o. MS
- =, Ma srscutor aud 70 the craftsmen OF his
xin. Thai are corrohorated By the reputation
among ac1uaintanees IN New York where sne y
~ - "a eircumstance Of the fmprobability Of
Ter ssne he child Of Halls wife, who Is shown %
re, hssn ehfidiess for many years after her mar
.-ge n France to Hail. and who does not appear 70
have had any other child aiser the introaneton Of
~ annsIlse into Halls family.
IN .sII-roi undue influence, under which these
l.--- 5sSi1rsfiens Of Hall were made, appears TO
be insu6ic;nt 70 destroy or impair their force
And I consider than conclusive Of the fact, that
she was not be daughter;
E1f unon lie main point considered in the opin-
inn n Is Court do not concur in the views Ia
Ken. Il does not clearly appear whether Marco
Iette Narcsau q now fssidentof this State, or Of
fon;sisas. The petition states that she was q
r,- e,oan Of coioF,r and citizen Of Louisiana
rhss ne Sas brought into this State by the APP
.lIst. ,eststor. Bat what was her place of resi-
Is.,re Il the time the testator died, CT when the
pssion vas flsd, Il does not appear. 1t is, there
er. s0t 70 b presumed that she was, at either of
,h. Fiods, IN bis State, contrary 10 cur laws
-, Z ilerst % have been citizen o. louisiana
apd the presumption i that her rights and capabiI
tiles - such continue.
Rs question tAsn, . 70 her right as free per-
an i color Of the State of Issisians, 70 take
lrTsrss Is the same IS that decided In shaw vs..
,,rs4n and upon the general question considered
"a he opinion of the Court, / have expressed nv
ness il The case Of Mitchell Wells ct the pre-
,eut Term. Upon the general grounds therein stat
ed / dissent nom the opinion Of the majority Of
TIE Court, in this case.
f6- following is the opinion Of Mr.. Justice Ham
d. relsrrsd 70 IL the foregoing opinion:
Wilson MITCHELL High Court of Errors and
49, Wen, Appeals, April Term, 1859.
eahnat concur IN the views of this ease taken
By me nsjority Of the Court. Many Of the views
tskaa 10 he opinion Of the Court have in my judg-
nsai, 1pplisstion to the questions We called
alsa y decide In the before u.s. The abstract
p5Iey Of slavery, or Of the manumission freedom
slsgea, is question not belonging TO this forum,
proper q be determined BY il. We are sitting
a. a tbeff % alfndicdfe whether an emancipated
SAVE has certain legal rights claimed by her. We
haze NO right TO establish enlarge the policy Of
thr State "A TO freedom slavery, as defined by \
the Leg stature our power is confined to deciding
~tai ths igal rsts Of parties are under the policy
- declared blythe IaW-making power; and whether 1
nat sey ID right or wrong, tooshort or too extern
isd /. answer the parposes intended, we have no /
p.,s<f =. change. modify or extend it beyond its
lItla seape-
bneHy giving my views Of the case, shall, there
lore, esnfns myself TO the question, what ia the
Lao ia rslasion to the rights Of the appellee as il
faaad in the statutes Of this State touching the
sasjsct, and IN the expositions Of this Court Of
he private rights aud public policy declared and
Sstablished b. hose statutes. In coming to q cor
fe,t conclusion upon this point, do not think it
ssSessary or proper to 70 beyond our own statutes
"a deeiaion believing that they furnish the prop
CT add most ample solution Of the subject Of en-
lairy
The Question Is WHISTLER "a person of color, once
3. meiled and slave in this State but afterwards
sgaIly removed to another State Of this confeder-
scy and there manumitted according to the laws of
hat StAss, snd residing there, can acquire or ex
srSiss any civil right whatever In this State, the
Of which does net require the residence
u individual presence Of such person in this State.
Ia the opinion of the majority Of the Court, this
question L answered in the negative; and such |
person Is held to be incapable of saeinR in our
Courts and Of asserting any right whatever which
och person nigh hare. either Of person or Of
,roPsrty, ascending % she law Of the State of his
esidsnoe.
BelisEing, As do, that the law Of this State
{ this visWs viii proceed, in very brief man
.er, 70 state the grounds Of this opinion.
In Is stated in the opinion Of the Court IS the
,redsate Of is main conclusions, that the smanei
alton Of slaves, In other States where 1t is lawful
$ not recognised By cur laws Is expounded BY cer-
ain DECISIONS Of this Court and that It Is contra
10 the policy Is established by our statutes and
declared By this Court, to allow them any rights in
his State. We will be able 10 determine the cor l
ectaess Of these positions BY an examination Of
IP-'n the subject and the decisions Of this Court
pon those statutes. Exa%s $40 4
And first In the oder Of time, is the statute Of
so. HUTCH Code 528, IS, which authorizes the
y lss. 4i!tand tesssRsHt q aeeas pRe4 pseaf ta4
be siase TO his master, or some disli stshsd ssF-
ice dOns 70 the State, subject to the sanction Of
lone 10 manumissians 10 be made. IN this State,
cd was restriction upon such acts to operate
uon slaves hare. By the first section Of the arti-
Iz Of the Revised Constitution in relation to
aves, the Legislatnre Is authorised TO pass laws
ermitting the owners Of slaves to emancipate
hem, saving the rights Of creditors and preventing
hem from becoming public charge. This pro-
isen also manifestly had reference to emaneip9- l
ions to be made, and 70 take effect, IN this State,
nd recognised the principle that the status Of free
om in the person of color might exist here with
ut a violation Of our domestic policy. In this
Dndition Of our Constitution and statute law upon
As subject, the first case inrolying the question
hieh came before this Court was Kinds Va Bra
salIe 2 How. 837. g - - $3.50
It appears, in that case, that RrazeaIle, q resi-
eat Of this State, took his slave to Ohio for the
arpose If emancipation there, and with the inten-
ion of bringing him back hare, and that hs accor-
iagly executed deed Of emancipation in Ohio,
nd Immediately BROUGHT the slave back 10 this /
is property. The validity Of the emancipation
as tbs question presented 10 this Court upon this
ate of case. The Court first lays down the rule,
that no State viii enforce contract made By its
lws' and precssds 10 show that the alleged
was made for the purpose Of taking
feet here, and was sfa eiolatioa Of lie declared
Try and eonfrurg z ils pesftire lae Of this State
'hleA policy i stated . Be- that frea negroes are
OF psrnifted 70 mnlgrate g, or remain in, this
itats are allowed fey privileges and subject to
eayy penalties for ofsnses, and were required to
cave the State within thirty days after notice
md this policy was VIOLATED By the return Of the
erson in question 70 this State from Ohio. The
LEGGED emancipation wss IN evasion Of the stat
u 1872 above referred to, placing restrictions
go the right Of emancipation and the conclusion
the Court, referring 70 the principle first laid
ave ben planned and executed with the fixed de-
lgn 70 eFade the rgor Of the laws Of this State.
ne act q the party In going to Ohio with the
ases and here executing the deed and his imme-
iAte return with them to this State, point with
herring certainty 70 bis purpose and object The
Peratien ~ cne q our own eitizens-and as the i
slidity Of he deed dspsnded. for these reasons,
Pos me h4s Of this Ssts Il Is held TO be in fraud
L IN 40 void. III
he emanelPati0n vas made In Ohio to take effect '
nd p enjoyed here, in fraud Of our laws, which
4s rn0Nn ~ the speedy fetnrn Of the slave here
eontrnEslrlc1 81 cur lars prohibiting free me-
sss: run .9igtsti1g % tbs State and that n
Understood . indicate that the tcaa ids eaucipa-
.on 4-.@ A. other States according to their | v
'us and Hit1 he intention Ct remaining there il d
enirary euy lsH rdsclzrsd poliey Of this State
any .ncn eoctrine had besn asserted, 1T weuld j
tfter dleta1. i Is ksasFsr plain that Il VAS not
ssss11 y 1.el nor intended q be and II there q
saia have tee1 dcatt on this point L would Be 4
moved p ne exflieit declaration % this Court |
- Z: -.-czl = nov 90 5o9. In thai case, i
z 7 80 ~ ce1rt, referring % ne case Of q
',ses y. tezealIe, Judge Shaker, Who deiiy- h
fsd - zFI-c1 q IA u6nFt II hat esse s55cur :
&c. - 1ee4 y sl.1siretion Haz heIi void, 4 Z,
eezq@ = c11tf4ct f5T frssd5a Il vas q 81 n. <
'nted y Azzizsippi, Nhoze lava and oolicy forbid
N the mode there attenpsed. and bccsuiss the =
'fele1t fxclzsiol into Ohio 81 the tcstator n :
n1ediAtt return into this 8tAts win TIE rlses-
his former residence, and eonfznuin1 there a
tizsn up % the p1riod Of his DEATH with ofbsr Il
rcamsencc demonstrated bis intention b sVl5e !,
Ae laws II this STATE, and commit fraud u1on 4.
heir progisionss And aEain-aTh case reSf or !,
mancipations hsFi7g been made IN Ohio in pursn :
nee Of scheme planned and executed TO eFad, 4 !
be rigor Of The la1z e State uas % Be treat
as deed ne1e n 6Is state and 70 be execute | !
ere, and therefore, clearly Toids n. !
This ease q Eoss ~. Neftner. which vas decided
the year 1870 holds th1f It e not AGAINST tha
or policy Of this State for teststor q direst
is dawes Held - this State, % Be removed 70 au
Their State where they nay Be legally freed, and
set them frss aad states that this Is in accsr
anee with The p<nsipIe Recognised ID thaacase a.
pations made slseHhers 1ad % AXE eject here Il
The case Of Wick VI. Mcdaniel How, appears
; have been N emancipation by will inthis State,
nd the slaves Afterwards to be removed beyond
us Stats and tbs bequess ras heid void because
be emancipation vas 20 take effect here and was
Fohibited b. our iaug. The sane rule Is held in L
ucksy ". Dykes, 2 s. and u. upon similar viii;
nt the rule In koGs " Feztner, IN relation to the
llidity q An emancipation b viii 70 take effect
anoth4 State, is 11I<med- 4
The next ezse Wlz Leach -. Cooley, s. and M, |,
scide5 n 1885, md sfe< the passage q the act Of