The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-07-20

e enjoyment of them. He is entitled to the beuefi
extent, except far it is denied by our decIar
ed policy. "The intimate union Of these States
Q says the Supreme Court Of the United States
Gas members of the same great political family
8 the deep and vital interests which bind them :,
closely together; should lead us, in the absence O
proof to the contrary to presume greater degre,
of comfy and friendship and kindness towards on,
| another than should be authorized to presume
between foreign nations. And when Gas without
} doubt must occasionally hsppen) the interest OIL
policy Of any State requires it to restrict the rule
il has but to declare its will, and the legal pre-
sumption is at once at an end. But until this IL
done, upon phdt grounds could this Court refuse ID
administer the lao Of International comfy bet,eeen
these States They are sovereign States and the
history Of the past and the events which daily
occurring furnish the strongest evidence that they
have adopted towards each other the Jaws of COM
ity in their fullest extent" Bank of Augusta vs..
Earle ID; Peters, 5-l9, $50.
Suppose free negro of another State is abduct-
ed and brought into this State and held in slavery,
his property il taken and brought into this State
or right belonging TO him in this State is with
held. Has he no remedy FOR suoh . wrong? He
has violated no declared policy Of this State and
rs to his personal liberty he claims the benefit of
our law which provides that any person in thss
Slate who shall conceive himself or herself illegal
iy detained as slave in the possession Of another,
and claiming his or her freedom, shall proceed by
petition in the Circuit Court" BE. Hutch. Code,
523. TO-.
Yet he is told that he has been emancipated
contrary to policy, and is entitled to no rights
here, and must, therefore, continue slave. He
| seeks remedy by law for his property which has
been unlaWfully taken from him and brought into
this State, or is unjustly withheld from him here,
claiming the benefit Of the Woyision Of our Con-
due course Of law for any injury done him in his
person or his property. Article l. sec. IA.
He is told that he is olaia,c and not "person"
entitled to sue here although the statute just re-
ferred to designates him as ga person capable of
| suing to obtain his.freedom in our Courts. He is
said to be alien enemy to State If so, there
is restraint in our law against taking his life.
| be is entitled to no protection under our laws !;
and under the opinion of the majority Of the Court
as he occupies the position of an alien enemy and
is entitled to no rights or protection here except
such as are positively conferred by our laws and
4 none such are conferred he must be regarded as
| an alien enemy was by the barbarian rules which
prevailed in the dark ages, and which the majority
of the Court sanction as still in force; and by Yir
tue of those rules any man here has the right to
Kill him as public enemyt
It seems to me that the doctrine which debars
such q person of o remedy in our courts for such
rights are not in contravention Of our declared
policy, cannot be justified upon principles of JUS
| tice, humanity or sound law. The right which he
seeks to enforce, is not forbidden by any law or
declared policy Of this State 10 this State and
that of which he is subject, were foreign nations
under treaty of peace and friendship, the denial
of such right here would, upon principles of pub
lie law, be. just cause of war. Vattel, book 2
II, $50. But the States are bound together by
much stronger ties than those created by treaty.
They are component parts of a national Confede-
racy; and though each is sovereign in itself, yet
each is under the most sacred obligations, arising
| from the nature of the compact, to protect the
rights Of the inhabitants of another State secured
by the laws of that State, when it may be neces-
sary, withinh her limits to the extent that it is not
| forbidden by her Constitution or laws or plainly
| prejudieial to the public interest.
It is capital erSpr to suppose that the rule of
international comfy has any reference to- or is at
all affected by, the particular domestic condition
Of the sHdirdual citizen subj ct of the foreign
State 1t proceeds entirely from respect to the ma
tion of which the person. whose individual right is
involved, is member; and as that State owes its
citizen subject protection in his legal rights at
home, arising under her laws, the foreign State
within whose limits those rights may be involved
is bound in comfy to that State, to extend to him
the same protection which the State of his ALE
glance him, unless inconsistent with her de-
clared policy. Yattel, book 2, sH-S1. Nor has
the State in which such right may be sought to be
enforced, any right, in such case, to enquire into
the question whether the status allowed to the in
dividual by his own State be right and proper ac-
cording to the views of the State where the right
may be claimed for it is manifest that this would
be such Interference with the peculiar privilege
of the State would inevitably destroy all peace
full intercourse. TO the nation alone belongs the /
settlement of tharquestion for herself and her eit
zens SUBJECTS and it is settled by her, 50 is
it treated, and the rights flowing therefrom res
pected, by all friendly nations or States. Vattel,
book 2, 54-55. Wheat. Inter. Law, 1872.
These considerations are applicable with pecu- /
liar force to the relations subsisting between the
States of this Confederacy. Each State is bound /
to respect and protect within her limits the rights
to which any person residing in another State of
this Confederacy, may be entitled by the laws of
that State, unless clearly interdicted by the laws
and policy of the State where they may be sought
to be enforced This results necessarily from the
ma IIre af he mir he lin.
eighty of the States and from the high duty of
each State to protect the rights of her people
against the violence of other States: and if this
principle is denied, this Union is the frailest and
most imperfect of human fabrics.
The sacred duty-to respect and enforce the
rights Of residents Of other States secured to them
by the laws of those States-can never be destroy
ed whilst the Confederacy continues, by the fact
that the State under which the right is claimed
has been recreant to her obligations to the COM |
pact which binds the States together. If their |
Courts of Justice have been prostituted to the pur
poses of anaticism and awlessness that is no rea-
SON why We should descend from eur elevated |
position superior to such influences follow their
unworthy example, and make this Court the medi- |
um of propagating our political theories upon the
same subject Whilst the Confectionery continues, |
we cannot justify ourselves State in violating
its spirit and principles because other States have,
in some respects, been false to their duties and
esifgztions. it may justify rs IN dissoiving the |
compact, but not in violating our obligations un-
der it whilst it continues.
Under the decisions of this Court, free persons |
of color of other States, entitled to sue in our
courts not as "citizens, in the sense Of the term
in the Constitution of the United States but as |
"saljects' or individuals" of the State in which |
they reside, except far as such right comes |
within the prohibition Of our positive law or de- |
clared policy; and this under the rule of comfy |
above stated. Shaw VS.. Brown, and Leiper vs..
Hoffman, above cited.
But this Court has gone further, and recognized |
the right of suit in our Courts in free negro of
this Sate-a class of persons coming fully within |
the alleged policy, denying all rights to the free |
negro, except such as are expressly granted.
In Benoit vs.. Brill S. H., 80, Benoit, free |
man Of eolor-to whom the Legislature had relin- |
quished the claim Of the State by escheat, to the
property of his natural father, Barnard Benoit de-
ceased-fled his petition for distribution of his
fathers estate. The administra tor answered de- |
nying that he was free man of color, and alleg- |
ing that he was a slave and the property of the |
estate. The Court held that he was q free person |
of color, and his petition was sustained. 1t must
be takeE that he was legally in this State-yet no
power is conferred upon him to sue, and according
to the doctrine of the majority of the Court free
negro here elsewhere is entitled to no such right
unless positively granted.
The rule to be deduced from the case is that |
free negroes must be embraced thin the general
provisions of Constitution and statutes recog-
nIziHq rights IN persons unless excepted, or ex-
cuded by clear implication and that free negroes
who permitted to reside here, have such rights
and protection under laws. Otherwise the |
strange spectacle would be presented of class of
persons permitted by law to reside in this State,
but incapable of carrying on any business reqnir-
ing dealings with our citizens in order to their
support, or of acquiring any property, bat Subject
to be robbed at the pleasure Of any plunderer,
without remedy for its recovefy-thus authorizing
their residence here, but virtually depriving them
Of the means of support, and forcing them 10 SUBJ
sist by plumber and crime.
doctrine leading to such results cannot be |
sound and it appears to me contrary to the plain
nf n ting han, 10 1
free here and to remain here, and 10 the spirit of
our statutes and constitutional provisions. For |
the statute above cited plainly gives them the |
right TO sue for their freedom under the designa-
ton of "persons," and the Constitution extends
to all @persons" the right of suit and of protec-
ton In their persons and property by due of
law.
The fundamental and controlling idea upon !
which property in slaves rests is the right Of dbae
late disposition and this Is paramount to- any
question as to how in whose behalf the right J
shall be exercised
That right SO far as it refers to the disposition
Of the person of the slave, is unlimited, except as
it is restricted by regulations Of positive law. The
restrictive policy declared by this State IL lin
tied to emancipation Of slaves in this State to take
affect here or elsewhere. But II does not extend
10 removal out Of this State and emancipation
there, and could not, for want Of power TO carry
but any such policy 1t would be contrary 10 all |
reason and principle for us to attempt to establish
any law or policy prohibiting the owner in this
ob0eS
and manamitting him there to reside there and
for the same reason, we have one-interdcting the
removal to Ohio for manumission and residence
here. Our abstract opinions are, that such
course is impolitic; but such opinions have not
been established as policy. Our policy, as State,
aas no reference whatever to free negroes out of
he State, except to prevent them from coming to
his State and residing here. tits based upon the
ame principle as all our domestic policy; having
reference to our own internal welfare and protec-
ion and to the promotion Of the morality and
happiness of society. The same policy prohibits
he importation of pauper infants, lunatics, va
rants or aliens into this State, and also subjects
ome of those persons to penalties yet it would
carceIy be said that, If persons Of that character
yere residents of other States, they would not be
Untitled to sue in our Courts for legal rights here
So our domestic policy has been strongly against
,anking in this State yet no one would contend
hat foreign Bank might not sue in this State I
lpon any legal right acquired in another State.
These things, though contrary to policy Of q
Domestic character, contemplated by our laws, are
lot within their prohibition, because our laws
ave reference solely to the prevention of the mis-
hief within this State.
Thus We perceive the error and the danger Of
akine a reason upon which policy % declared
y statute Is supposed to be founded-which sup
,ostion j. necessarily uncertain and problematical