The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1859-07-16

poi taus koas tuS pCOpic Va AoWa shUuiO
understand the legal opinions Of these
candidates on this question, because the
fact that case, involving precisely the
main point which was made the most
prominent in the bred Scott decision
was at one time brought into our Courts,
proves it may be 30 again. The people
should understand whether Judge Ma
son and Wilson adhere to the legal opin.
ions which they expressed some yeurs
ago on the Bench, or whether they up.
hold what the Iowa Democratic Platform
declares is the true law and doctrine. -
The decision which gave these Judges
an opportunity Of expressing their legal
opinions on an important point, was de-
livcrsd by Judge Mason twenty years
ago. Then the Democratic party was
not pro, slavery party, 1t was as much
opposed to the extension of slavery over
free territory as is the Republican party
at this day. The decision Of the Judges
Of the Supreme Court Of Iowa, Of which
Mason aud Wilson were members, Great
ed no excitcmeLt, simply because at that
time all parties and all statesmen and all
intelligent legal gentlemen, regarded it
as a doctrine so patent as not to be at all
disputablc. Times have changed since
then. A new party, but calling itself
Democratic, is now maintaining that this
and certain other opinions which may
initiate against the extension of slavery,
are opposed to law and the Constitution.
We believe even they have not yet dared
maintain that it is opposed to Right, Jus.
tce and Freedom.
In 1889, when Mason and Wilson were
U. s. Judges, aud good Dcmocrats,a case
came before them Cor adjudication, which
is thus explained by the Times. 1t in
volved the question of the validity of the
Compromise Act Of 1920 for the admis-
sion of Missouri, and the sovereignty of
Congress over the Territories. Ralph, a
slave, was owned and held in Missouri
by one Montgomery. BY written agree.
ment with the master, the slave was per-
mitted to come into the Territory Of
Iowa, and work in the lead mines at Du-
buque, the latter STIMULATING to pay $3.50
with interest, from January l, 1885,. as
the price Of his freedom. Having failed
to fulfill the conditions of the contract,
he was arrested by Montgomery as fu-
gitive from slavery, taken before JUS
tice Of the Peace, and a precept issued
for bis delivery to the claimant, aud his
transportation to Missouri, 4 writ Ct
hnbeas corpus was, however, issued by
the Judge Of the Third District, (Hon.
I. s. Wilson, aud the proceedings
transferred to the Supreme Court upon
all sgreed state Of facts, the subs lance of
which We have already stated. The case
was argued by David Rorer, Esq, of
Burlington, for the slave, and Messrs.
Learned & Berry for the master. The
opinion Of the Court was delivered by
Mason, Chief Justice, and concurred in
by Messrs. Wilson and Williams, the
Associate Judges. The points of it were,
that in accordance with the Act of Con.
gress Of 1920, all that portion of the old
Louisiana Territory lying North Of shir-
ty-slx degrees and thirty minutes Of
North latitude, and embracing the Ter
| ritory Of Iowa, was free: that the slave
Raj phi, emigrated from Missouri to Iowa.
not as fugitive, but with the voluntary
consent Of his owner; that although he
had not fulfilled the conditions Of his
! bargain, yet he was under the same obi
cation to fulfill the engagement, as though,
instead Of its being the price of his free
dom, the debt had been incurred for the
purchase of any other sprecies Of proper
ty. Il, is debt" said the Chief Jus.
tice, (Which he ought tn poy, but for the
non payment Of which no man in this
Territory can be reduced to slavery In
arguing tho validity Of the Act Of 1890.
he said "Coagrcss possesses the supreme
pouer 0, legislation IN relation to the
1err7tortrs, and its right to prohibi,
slavery, at least in relation to slaves sub.
seGuently introduced, is doubtless legiti-
mate The conclusion Of the opinion
exhibits so much resemblance to modern
Republieanism tina. we copy it entire:
" Could the claimant in this case re-
tain the custody and control of the petit.
TONER without invoking the aid of our
laws, and without their violation, We
certainly should no. interfere to prevent
him. But when he applies to our tri.
bnnalstor the purpose Of controlling, as
property, that which our law. have de-
clared shall not be property, it is incum-
bent on Them to refuse their co cooperation,
When, in seeking to accomplish his 90.
jeet, he illegally Restraints human being
Of his liberty, it il proper that the laws
"hich shouid ertend equal protection to
men of ALL coLoRs and conditions,
should sxer, their remedial interpositon.
We think, therefore, that the petitioner
should be discharged from all custody and
eopstraint, and be permitted to 90 free
while he remains under the protection Of
our laws"