Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-12-22

ginia cession Of the Northwest Territory Is
considered and held to be entirely unayhil-
ing against an act Of the sovereign power
Ordinance Of 1887, enacted By Congress.
prohibiting hereafter, or even entirely abel
ishing slavery. Jarrot vs. Jarrot 2 Gilm
Rep. p. /. The position which now sub
NIT strikes 1t the very foundation Of this ar
gument, independent Of any Interpretation Of
said Sd article, and presents the slavery ques-
ton as connected with Louisiana, believe,
in a new light The law of France, before
the ReYolutioa Of 1883, in respect 70 slavery
Wasl Every person Is free, as soon as be
touches the soil ofFranee." Merlin Roper
t0fis inliBsTssl d JiEisprudsles, az mos, Es-
elaUage. This principle, however, does not
seem 70 have been extended 70 the Colon les
Of France. One Of the first acts of the French
Constituent Assembly tA5ssmbIss NahOnais)
in 1889 vas the entire, unconditional and
instantaneous repeal Of the slave trade In
1898 the following law was passed The
National Convention decres that the slavery
Of negroes is d5oliehea in all the Colonies ;
it is therefore decreed that all men, tpithout
distinction ofcolor, inhabitants ofthe Colonies,
are French citizens and shall enjoy Jour
israHt, all the rights guaranteed By the Con-
stitution. Loi dHl6 PlsVoiSs, an q.
That this law was prospective as we'll as
retrospective admits Of no doubt to any one
familiar with the spirit of French legislation,
which is eminently generaliEina and strictly
logical, admitting Of no partial application
OF principle once considered as correct
Besides the word "joaironF will enjoy, shall
hereafter enjoy, makes the law prospective
by its very terms.
Considering theinterpretatiOn of this law,
as to its being prospective, OF great impor-
lance, l have consulted an eminent jurist,
residing in Europe, who received a part of
his legal education in the imperial law schools
Of Treves and Paris under the First Empire,
and who, for a number Of years, was dis
tinguished barrister and stillmore distinguish
ed Judge of the Court of Appeals, in courts,
where the Code Napoleon and the French law
generally was the law of the land. Ina writ
ten opinion now before me, be says that " it
is well understood that the law by its spirit
applied to all colonies of France whether
owned by her at the time or subsequently
aquired
While this law Of the 10th of Pluvoise, as
well as another one of similar import of the
IL Germinal, an. of the Republic, was in
force, Spain ceded, or, as it was called, retro
ceded Louisiana to France by the treaty of
ST. ndsfonso, 1st Of October, 1900 rs Veado.
maire, an. 8. This treaty was a secret treaty,
and was never fully published. 1t is not
found in the celebrated collection of treaties
by Martens. In reference to it, in his sup
Elementary publication (vol. iii, published in
1907 Martens says: 4" As far as l know,
this treaty ofSt Ildefonso has not yet been
published" That treaty had principally re-
ference to exchanges and restitution in Italy,
and what we know Of it here applying to the
cession from spain to France, is the reference
to said treaty in the cession from France to
the United States (see first article of the
treaty with France(, where the retrocession
from Spain to France is set out and called
the Sd article Of the treaty concluded at St.
Hdefonso. This same 4d article of the latter
trsoty is all that was ever published to the
world, and is found in late collection of
treaties published in Germany by Kock &
Schoell It does not contain any kind Of
stipulation in favor of the inhabitants, or the
protection of their rights France then had
full power to apply her laws over the new
acquisition.
1a Slavery was re-introd1ced into the French
colonies shortly after Napoleon became EN-
.peror of-Is04, but after Louisiana had been
ceded to the United States. .f ia lin
Louisiana at the cession was a free terri
tory. llnegroes were French citizens, and
under our treaty with France, were entitled
to be maintained and protected in the free
enjoyment Of their liberty, property, and of
of the religion they professed,
am rpeaking here merely Of the legal
status of the negroes. presume that as
France never took actual possession, the slaves
remained de tact0 slaves. But there is no
statute of Limitation to the recovery ofliberty.
II treaty stipulations are sacred, all slaves
who were is existence when Louisiana be-
came part Of the French possessions, all
born while it remained French colony, and
all their descendants, are entitled to freedom,
as no law Of Congress, nor even a State con-
could take away their rights. |
submit these remarks merely as having q
bearing on the truth of history and as being
entirely subversive of the idea that the re-
peal of the Missouri Compromise was against
treaty stipulations. have for years been
under the impression, from my general reeol-
lection ofthe history Of the times, that Louis
lana, when we acquired it, was BY law
fee territory, and have often expressed this
as my opinion; butt had but lately an op-
portunity of examining the laws ofthe French
and ofascertaining that the treaty
of S. ndefonso placed France under no restric-
ton. feel now satisfied that my original
views were correct and l beg you to give
them publicity in your valuable paper.
..E4- .-t tC. GUsTAVUs KoERNER.
BELIEyILLE, October, 1850.