Delaware State journal and statesman., 1864-02-02

planning the master had illegally imprisoned
'hem, and the judgment Of the court was one
cent damage against the master for The impris-
onment. The question really involved Was
Ieeuom or slavery. The law vested freedom
the court autheuicated it. In other words, the
operation Of the law was that the act of bringing
negro across the line invested him with his
leeuom That it deprived the master Of his pro-
perry and invested the negro with the right 10
oue 'ne man LOT the wrong committed by cOntin-
uihg 10 hold him. That has been Rdjudged
again and again by the courts of Virginia, and
py tne courts Of Maryland and though wrlis of
error have more than once carried such cases in
this District to the Supreme Court. tbat tribunal
never dreamed that this was a forfeiture of pro
perry without due process of law II gentlemen
VIII take the trouble to run through the volumes
OF the supreme Court reports, they will find
several cases; one so recent as 2 Howard, in
winch that form OF proceeding was recognized as
competent mode in which to assert the right
oil freedom, which was a forfeiture of the mas
ters right The man who was slave on the
otner SIDE OF the line became freeman by being
Drought on this side Of the line; his master was
NOT indicted, nor was his freedom consequence
oil the convldion of nor of Judgment against his
master, but eaaauired his title to freedom by the
act OF the Consress of the United States,
ating it,
Congress, during the ADMINISTRATION Of Mr..
efterson, think, in organizing the territories
y Louisiana and Mississippi, in like manner
oroade the introduction of slaves from abroad.
nd freed them when introduced by the master.
Iud II we are TO be told that this was antique
ssislation, and not fit for the light of these
lodern days, ask gentlemen to read the com.
romise measures Of 1850 brought in BY the
lustrious kentuckian Henry Clay, and passed
Congress which thought fondly they had
'erted the agony that we now Writhe under.
i them read the law forbidding the slave trade
inc District of Columbia, where the hand of
enry Clay traced the words of forfeiture
II II any slave should be brought into this
strict by its owner, contrary to the provisions
the act, he should Mereupoa become liberated
NOW mat covers all the oOnfscation acts Of
last Congress. II is wholly imtnateriaI
e.ner 1t relates 10 land or personal property.
lether you forfeit lands or negroes. The for
.ure ! Oh siaves would even meet the technical
Jecuon OF the gentleman from Ohio because
lnerly in Virginia, as everybody knows slaves
re- real estate, not personal estate, passing to
heirs, and not to the executors and il ia
y oil late years that they have been treated as
sonal estate, though in the widows share Of
IN the traces Of their real character still re.
10 visible Now the question that is involved
ne conhscaton law, is not whether attainder
work corruption of blood affecting the heirs;
course it cannot it is not whether attainder
operate forfeiture OF lands descending after
death Of the attainted person nor whether
litalnder is confined to carving life estate
forfeiture out OF fee; that is not the ques.
The question is whether by other process
aw not connected With indictment Of the per
not following upon Attander, the United
es Government can say that those who have
IN arms against it shall forfeit their proper
aud that the tribunals of the county shall
rec It en- Tsm5 aud mis is settled by the ira
'nal laws of the Republic.