Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-12-16
Payment for Slaves.

The Baltimore American Of the 9th
inst, says:
On Saturday morning. Chief Justice
Scott filed the following opinion in
the case of Samuel r. Burlington,
trustee of Elizabeth heltOn, vs.. Annie
. l.. Davis. in which case argument was
had in Baltimore City Court on Satur-
lay, 9th ult., on the demurrer of
-, IF TO the pleas filed Dy defend
lt Pc. ~ -, iced in the american vi
This suit was brought on the l9th
l7ebrllsry, 1863, to recover tne sun -
twrlye b,'udred dollars ana iplefea,'
eIIaoad in h,' due upon the pr0ull7s2rF
49, of +ba daf. 0dsGt, made at Cnafle5-
TON : q lam y, NTch, 1861, and pay
able at eight months > ith L5'eII'i' -, -
G.. r. Brewster or Oru,@i' 0 0lo -.
endorsed, without recL NS' dos,',d -
plaintiff as trustee, etc. l." ~.
ant appeared and plead-tirst, 'lia. -
never was indebted, etc; 4; SecOnC,' ma
she did not promise as alleged; iNlu,
third, that the alleged cause OF actl,W
did not accrue within three years, etc.
q" Afterwards, with the leave OF the
Court, tine defendant fled four addl-
tional pleas, ) Gill. 9S, and the plain
tiff demurred. OF the four additional
pleas, the first alleges that the note
was given for the purchase OF a negro
man slave, which negro was set IIe9
by proclamation Of the President ut
the United States, issued on the 22d
day Of September, 1862, to take eject
on the lst OF January, 1868, whereby
the consideration for said note wholly
and entirely failed.
THE second plea alleges that the
/ consideration of the said note was the
said negro Peter, and that at the time
, of the sale of said negro the said
Brewster was in possession OF SAID
negro as trustee OF Mrs. keltOn, and
Warranted that the said negro should
J COR life remain a slave, etc, but that
/ afterwards, tO-Wit: on the 22d Sep
I tember, 1862. and 1st January, 1868,
I the Government of the United States,
through its Congress and chief eXecu-
tive officer, divested the defendant OI
all right, and pronounced the said ne
gro free, whereby she lost al power
! and control, etc, and has become
damaged to the amount OF two thous-
and dollars, and pleads the same as a
set-Off, etc.
"The third plea sets forth that the
consideration TOR the note was the pur-
chase-money Of the said negro, who
was warranted a slave for life, and
that afterwards the State Of South
Carolina, on the l7Ch March, 1868,
changed the organic law Of that State,
whereby it was ordained "that slavery
4 shall never exist in said State" where
bv she has been diVested of all right
and power, etc; and the fourth plea
charges that the consideration of the
said note was tine said negro as slave
for life. which consideration has wholly
4 failed by reason of the declaration o.
( the said State on the 30th January
{ 1865. 10 sovereign convention, that al
contracts, the consideration OF WhlGl
/ was the purchase of slaves, are null
! void and of no effect, whereby salC
| note hath become null, void, etc.
The Government Of the United
States is of limited and defined au
bOrity, having only the powers II
the Constitution granted. No author
iNr is granted to the United States
Government over the subject OF slave
~ in the several States, except tina
their importation shall not be pro
hibited prior TO the year 1908, conse
quently the proclamation OF the Pre-
ident was without authority and VOID
True, the object Of the unjust act ha
{ been accomplished, but that does no
e make il right.
"The contract between Brewste
, and the defendant is to be interpreted
3 and enforced according TO the Ter loo
? contTdctuS, 3 Gill d johnson, 244, an'
the present holder of the note sued o
) took it with notice, but the obligation
| of the contract is not affected eithe
, bv the unauthorized acts Of force @
3 4 the officials Of the United States Gov
! eminent, or by the ordinances of tn
1 | Convention OF South Carolina Of tn
4 30th January, 1868, or Of the lit
e March. 1868. When these ordinance
r were passed, South Carolina was
f state in the Union. Constitution [
r s., art. ], sec. 10.
o & If has been held by high author
A ity that no state can divest Veste
n rights without compensation, an
e such also is the law OF England,
a AdoIph d Ellis, 9S9.
k "The Supreme Court OF the Unite
If States has said that a State Legisli
# tive act divesting vested rlghts Is ne
r a violation Of the Constitution OF II
!, United unless it impairs the oollgl
d tion of a contract, IL Peters, ., ~, OF!
l. but the Supreme Court has not sal
:. that such an act was authorized.
s. clearly would not be valid in Mar.
ID land. Constitution, art. 8, sec. 40.
CT Entertaining these views, su
h tain the demurrer, and order a jury
I'd be sworn to try the issues of la
70 Joined under the first, second ar
third pleas, and assess the damages