Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-12-17
Payment for Slaves,
From the Baltimore Amorioon H..

From the Baltimore American. Dsco,,r.,,
On Saturday morning CHIEF T-nt -
Scott filed the following oDinion ~ .1
case of Samuel Il. Burlington, frn,tr - 'ue
Elizabeth KeltOn as. Aunie r, NJ; ~ ~
wh1cn case argument was had in Baltiron 80
Clty Court on Saturday, 9th ult. on 81
demurrer OF plaintiff to the pleas fled ' 10
QGIeHaaLt' as noticed IN the American -,
This suit was brought on the 10Th Fa,,
ruary' 1871 TO recover the sum of tweIyo
6undred dollars and interest, alleged to ho
due upon the promissory note Of fbo ~ ~ 20
PENDANT, made at Charleston. s q yD0 7 &c
March, 1861, and payable Of cigIA ,,.,1 IpEh
with interest, to G. r. Brewster. or or7d1!
and by him endorsed, without rer1r Tr>'er'
the plaintiff as trustee, sc. %
Afterwards, with the leave Of stbo Co,,..
the defendant filed four additional ,Iao',
5 Gill. 90, and the Plaintiff demurrej a.
the four additional pleas, the first aile,,Da
That the note was given for the purcb9eo
| OF negro man slave, which negro was sol
free by the proclamation Of the Prasi3nr,
OF the United States, issued on the 22l 5a,.
OF September 1862 TO take effect on t,n l..
of January 1863, whereby the couei6c,.sS
ton for said note wholly and entirely roi
ed. '''''
The seond plea alleges that the CONAN.
Grafton of the said note was the said ucrr,
Peter, and that st the time OF the gnl, 81
said negro the said Brewster was in nos
session OF said negro as trustee OF EEv
Melton, and warranted that the said uprra
should for lifetime remain a slave. g.. I'M
that afterwards, to wit, on ihe 22d OF sen
TENDER, 1862, and first OF January. 1894
the Government OF the United Slafca
through its Congress and Chief Exocutiva
officer, Invested the defendant OF all rigL+
ana pronounced the said negro free,
whereby she loss all power and control
&c,, and has become damaged 10 tL2
amount OF two thousand dollars, and p!aldq
the same as q set off, dc.
The third plea sets forth that tbe CON.
slderatlon Of the note was the purchase
money OF the said negro who was warr,n.
TED y slave Tor life, and That afterwards
the state OF south Carolina, on the l7sb
March, 1868, changed the organic law OF
tnat State, whereby it was ordained "tbat
slavery shall never exist in said State.
whereby she has been Invested of ali RIGHT
and power, &C.. 4; and the fourth plea cha
ges that the consideration OF the said note
was the said negro as slave for life, which
consideration las wholly failed by reason
OF the declaration Of the said State On the
3Oth January, 1868, in Sovereign Conyau-
ton, that oil contracts, the consideration
OF which was the purchase C. slaves, are
null, void and of no effect, whereby said
note hath become null, void, &o
The Government Of the United States is
of limited and defined authority, having
only the powers in the Constitution grant
cd. No authority is granted to the United
States Government over The subject Of
slavery in the several States, except that
theireimportation shall not be prohibited
prior to the year 1908, consequently the
proclarnationso the President was wirhcut
authority and void. True, tho object OF
the unjust act Ihasibeen accomplished, bat
that does not make it right.
The;contract betweenl Bre Tster and ibo
defendantis to be interpreteland enforced
according to the leDa loci c0at7Ccttls, 3'GiIl
i johnson, 244, and the present holder Of
the note sued or tooBit with notice, but
the obligation of the contract is not allen-
ted either by the unauthorized acts Of
force of the officials of tho United States
Government, or-by the ordinances Of the
Convention of South Carolina of the Both
,Jannary, 1868, or of the 18th March. 1SGN
When these ordinances wero passed South
Carolina was State In the Union. Con-
stitutiJn q. S., art. l, sec. 10.
It has been held by high authority that
no State can divest vested rights without
compensation, and such also is the law CT
England, 6 Adolph & Ellis, 933.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has said that State legislative act divcst-
ing vested rights is not q violation OF the
Constitution of the United States unless it
ir1pairs the obligation Of contract i
Peters 5, 80, 546, but the Supreme Cou.t
has not said that such an act was author
lied. It clearly would not be valid in
Maryland. Constitution, Art g. Sec. 40.
Entertaining these views, sustain tho
demurrer, and order jury to be sworn to
try the issues of law joined under the first,
second and third pleas, and assess the
damages, &c.