Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-17
PAYMENT FOR SLAVES.
Important Opinion OF a Maryland
Judge.

Judge.
From the Baltimore American, Dee. g.
On Saturday morning Chief Justice
Scott filed the following opinion In the
case of Samuel r. Burlington, trustee of
Elizabeth Kelton vs.. Annie L. Davis, in
which case argument was held in Balti-
more City Court on Saturday, 9th ult.,
on the demurrer of plaintiff to the pleas
fled by defendant
This suit was brought on the 18th of
February, 1869, to recover the sum of
81, 200 and interest, alleged to bedue upon
the promissory note of the defendant,
made at Charleston, s. c., 18th of March,
1861, and payable at eight months with
interest, to G. r. Brewster, or order, and
by him Endorsed, without recourse to the
plaintiff Is trustee, etc. The defendant
appeared and plead, first, that she never
was indebted, etc. second, that she did
not promise as alleged, and, third, that
the alleged cause of action did not accrue
within three years, etc.
AfteTward, with the leave of the Court,
the defendant filed four additional pleas,
8 Gill. SO, and the plaintiff demurred.
Of the four additional pleas, the first
alleges that the note was given for the
purchase OF. q negro man slave, which
negro was set free by proclamation of the
President of the United States, issued on
the 22d day of September, 1852, to take
effect on the first of January, 1853,
whereby the consideration for said note
wholly and entirely failed.
The second plea alleges that the consid-
Grafton of said note was the said negro
Peter, and that at the time of the sale of
said negro, the said Brewster was in pos
session of said negro as trustee of Mrs.
Kelton, and warranted that the said negro
should for life remain a slave, ETC., but
that afterwards, to-wit, on the 23d Sep
TENDER, 1852, aud LIST Januzry, 1858, the
Government of the United States, through
its Congress and Chief Executive officer,
Invested the defendant of ali right, and
pronounced the said negro free, whereby
she lost all power and control, ETC., and
has become damaged to the amount of two
thousand dollars, and pleads the same as
set off, etc.
The third plea sets forth that the con-
sideratiOn for the note was the purchase
money of the said negro, who was war
ranted a slave for life, and that after
wards the State of South Carolina, on the
18th of March, 1868, changed the organic
law of that State, whereby it was ordained
''that slavery shall never exist in said
State" whereby she has been Invested of
all right and power, etc. and the fourth
plea charges that the consideration of the
said note was the said negro as slave for
life, which consideration has wholly
failed by reason of the declaration of the
said State on the 30th of January, 1868,
in sovereign convention, that all contracts,
the consideration of which was the pur-
chase of slaves, are null, void and of no
effect, whereby saiG note hate hath be-
come null, void, etc.
The government of the United States
is of limited and defined authority, having
only the powers in the constitution grant
ed. No authority isgranted to the United
States government over the power of
slavery in the several States, except that
their importation shall not be prohibited
prior to the year 1908, consequently the
proclamation of the President was with
out authority and void. True, the object
of the unjust act has been accomplished,
but that does not make it right.
The contract between Brewster and the
defendant is to be interpreted and en-
forced according to the Ter loci cOntrdc-
tbs, 5 Gill & Johnson, PA, and the pres
ent holder of the note sued or took 1t
with notice, but the obligation of the con-
tract is not affected either by the IN
authorized acts of force of the officials
of the United States GovemmeIH, or by
the ordinances of the Convention of South
Carolina of the 30th January, 1858, or of
the 18th March, 1868. When these or
dinances were passed South Carroll
ma was a State in the Union. Constitu-
ton US, art l, sec. 10.
If has been held by high authority that
no State can diyest vested rights without
| compensation, and such also is the law of
England, 6 AdOlph & Ellis, ESQ.
The Supreme Court of the United
States has said that State legislative act
divesting vested right, is not violation
of the Constitution of the United States
unless it impairs the obligation of a con-
tract, IL Peters 5, SO. 549; but the Su-
preme Court has not said that such an act
was authorized. 1t clearly would not be
valid in Maryland Constitution, Art. 3,
Sec. 40.
Entertaining these views, sustain the
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, etc.