Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-04-10

] - N0AAA0 4&l1A Al Il u DNo Voc CgN-------f
And see opinion of this Court in Os-
borne vs. Nicholson.
THE COMMON Law
| recognizes no vested right Of action
in, and will not uphold contracts,
which are against good morals, Teli-
giOu and natural light, and opposed
to the fundamental policy Of the gov
eminent. And such rights cannot
now be asserted under the laws that
| gave sanction to slavery and slave
contracts for these laws, in the Ian
guage Of the Court in Butler vs.. Pal
mer, "being simply repealed, the very
stock on which they were engrafted
is cut down, and there is no rule OF
construction under which they can
be saved"
Butler vs.. Palmer, supra; Key
vs.. Goodwin, supra; Norris VS. Crock
er, 13 H., 429; KimbrO vs.. Colgate, 3
BlatchfOrd, @. G R., 229, 23l; MOfit
vs.. Carr ct al. Black, 273.
The fugitive slave law Of 1898 as
/ well as that Of 1850, gave to slave
owners a right of action against any
person who should carry OFF, harbOT
or conceal their slaves, and fixed the
/ measure Of damages in such cases. /
ers the only remedy they had in such
/ cases outside Of the slave States.
! Jones vs.. NanZant, 2 Mclean, su- |
pra; kaufman vs. Oliver, 10 Barr, su-
| pra; Prigg vs. Penn. 10 Peters, Gil 4; |
! and see fugitive slave acts of 1893 and
/ 1850.
Yet, when a right Of action accrued |
for carrying of, harbOring and con-
| cealiDg slaves, under the act Of 1898, |
| and suit was brought for the damages
/ fixed by that act, and was pending
/ when that act was repealed by the
| act of 1850, it was held that the action
! fell with the repeal of the Statute
! Norris vs.. CrOcker,..l3 H, 429), thus
/ leaving
! SLAVE OWNERS, WHOSE SLAVES HAD |
BEEN WRONGFULLY TAKEN FROM
| THEM, REAIEDTLEss.
! Now, certainly one whose property
! is WrOngfully taken from him, and
| lost or destroyed by another, is upon |
| every principle Of justice and right as
| much entitled to compensation for |
! the value of the property, so wrong
! fully taken, and to a remedy to re- |
! cover that value, as he is to a remedy |
! to recover the agreed value Of prop |
| erty from one to whom he may have |
/ sold it. And on principle and reason, |
! is there not just as much ground to |
declaim against a rule of construction |
! that takes away the right of action in |
! the one case as the other?
| States may pass retrospective or re- |
/ trOactive laws that will divest antece~
dent vested rights Of property, if they |
do not technically impair the Obliga- |
! ton of contracts.
/ Calder VS.. Bull, 3 Dallas, 388; Wat /
son ct al. vs.. Mercer, s Peters, 40; |
| Baltimore d S. r. Co. vs.. Nesbit, 10 /
| H, D. 402; Satterlee VS.. MatheWsOn, |
! 10 Peters, $50.
Such laws would seem as justly OBJ |
nOXiOUs on principle as laws that /
| impair the obligation of contracts. |
But in the one case they are held |
valid, because there is no limitation /
on the power Of the States to pass re-
/ trOsctive laws, and in the other void, |
/ because there is a limitation on the /
| States that prevents them from pass |
ing laws impairing the obligation OF |
contracts.
The V amendment to the COnstitu. |
ton of the United States declares that |
no person shall be deprived of life, /
liberty or property without due pro- |
cess Of law" And the Supreme Court /
Of the United States have said that by /
the Constitution of the United States, |
and of all the States of the Union, as
well as by the universal law of all free
governments, private property can be
taken for public use only upon making
to the owner just compensation.
And yet we know that the right of
property in all the slaves within the
jurisdiction of the United States was
DESTROYED BY THIS AMENDMENT,
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
Is the right of the people of the
United States to do this thing ques- /
toned 1t could be questioned only on /
the ground advanced by Lord Coke, /
IN BOnham 5 case, that the common |
law controlled acts Of parliament, and |
adjudged them void when against /
common right and reason. But all the /
Judges since his time have said it was
iOr Parliament and the King to Judge 1
what common right and reason was;
and Lord Campbell styles what was /
said by Lord Coke in this case, "nOn-
sense stiI quoted by silly people,"
CampbelPs Lives of the Lord Chan
| cellOrs, , vol, 1928, and note.
ID. Lives Of the Chief Justices, l !
vol, 300.
A stronger epithet than thatapplied
| by the Lord Chancellor to those who
quote Lord COle's dictum in Bon
hams case, as authority, might justly |
be applied to those who question the
power and authority Of the people of
the United States, by amendment of
| their Constitution of Government, to
abolish slavery and Obliterate all
rights depending for their validity
and enforcement on slave codes. They |
have done it, and how is their action
to be justified to the slave owner and
all others affected by it, and to the
world? Upon the ground that slavery
was founded in force and violence and
contrary to natural right, that the
right Of the slave to his freedom was
paramount to the claim of his master
to treat him as property; that no
vested right of property or action
could arise out Of q relation thus
created, and which was an ever new
an active violation of the law of ma.
ture, and the inalienable rights of
man, every moment that it subsisted.
1t was not held in JacOWay VS.. Den
ton, 10 Ark, 625, a revolutionary
measure. 1t was
THE WORK or THE SOVEREIGN PEO-
PIE OF THE UNITED STATES,
for the purpose Of conforming their
Constitution and laws to the immu-
table principles of eternal justice.
And, to liken the right Of property in
a human being to the right Of prop
erty in chattel; and right Of action
for the price of a human being, to a
right of action for the price of a chat
tel, is to cOnfOund all distinction be-
tween right and wrong. Was the
right Of property in slaves less sacred,
and any more beyond the reach of
that amendment, than right of action
based on a slave contract? IL A pur-
chased from B slave, and gave his
note Tor the agreed price, was not A's
right OF property In the slave upon
every principle Of law and ethics as
sacred and as much entitled to pr0tec-
ton as BIS right of action on the note
given for the slave? Did not the
right of property in the one case, and
the right Of action I'm the other, grow
out of the same transaction? aud did
they not in both cases depend for their
validity and enforcement on the same
laWs2 And when those laws were
abolished, did they not both fall to-
gether2 Is the amendment effectual
to destroy the substance, but not the
shadow
To destroy or preserve the one is
TO destroy or preserve the other.
In Osborn vs.. u. 8. Bank, 8 W., d.
866. Chief Justice Marshall says: at |
Is not unusual for a legislative act to