Newspaper Page Text
The Supreme Court of th? United States. ' THE DKKD HnOTT CASE. Tkt Ojfieuii Report. ? (ioxiusios or Ji'DGs Mc Lass's OPUiloS.] Now, if a slave ahscond, he may lie reclaimed ; but if he arcoui{)aiiy his master into a Statu or Territory wliere slavery is prohibited, such slave cannot be said to have left the service of his master where his services were legalised. And if slavery Ik limited to the range of the territorial laws, how can the slave be coerced to serve in a State or Territory, not only without the authority of law, but against its express provisions? What gives the master the right to control the will of his slave 1 The local law, which exists in some form. But where there is no such law, can the master control the will of the slave by force f Where no slavery exists, the presumption, without regard to color, is in favor of freedom. Under such a jurisdiction, may the colored man be levied on as the property of his master by a creditor I On the decease of the master, does the slave descend to his heirs us property Can the master sell him t Any one or all of these acts may be done to the slave, where he is legally held to service. But where the law does not confer this power it cannot Ire exercised. Lord Mansfield held that a slave brought into England was free. Lord Stowell agreed with Lord Mansfield in this respect, and tliat the slave could not be coerced in England ; but on her voluntary return to Antigua, the place of her slave domicil, her former status attached. The law of England did not prolubit slavery, but did not authorize it. The jurisdiction which prohibits slavery is much strouger in behalf of the slave within it than where it only does not authorize it. By virtue of what law is it that a master may take his slave into free territory, and exact from him the duties of a slave r The law of the Territory does not sanction it. No authority can be claimed under the constitution of the United bfates, or any law of Congress. Will it be said that the slave is taken as property, the same as otiier property which the master may own ? To this 1 answer that colored persons are made property by Unlaw of the State, and no such power has been given to Congress. Ue.cs the master carry with him the law of the State from which he removes into the Territory ? and does that enable him to coerce iiis slave in the Territory * Let us test this theory. If this may he done by a master from one slave State, it may he done by a master from every other slave State. Thin right is supposed to be connected with the person of the master by virtue of the local law. Is it transferable f May it he negotiated as a promissory note or bill of exchange ? If it he assigned to a man from a free State, may he coerce the slave by virtue of it 1 What shall this thing be denominated f Is it personal or real projierty! Or is it an indefinable fragment of sovereignty, which every jierson carries with him from his late domicilOne thing is certain, that its origin has been very recent, and it is unknown to Unlaws of any civilized country. A slave is brought to England from one of its islands, where slaver)- was introduced and maintained by the mother count*;1'. Although there is no law prohibiting slavery in England, yet there is no law authorizing it; and for near a century its courts have declared that the slave there is free from the coercion of the master. Lords Mansfield and Stowell agree upon this point, and there is no dissenting authority. There is 110 other description of property which was not protected in England brought from one of its slave islands. Does not this show that property in a human being docs not arise from nature or from the common law, but, in the language of this court, "it is a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range of the territorial laws This decision is not a mere argument, but it is the end of the law, in regard to the extent of slavery. Until it shall Iks overturned, it Is not a point for argument ; it is obligatory on myself mid my brethren, and on all judicial tribunals over which thb court exercises an appellate power. It is said the Territories are common piojicrtv of the States, and that every man has a right to go there with his property. This is not controverted. But the court say a slave is not property beyond the operation of the local law which makes him such. Never was a truth more authoritatively and justly uttered by man. Suppose n master of a slave in a British island owned a million oi property in England, would that authorize him to take his slaves with him to England ' The constitution, in express terms, recognises the statua of slavery as founded ou the municipal law : " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the. Inwt there'/, escaping into another, shall," &c, Now, unless the fugitive escape from a place where, by the municipal law, be is held to lu'.xir, tliis provision affords no remedy to the must< r What can be more conclusive tlian this ? Suppose a slave cscajie from a Territory where slavery is not authorized by law, can he be reclaimed t In this case a majority of the court have said that n slave may be taken by his master into a Territory of tin. United States, the same as a horse, or any other kind ol property. It is true, this was said by the court, as alf< many other things, which arc of no authority. Nothing that has been said by them, which has not a direct l>ear ing on the jurisdiction of the court, against which they decided, can be considered as authority. I shall certainly not regard it as such. The question of jurisdiction, being before the court, was decided by them authoritatively, but nothing beyond that question. A slave is not a inert chattel. He. licars the impress of his Maker, and i> amenable to the laws of God and man; and he is destined to an endless existence. Under this head I shall chiefly rely on the decisions ol the supreme courts of the southern States, and especially of the State of Missouri. In the first and second sections of the sixth article o the constitution of Illinois it is declared tlmt neither sin very nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into this State, otherwise than for the punishment o: crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted and in the second section it is declared that any violates of this article shall effect the emancipation of such persoi from hid obligation to service. In Illinois a right { transit through the State Is given the master with hi: slaves. This is a matter which, us I suppose, belongs ex elusivcly to the Shite. The supreme court of Illinois, in the case of Jnnrot i? Jarrot, (2 Gilmer, 7,) said : " After the conquest of this territory by Virginia, sht coded it to the United States, and stipulated that the ti tics and possessions, rights and liberties, of the Frcncl settlers, should be guarantied to them. This, it has lieei contended, secured them in the possession of those nc groes as slaves which they held before that time, and tha neither Congress nor the convention had power to deprive them of it; or, in other words, that the ordinance aiu constitution should not be so interpreted and understoo* as applying to such siaves when it is therein declared thai there shall lie neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the Northwest Territory, nor in the State of Illinois otherwise than in the puniijbment of crimes. But it w.u held that those rights could not lie thus protected, bui must yield to the ordinance and constitution." The first slave case decided by the supreme court o Missouri, contaiucd in the reports, was Winny u?. White sides, (1 Missouri Rep., 473,1 at October tenu, 1824. li appeared that, more than twenty-five years before, tb< defendant, with her husband, had removed from Car olina to Illinois, and brought with them the plaintiff that they continued to reside in Illinois three or foui years, retaining the plaintiff as a slave ; after which, thci removed to Missouri, taking her with them. The court held, that if a slave Iks detained in Illinoii until he be entitled to freedom, the right of the ownei does not revive when he finds the negro in a slave State That when a slave is taken to Illinois by his owner who takes up his residence there, the slave is entitled U freedom. In the case of Lagrange w. Chouteau, (2 Missouri Rep. 20, at May term, 1828,) it was decided that the ordi nance of 1787 was intended as a fundamental law foi those who may choose to live under it, rather than as ? penal statute. That any sort of residence contrived or permitted hj the legal owner of the slave, ujK>n the faifh of sccrcf trusts or contracts, in order to defeat or evade the ordi nance, and thereby introduce slavery dr fatio. would enti tie luch slave to freedom. In Julian. McKinney, (3 Missouri Rep., 279.) it ? held, where a slave was settled in the State of Illinois, but with an intention on the part of the owner to Ire removed at some future day, that hiring said slave to n person to labor for one or two days, and receiving pay for the hire, the slnve is entitled to her freedom under the second section of the sixth article of the constitution ol Illinois Rachel M. Walker (4 Missouri Rep., 360, June term, 1H36) is a case involving, in eTery particular, the principles of the case before us. Rachel sued for her freedom ; and it appeared that she had Ireen bought as a slave in Missouri by Stockton, an officer of the army, taken to Fort Snelling, where he was stationed, and she was retained there as a slave a year ; and then Btnckton removed to l'rairie du Chien, taken Rachel with him as a slave, where he continued to hold her three years, and then he took her to the SUty of Missouri, and sold her its a slave. ' Fort Snelling was admitted to lie oo the west side of the Mlrsissipjtl river, and north of the State of Missouii, in the territory of tire United Slates. 'I lu?t Prairie dudkien >u in the Michigan Territory, on the cost Hide of the Mississippi river Walker, the defendant, held Rachel under Stockton. The court Maid, in this case : ' The officer lived in Missouri Territory at the tiuie lie bought the slave; he sent to a siuvehulding country and procured her ; thin wait hie voluntary act, done without ( any other reason than that of his convenience ; and lu* and those claiming under biin nruat be hoiden to abiile the consequences of introducing slavery both in Missouri Territory and Michigan contrary to law ; and on that ground Kuchel wax declared to be entitled to freedom." In aintwer to the urgnment that, na an officer of the army, the master lutd a right to take Ilia slave into free , territory, the court anid no autliority of law or the gov| eminent compelled him to keep the plaintiff there as a slave. " Shall it be aaid that because an officer of the annv owns slaves in Virginia, that wiien, as officer and soldier, lie is required to take the command of a fort in the non| slaveholding States and Territories, he thereby haa a : right to take with hiiu as many sluves as will suit hia interest or convenience ? It surely cannot lie law. If this be true, the court say, then it is also true that the conve| nience, or supposed convenience, of the officer repeals, as | to him and others who have the wuue diameter, the ordinance and the act of 1821, admitting Missouri into the Union, and also the prohibition of the several laws and I constitutions of the non-slaveholding States." In Wilson m. Melvin, (4 Missouri It., 692,) it ap{icured I the defendant left Teuncxsce with an intention of residing in Illinois, taking his negroes witli him. After a month's stay in Illinois he took his negroes to St. Louis, and hired them: then returned to Illinois. On these facts, the inferior court instructed the jury that the defendant was a sojourner in Illinois. This the Supreme Court held was error, and the judgment was reversed. The case of Dred Scott w. Kmerson (16 Missouri R., 682, March term, 1852; will now be stated. This case involved the identical question before us, Emerson having, since the hearing, sold the plaintiff to baiulford, the i defendant. Two of tiie judges ruled the case, the chief justice ilis' senting. It cannot lie improper to state the groumls ol I the opinion of the court, and of the dissent. The court say : "Cases of this kind are not strangers in ! our court. Persons have been frequently here adjudged ; to be entitled to their freedom on the ground tliat their masters held thcin in slavery in Territories or States in ; which that institution is prohibited. From the first case I decided in our court, it might be inferred that this result was brought about by a presumed aaseat of the master, I from the fact of having voluntarily taken his slave to s place where the relation of 1 muster and idave did not exist. But subsequent eiuses I aw the right to 'exact tin forfeiture of emancipation,' astheyterin it, 011 the ground, { it would seem, that it wav the duty of the courts of thii : State to carry into effect the constitution and laws ol other States and Territories, regardless of the rights, tlx 1 policy, or the institutions of the people of this State." And the court say that the States of the Union, in theii municipal concerns, are regarded as foreign to each other that the courts of one State do not take notice of the laws of other States, unless proved as facts, and that even j State has the right to determine how fur its comity t< I other States sliall extend ; and it is laid down that wher there Is no act of manumission decreed to the free Stat< | the courts of the slave States cannot be called to give effect to the law of the free Ntntc. Comity, it alleges between States depends upon tlic discretion of both, wliicl inny l>e varied by circumstances. And it is declared bj the court " that times arc not as they were when tin former decisions 011 this subject were made." Since thei not only individuals, but States, have l>cen possessed will a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whoso gralili cation is sought in the pursuit of measures whose inevitu ble consequence must lxs the overthrow and destructioi ! of our government. Under such circumstances, it doci ; not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least coun tetiance to any measure which might gratify this spirit , She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the ex istence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek t< sliare or divide it with others. Chief Justice Gamble dissented from the other tw< judges. Ho says : - " In every slavclioldiug State in the Union, the sub jeet of emancipation is regulated by htatutc ; and tin forms are prcscrilHHl in which it shall be effected. When ever the forms required by the laws of the State in whirl the master and slave are resident are compiled with, tin emancipation is complete, and the slave is free. If tin right of the jwrson thus emancipated is subsequently drawn in question in another State, it will lx> ascertains and determined by the law of the State in which the slavi and his former master resided ; and when it appears ttia such law has been complied with, the right to frecdon will bo fully sustained in the courts oi all the alaveholii ing States, although the act of emancipation may not Is in the form requited by law in which the court sits. " In all such cases, courts continually administer tin law of the country where the right was acquired ; anr when that law becomes known to the court, it is just a much a matter of course to decide the rights of the par ties according to its requirements, as it is to settle the .title of real estate situated in our State by ita owi ; laws." This appears to me a most satisfactory answer to the ai gument of the court. Chief Justice continues : '' The perfect equality of the different States lies at tin foundation of the Union. As the institution of slaver j in the States is one over which the constitution of tin United States gives no power to the general government - it is left to be adopted or rejected by the several States, a they think best; nor con any one Shite, or number o j States, claim the right to interfere with any other Stan , upon the question of admitting or excluding this institu ! tion. " A citizen of Missouri, who removes with his slave t Illinois, has no right to complain that the fundamental law of that 8tate to which lie removes, and in which h' makes liis residence, dissolves the relation between bin and his slave. It is as much his own voluntary act as i he had executed a deed of emancipation, No one cai pretend ignorance of this constitutional provision, and, he says, "the decisions which have heretofore been madi ; in tins State, and in many other siaveholdiug States, givi effect to this and other similar provisions, on the grouni that the master, by making the free State the regidenci of bis slave, has submitted bis riuht to tlie onenition o the law of such State ; and this," he savs, "is the wuui in law as a regular deed of emancipation." J He udds : ' "I regard the question as conclusively settled by re ~ |sated adjudications of this court, and, If I doubted <, , denied the propriety of those decisions, I would not fee I myself any more at liberty to overturn them than I 1 would any other series of decisions by which the law o t any other question was settled. 'There is with me,' li< ; says, 'nothing in the law relating to slavery which dis tinguishes it from the law on any other subject, or allow ^ any more accommodation to the temporary public excite i meats which are gathered around it." " In this State," he says, "it has be"n recognised froi. the beginning of the government ns a correct position ii 1 law that a master who takes ins slave to reside in a Stat. : or Territory where slavery Is prohibited thereby emanci 1 ] [sites his slave." These decisions, which come down t< the year 1837, seemed to liave so fully settled the ques tion, that since that time there has been no case bring! m - j it before the court for any reconsideration until the pros r | ent. In the case of Wlnny w. Whiteside*, the questioi was made in the argument, ' 'whether one nation wouh execute the penal laws of another," and the court replie. 4 in this language, (Huherus, quoted In 4 Dallas,) whicl r says, "personal rights or disabilities obtained or commit nicated by the laws of any particular place arc of a natun which accompany the person wherever he goesam 1 | the Chief Justice observed, in the case of Rachel ci Walker, the act of Congress called the Missouri Comp'ro misc was hold as operative as the ordinance of 1787. When Dred Scott, his wife and childrcu, were remove* r from Fort Knelling to Missouri, in 1838, they were free i as the law was then settled, and continued for fourtcei years afterwards, up to 1852, when the above dceisioi ' was made. Prior to this, for nearly thirty years, ns Chit 1 Justice Gamble declares, the residence of n master wit) i his slave in the State of Illinois, or in the territory no. tl i\f VlinontirS wlmrn alavnrv u-au r.rrtltilii f/>rl hv #l?n q.v called the Missouri Compromise, would manumit th' i slave a* effectually as if hb bad executed a deed of eman ci|mtion ; and tlint an officer of the army who taken lib slave into that State or Territory, and holds him there aa slave, liberates him the same as iuiy other citizen?and down to the above time it was settled by numerous and ; uniform decisions : and that on the return of the slave t? Missouri his former condition of slavery did not attach J Such wns the settled law of Missouri until the decision ot I Scott and Emerson. In the ease of Sylvia i*. Kirby, (17 Misso. Hep., 434.) the court followed the above decision, observing it was similar in all respects to the case of Soott and Emerson. This oourt follows the established construction of the statutes of a State by its supreme court. Such a construction is considered as a part of the statute, apd wo follow it to avoid two rules of projKrty in the same State But we do not follow the decisions of the supreme court of a State lieyond the statutory construction as a rule of decision for this conrt. State decisions are always viewed with respect and treated as authority; but we follow the settled construction of the statutes^ not because it is of lauding authority, hut in pursuance of a rule of judi- > cial polka. 1 Hut then- U no pretence that tlie com- of Iked fkx/tt r> I Kmersou turned upon the construe tion of a Missouri ] statute; nor was there any established rule of property which could have rightfully influenced the decision. On I the contrary, the decision overruled the settled law for i near thirty years. This is said !>v my brethren to be a Missouri question ; hut there is nothing which gives it this character, except : that it involves the right to [arsons claimed as slaves who reside in Missouri, anil the decision was made by the supreme court of tluit Ktate. It involves a right elnimed under an act of Congress and the constitution of Illinois, and which cannot be decided without the consideration and construction of thoee laws But the supreme court j of Missouri held, in this case, that it will not regard ' either of those laws, without which there was no ease before It; and Dred Koott, having been u slave, remains a slave. In this respect it is admitted this Is a Missouri question?a case which has but one side, if the act of Congress and the constitution of Illinois are not recognised. And does such a case constitute a rule of decision for ; this court?a case to be followed by this court ? The j course of derision so long and so uniformly maintained I established a comity or law between Missouri and the free (States aud Territories where slavery was prohibited, which must lie somewhat regarded in this case. Rights sanctioned for twenty-eiglit years ought not and cannot lie repudiated, with any semblance of justice, by one or two decisions, influenced, as declared, by a determination to counteract the excitement against slavery in the free States. The courts of Louisiana having held, for a series of years, that where u master took ids slave to France, or any free State, he was entitled to freedom, and that 011 bringing bim lack the status of slavery did not attach, J the legislature of Louisiana declared by an act that the slave should not be mado free under such circumstances. This regulated the rights of the master from the time the act took effect. Hut the decision of the Missouri court, I reversing a former decision, affects all previous decisions, technically made on the same principles, unless such de visions are protected by the lapse of time or tho statute of 1 limitations. Dred Scott and his family, beypnd all controversy, were free under the decisions made for twentyj eight years, before the case of Scott 11. Emeraon. This was the undoubted law of Missouri for fourteen years of; tor Scott and bis family were brought back to that State. I And tho grave question arises, whether this law may be j so disregarded as to enslave free persons ? I am strongly ineliued to think that u rule of decision so well settled ac l not to l>e questioned cannot be annulled by a single dc| cision of the court. Such rights may lie inoperative under the decision in future ; but 1 ennnot well perceive i how- it con have the same effect in prior case6. i J It is admitted tliut when a former decision is reversed f ! the technical effect of the judgment is to aiake all pre i vious adjudications on the same question erroneous. Hut J the case before us was not that the law had been crroner ously construed, but that, under the circumstances which ; j then existed, that law would not be recognised; and the - I reason for this is declared to be the excitement against the r ) institution of slavery in the free States. While I la> merit this excitement as much ns any one, I cannot asi sent that it shall be made a basis of judicial action. > In 1R1<) the common law, by statute, was mode a part ; of the law of Missouri; and that includes the great prin, ciples of international law. These principles cannot It i | abrogated by judicial decision.;. It will require the same r < exercise of power to abolish the common law as to introi j dncc it. International law % founded in the opinions i generally received and acted on by civilized nations, and i I enforced by moral sanctions. It becomes a more author : itativo system when it results from special compacts, founded on modified rules, adapted to the exigencies of i | human society ; it is, in fact, an international morality, . \ adapted to the best interests of natious. And in regard - to the States of this Union on the subject of slavery, it i; eminently fitted for a rule of action, subject to the I - : federal constitution. "The laws of nations are but the | ) i natural rights of man applied to nations." (Vattcl.) If the common law have the force of a statutory ennot> ment in Missouri, it is clear, as it seems to me, that a 1 slave who, by a residence In Illinois in the service of his master, becomes entitled to his freedom, cannot attain be reduced to slavery by returning to his former domicil in a slave State. It is unnecessary to sav what legislative i I power might do l>y a general act in such a case, hut it ' would he singular if a freeman could be made a slave by the exercise of a judicial discretion. And it would be still more extraordinary if this could be done, not only in 1 ! the absence of special legislation, but in a State where . thu common luw is in force. t ! it is supposed by some that tiie third article in the i treaty of cession of Louisiana to this country by France, . in ISO.'t, may have some bearing on this question, 'lire i> | article referred to provides "that the inhabitants of the 1 ceiled territory shall Ire incor[>orated into the Union, and ! enjoy all the advantages of citizens of the United States, 1 and in the mean time they shall be maintained and pro-i tocted in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, . | and the religion they profess.'' As slavery existed in Louisiana at the time of the eosr ! hion, it is supposed tins is a guarantee that there should 1* j no change in its condition. 'lire answer to tlris is, in the fust place, that such ft subject does not belong to the treaty-making power ; and :> ; any such arrangement would have boen nugatory. And, , in the second place, by no admissible construction can the u guarantee be carrietl further than the protection of prop| erty in slaves at tliat time in the ceded territory. And s this has been complied with. The organization of the f slave States of Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas tinL. ! braced every slave in Louisiana at the time of the cession. . j I'll in removes every ground of objection under the treaty. 'lliere is therefore no pretence, growing out of the treaty, , | that any part of the territory of Louisiana, as ceded, bo1 vtinrl thft nrimniziMl i? slave ti'i rili.vv Under the fifth head, we were to consider whether the flaltu of slavery attached to the plaintiff and wife on their return to Missouri. This doctrine is not asserted in the late opinion of the ' , supreme court of Missouri, and up to 1852 the contrary b doctrine was uniformly maintained try that court. In its late decision the court say that it will not give I effect ill Missouri to the laws of Illinois, or the law of 3 | Congress called the Missouri Compromise. This was the f S effect of the decision, though its terms were, that the 5 court would not take notice, judicially, of those laws. In 1851 the court of appeals of South Carolina recognised the principle that a slave, 1 icing taken to a free . Stat*', became free. (Commonwealth r?. Pleasants, 10 r Leigh Rep., 087.) In Betty vi. Morton, the court of ap1 peals held that the freedom of the slave was acquired by I the action of the laws of Massachusetts, by the said slave f being taken there. (5 l/ugh liep.,. 615 ) The slave States iiave generally adopted the rule that . where the master, by a residence with his slave in a State a or Territory where slavery is prohibited, the slave was . entitled to his freedom everywhere. This was the settled i doctrine of the supreme court of Missouri. It has W en i so held in Mississippi, in Virginia, in Louisiana, formcr, ! ly in Kentucky, Mai viand, and in other States. I The law, where a contract is made and is to lie exccu. j ted, governs it. This does not depend upon comity, but ( upon the law of the contract. And if, in the language of - the supreme court of Missouri, the master, by taking his 5 ' slave to Illinois, and employing him there as a slave, emancipates him as effectually as by a deed of edKDcipai lion, is it possible that such on act is not matter for n<(l | judication in any slave State where the master may take I him T Does not the master assent to the law when ire 1 i places himself under it in a free State f - | 'lire StAtcs of Missouri and Illinois arc bounded by a p j common line. The one prohibits slavery, the other nil 1 mita it. This has lieen dene by the exercise of that sov' ereign power which appertain* to each. We are bound to - 1 respect the institutions of each, as emanating from the 1 VVIIUIUII ) VI i Itti " IIJU JN ?'JIII* Ol t JIII'. I 1 i oi)y right to disturb the relations of the other? Each t State rests upon the basis of its own sovereignty, proi tccted hy the constitution. Our Union has t>een the i foundation of our prosperity and national glory. Shall ( wo not cl rish and maintain it' This can only bo done | i hy respecting the legal rights of each State. > If a citizen of a free State shall entice or enable a slave t to esca|M.< Iron) the service of his piaster the law holds him responsible, not only for the loss of the slave, lmt he i is liable to he indicted and fined for the misdemeanor. , < : And T am bound here to say that I har e never found a i 1 jury in the four States which constitute my circuit which I have not sustained this law, where the evidence required < I them to sustain it. And it is proper tli.it I should also < ? say, that more coses have arisen in my circuit, by reason i of its extent and locality, than in all other farts of the i Union. This has been done to vindicate the sovereign j i rights of the southern States, and protect the legal inter- t csts of our brethren of the South. Isst these facta be contrasted with tiic case now before the court. Illinois has declared in the most solemn and 1 imprcsuve form that there shall lie neither slaver)' nor in- r voluntary servitude in that Htate, and that any slave | s brought into it, with a view of becoming a resident, shall ii be emancipated. And effect has boon given to this pro- s vision of the constitution by tha decision of the Kuprpme c Court of that State With n full knowledge of those o facts, a slave is brought from Missouri to Bock Island, in l the State of Illinois, and is retained there as a slave for , d two years, and then taken to Fort Snoilin^ where slave- ' e y in prohiltnd by the Miseouri-coutprumiite act, anil there T re ia detained two year* looker iu a state of slavery, ol Harriet, his wife, was also kept at the saiae place four rears a* a slave, having been purchased in Missouri The) ai vere then reinoi ed to the State of Missouri and sold as j ilaves ; and in the action In-fore us they are not only I " lainied as slaves, but a majority of my brethren have 1 01 ieltl that ou their being returned to Missouri tbe status A slavery attached to them. tl I am not able to reconcile this result with the respect ai lue to the Htate of Illinois. Having the some rights of st sovereignty as tbe State of Missouri in adopting a const! ! n .utimi, 1 can jierceive no luoaou why the institutions of tl Illinois should not receive the same consideration as a hose of Missouri. Allowing to my brethren the same j d right of judgment that 1 exercise myself, I must be per- J initted to say tiiat it seems to me the principle Inld down will enable the people of a slave Htate to 01 ntroduce slavery into a free Htate, for a longer or 1 ti ihorter time, as may suit their convenience ; and by I w returning the slave to the State whence lie was brought, j d by force or otherwise, the status of slavery attaches, T end protes ts the rights of the master, and defies the ci sovereignty of tlie freer State. There is no evidence be- b lore us that Dred Scott and his family returned to a Missouri voluntarily. The contrary is inferable from U the ugToed case: "In the year 18.18 Dr. Kinerson re- r moved the plaintiff and mid Harriet, and their dnughtei o Hlira, from fort Knelling to the State of Missouri, where n they have ever Rince resided." Tills is the agreed case ; ti uid can it be inferred from this that Scott and family re- il turned to Missouri voluutarily ? He was removed ; which il ihowR that he was |xu>sive, as a slave, having exercised o 110 volition on the subject. He did not resist the master V by absconding or force, liut that was not sufficient to v bring him within Lord Stowcli's decision ; lie must have t iicted voluntarily. It would be a mockery of law olid an v outrage ou his rights to coerce his return, und then claim n that it was voluntary, mid on that ground that liis former ii tid/tu of slavery attached. p If the decision lie placed on this ground, it is a fact for a jury to decide, whether the return was voluntary ? or ti else the fact should be distinctly admitted. A presump- v lion ?^?inn ill'.' |iiaimiu in mm rcsjicci, i shj wuii n mi 1 ilenco, in not uuthorizod from the facts admitted. li In coining to the conclusion that a voluntary return by t It 1 act to her fonner domidl, slavery attached, Lord Stow- 5 ell took groat pains to show that England forced slavery t upon her colonies, and that it was maintained by numer- t ous acts of Parliament and public policy, and, in short, c that the system of slavery was not only established by t Great Britain in her West Indian colonies, but that it was v popular and profitable to many of the wealthy and influential people of England, who were engager! in trade, or 1: owned and cultivated plantations in the colonies. No one ( can read his elaborate views, and not be struck witli the o great difference between England and her colonies and the free and slave States of this Union. While slavery in a the colonies of England is subject to the power of the mother country, our States, especially in regard to sla- c very, are independent, resting upou their own sovereign- I ties, and subject only to international laws, which apply e to independent States. In the case of Williams, who was a slave in Granada, c having run away, caine to England, Lord Stowcll said : a "The four judges all concur in this : that he was a slave v in Granada, though a free man in England, and lie would t have continued a free man in all other parts of the world s except Gniruula." t St ruder vs. Graham (10 Howard, 82, anil 18 Curtis, 305) i has been cited as having a direct bearing in the case liefore us. In that case the court say : "It was exclusively t in the power of Kentucky to determine for itself whether a the employment of slaves in another State should or q should not make them free on their return." No ques- t tion was before the court in that ca?c, except that of ju- * risdiction. And any opinion given on an)' other point is a jhitir Jtdum. and of no authority. In the conclusion ol I las opinion, the Chief Justice said : "In every view of the subject, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction of the y case, and the writ of error must on that ground lie dismissed." ' i In the caac of Spencer ?. Negro Dennis, (8 Gill's Rep., .iz I, i tne court say : "Once free, and always free, is the maxitn of Maryland law upon the subject. Freedom having once vested, by no compact between the master and the lilwratcd ? slave, nor by any condition subsequent,"attached by the master to the gift of freedom, can a state of slavery Ik- e reproduced." I 1 In Hunter vs. Bulcher, (1 Leigh, 172 :) ' f " By a statute of Maryland of lTOti, all slaves brought | ? into that State to reside are declared free; a Virginian- i bom slave is carried by liis master to Maryland ; the mas- , ter settled there, and keeps the slave there in bondage for ' twelve years, the statute in force all the time ; then lie brings him as a slave to Virginia, and sells him there. ) Adjudged, in an action brought by the man against the j purchaser, that he is free." ! ,j Judge Kerr, in the case, says : ! a " Agreeing, as I do, with the general view taken in this case by my brother Green, 1 would not aild a word hut to mark the exact extent to which I mean to go. r The iuw of Maryland having enacted that sluves carried t into tliat State for sale or to reside shall lie free, and the c owner of the slave here having carried him to Maryland, a and voluntarily submitting himself and the slave to that t law, it governs the case." In every decision of a slave case prior to that of Dred Scott rs. Emerson, the supreme court of Missouri con- , ^ sidered it n? turning upon the constitution of Illinois, the t ordinance of 1787, or the Missouri-compromise net of j1820. The court treated these acts as in force, and held a itself bound to execute tiiem by declaring the slave to ^ l?c free wlio had acquired a domicil under them with the consent of liis rmister. The late decision reversed this whole line of adjudica- 1 tion, and held that neither the constitution and laws of I | of the States, nor acts of Congress in relation to Territo- 0 ries, could be judicially noticed by the supreme com t of u Missouri. This is believed to be in conllict with the decisions of all the courts in the southern States, with some exceptions of recent cases. ' In Marie Louise vs. Morut el ?/., (9 Louisiana Rep., s 475,) it was hold, where u slave having been taken ii to tire kingdom of France or other country by the owner, ! c where slavery is not tolerated, ojierates on the condition ; of tire slave, and produces immediate emancipation ; and ; that, where a slave thus becomes free, the master cannot reduce him again to slavery. P Josephine r?. Poultney, (Louisiana Annual Rep., 320,) "where the owner removes with ft slave into a State in & which slavery is prohibited, with the intention of residing j there, the slave will be thereby emancipated, and their ( subsequent return to the State of Louisiana cannot restore the relation of master and slave." To the same hn- 0 port are the eases of Smith r*. Smith, (13 Louisiana Rep., a 441; Thomas w. Generis, Louisiana Rep.. 483; Ihury a el al. ft. Decker and Hopkins, Walker's Mississippi Rep., 3(5.) It was held that, "slaves within the jurisdiction of j ? the Northwestern Territory became freemen by virtue of i the ordinance of 1787, and can assert their claim to free- } ? dom in the courts of Mississippi." (Grilhth vs. Fanny, 1 e Virginia Rep., 148.) It was decided that a negro held in j h servitude in Ohio, under a deed executed in Virginia, is f T entitled to freedom hy the oonslitutlon of Ohio. r The cam? oif Rhodes vs. Rell (2 Howard, 307 ; 15 Cur- j y tin, 152) involved the main principle in the case before i us. A person residing in Washington city purchased a r< slave iu Alexandria, and brought him to Washington, j ftl Washington continued under the law of Maryland, Alex- i tl andria under the law of Virginia. The act of Maryland of November, 179(1, (2 Maxcy'a Laws, 351,) declared any n one who shall bring any negro, mulatto, or other slave, into Maryland, such slave should be free. The nliove j n slave, by reason of iris being brought into Washington | ^ city, was dtclared by this court to l>e free. 'lt?ls, it ap- ! c< pears to me, is a much stronger rase against the slave c than the facts in the case of Scott. w In Bush vs. White, (3 Monroe. 104,) the court say : I r| " That the ordinance was paramount to the territorial |r laws, and restrained the legislative power there as effectu- | ally as a constitution in an organised State. It was a 111 public act of the legislature cf the Union, and a \>i\rt of the 01 minrnmn Inw <if tl.,- land mid fit h tl.la iweH U ... ! m much bound to take notice of it ru> it can Ik1 of any other in law.'' In tip' case of l'ankin v*. I.ydia, before cited, Judge I Mills, speaking for the court of appeals of Kentucky, : iay? i i ?" "If, by the positive provision In our code, we can and , ar must hold our slaves in the one rase, and statutory pro- H vision* equally positive decide against that right in the tli >ther, and liberate the slave, he must, by an authority w qtinlly imperi'His, lie declared free. Every argument i which supports the right of the master on one side, based al upon the force of written law, must be equally conclusive Wl n favor of the slave when he can point out in the statute :he clause which secures his freedom." 1 tb And he further said : " Free people of color in all the States arc, it is be- I ieved, quad citizens, or, at least, denizens. Although tone of the States may allow them the privilcgo of office md suffrage, yet all other civil and conventional rights tJ] ire secured to them ; at least, such rights were evidently or ecurod to them by the ordinance in question for the gov- bi mraent of Indiana. If these rights are vested in that lex >r any other portion of the United Btates, can it be com- j m atible with the spirit of our confederated government to | T7 leny their existence in any other part ' Is there leva i *n omitv existing between State and 8tate( or State and ati crritory, tluui exists between the doqioUc governments r Europe r' 'lTrese are the word* of a learned and grant judge, bom id educated in a slave btate* I now come to inquire, under the sixth and last head, whether the decisions of the supreme court of Missouri, 11 the question before us, arc binding on this court f" Whils we re.qiect the learning and high intelligence of te State courts, and consider their decisions, w ith others, i authority, we follow them only where they give a conruction to the State statutes. On this head, I consider lyself fortunate in being able to turn to the decision of lis court, given by Mr. Justice drier, in Pease w. Peck, a we from the State of Michigan, (IK Howard, 589.) defied in December terui, 1*55. Speaking for the court, udge Grier said: '' We entertain the highest respect for that learned Mil, (the supreme court of Michigan,) and in any qucson affecting tlie construction of their own laws, where e entertain any doubt, would lie glad to Is; relieved from oubt and responsibility by reposing on their decision, here are, it is true, many dicta to be found in our deinions, averring that the courts of the United States are ound to follow the decisions of the State courts on the instruction of their own laws. Hut ultliough this may u correct, yet a rather strong oxpVessiou of u general lie, it cannot be received as the annunciation of a maxim f universal application. Accordingly, our reports finish many cases of exceptions to it. In all cases where here is a settled construction of the laws of a State, by s highest judicature established bv admitted precedent, : is tiie practice of tlie courts of the United States to revive and adopt it, without criticism or further inquiry V'ben the decisions of the State court arc not consistent re do nut feel bound to follow tiie last, if it is contrary o our own convictions ; and much more is this the case rhore, after a long course of consistent decisions, some ew light suddeuly springs up, or an excited public opinm lias elicited new doctrines subversive of former safe ireccdent." These words, it appears to me, have a stronger applicaion to the case before us than they had to the cause in rhich tliey were spoken ns the opinioir of this court; uud regret tliat they do not seem to be us fresh in the recolection of some of my brethren as hi my own. For wenty-clglit years the decisions of the supreme court of iissouri wore consistent on all tlie points made in this aw. But this consistent course was suddenly terminaed, whether bv some new light suddenly springing up ir aa excited public opinion, or both, it is not necessary o say. In the case of Scott v>. Emerson, in 1852, tlicy rem overturned and repudiated. This, then, is the very ease in which seven of my iretliren declared they would not follow the lust decision. )n this authority I may well repose. I can desire no ither or better basis. But there is another ground which I deem conclusive, Jid which I will restate. The supreme court of Missouri refused to notice the act if Congress or the constitution of Illinois, tinder which freel Scott, his wife and children, claimed that they arc ntitlod to freedom. This lieing rejected by the Missouri court, there was no ase before it, or least it was a case with only one side ; ,nd this is the ease which, in the opinion of this court, re are l?mnd to follow. 'The Missouri court disregards lie express provisions of an act of Congress and the contitution of a sovereign State, lioth of which laws for wenty-eight years it had not only regarded, but carried nto effect. If a State court may do this on a question involving he liltcrty of a human being, what protection do the laws iTord ? So far from this being a Missouri question, it is a [iicstion, as it would seem, within the twenty-fifth secion of the judiciary act, where a right to freedom lieing el tip under the act of Congress, and the decision lieing gainst such right, it may be brought for revision icfore this court from the supreme court of Missouri I think ttie judgment of the court below should 1 e reersed. OUR NEW YORK CORRESPONDENCE. Nkw Youk. May 27, 1857. The police affairs of the city have as yet put on no newace. The decision of the "general term of the supreme ourt" has been made, sustaining the new nietrojtolitan lolice law. But the decision loses much of its power rom the fact that but three of the judges held the gearul term. Two of these, Mitchell and Peabody, arc lack republicans, and it was the common talk that Pea>ody had, in advance, given his opinion in favor of the aw, and had resolved to sustain it. Besides, lie Is the oungest judge on the bench?only about four months a udge?and is a candidate for re-election this fall; while udee Mitchell has been imported from Brooklvn to cive , judgment on a law made for up in Albany. And the udges of note and standing?Clarke and Davios?were lot present, and took 110 part in the proceedings. And o this must be added the fact that Judge Roosevelt, the hief justice of the supreme court, gave, at the sitting, .n elaborate opinion against the constitutionality of he law, and he is the only democrat that was on lie bench at the time of the hearing. So that the lecision amounts to just as much as one from Greeley or lie black-republican committee of New York, and no nore. Hie arse now goes up to the court of appeals, itid in a short tiuio the whole matter will lie at rest. But lie conflict of jurisdiction goes on. No better proof can >e given that the new police bili was a black-republican iieasure to control the city than the fact that that high iriest of abolitionism, Thurlow Weed, oanic to the re-sue of Simeon Draper, and took the chair at the meeting ,t the new police headquarters in Wiiite street. Draper node a clean breast of all his troubles, and told how he uul attempted to get possession of the New York ojlice tations, and could not succeed- The sight Was an edify ng one to see an Albany editor, witli no authority, not veil ft snnm one, prcsiumg over a conclave held to nlo the city?enforce nn unconstitutional law - by rhich means those pirates could get hold of the city roperty. '1'he "Friends of Temperance," ns they atylo themelves, met last night to re; what can bo done to make lie new "excise law" efficient. The law does not seem o suit apy one hut the liquor-sellers, and it suits them nly on the ground that it is so complicated, stringent, nd absurd that ita provisions cannot be enforced, and re, consequently, harmless. '11.e "call" for the meeting was a loud one. Hie hall as a large one. Hie meeting was a small oue. The Id party hackR were present, 'ilie old story aliout the nforcement of the law was told with variations. The iw that could be enforced these men reject with disdain, he law they want is one that is unconstitutional. The ale to do all they can legally they trample beneath ncir feet. Hie aim fhoy have in view is beyond their ach. So they waste their strength by beating the air. nd in the mean time we have free trade in liquor all ic week, Sunday included. Dr. Cliecver's church have got into a regular row. A iccting preliminary to the nnuunl meeting was held last iglit. The animus of an excited caucus was present, s the deacons of the church are opposed to the ruinous mrv/> f?i t Hi' imat/ir. ail pfforf ut mmln llimw ver. To do this tho established rules of the church ere overthrown ; and a debate, acrimonious and uniristian, took place ; and, for a time, it fieemod that the teeiing would break up In ft row. All this trouble, turioil, row, bad feeling, and opposition, has been welluned by their politico abolition pn~tor. The fight is a xxl one, aid the public look on to enjoy it. If men ill be fools, the penalty luust bo paid. The wcathor is dcdlghtful?warm and balmy. The J roots of New York ftre in a deplorable condition, 'lire nusemcnts of the city are at a low ebb. Burton mode i experiment the other night that he will not repeat, c took the ro[)?-dancer, young Hengler, and gave him lc part of Ilamlet to commence his theatrical career ith. He came down as he would if his tight-rope broke id laid hint flat on bis ltack on .the stage. The failure is total and mortifying. It is not true that Marshall has purchased Burton's icatre, No steps towards a sale have been taken. MANHATTAN. On the 12th instant Major Dashiel, paymaster in the ailed States army, and four nten, weic upset in a boat i Indian river, Florida, and came near being drowned, it were fortunately rescued. Major I), hod with him a \ther lwg containing aliout $23,000 in gold for the payent of the troops on the Florida coast, which was lost, in Charleston Courier, from which we learn these facts, , ys the bottom of the river is a quicksand, and theprobility is the money will never be recovered. t WASHINGTON CITY. NATIBUAV MORN IMG* MAY M). 1867. THK VIRGINIA KLHCTIOS. The election lit Virginia fur attorney genera], mean Iters of Congress, and tnenibera of the legislature took place yesterday. "All of the delegation (?\\H the Kichmond Enquirer) in the last Congress were candidates for re-election except Messrs Kidwell an,I McMiillin. Kdgar Snowden, in the Alexandria, A. J. Crane, in the Richmond, and John H. CarliIf, in Parkersburg district, wore the only American ami ' whig candidates in the field for Congress, to far as we are informed, though iu other districts gentlemen attached to one or the other of those two partial were probably voted for. in some of the districts the regular democratic nominees were opposed by j distribution democrats, who, to a great extent, were voted for by whigs and Amoricans. The Hon. Clnt. J. Faulkner, democrat, was opposed in his district by ! the Hon. William Lucas, distribution democrat. )n the Norfolk district General Mitlson, democrat, lud j no serious opposition. In the last Congress tho whole delegation, with tho exception of Mr. Carlile, were democrats. The legislature now elected will ' have to choose a Cuilcd States senator, in the place of Mr. Hunter." Partial returns from several congressional districts indicate the election of Mr. Tucker, the democratic candidate lor attorney general, by an overwhelming majority. The democrats have secured both branches of the State legislature l>y an increased majority. Our friends throughout the country will bo rcjoiced to learn that the city of Richmond?for yours and years the stronghold of the opposition?has surrendored at last to the democrats. The vote for Congress stands: Caskie 1.456 Crane Democratic majority Ms The Richmond Enquirer of yesterday morning says: " The beleaguered castle of the enemy, which has heretofore detied assault, has yielded at last. ITie metropolix of Virginia is no longer under the van of know-nothing. win. Truth lias triumphed. Patriotism lues prevuilesl, and Richmond is redeemed. "To the noble old-line whigs who, imitating the example of a worthy son of the gallant Clay, nobly aekisttsl uh in successfully storming the strongest fortress of knownothiugism yesterday, we would extend the right hand of faithful fellowship, and congratulate them cordially on our mutual triumph." The returns arc coining in slowly, hut enough hos been received from the 9th and 10th congressional districts to make it quite certain that the Hon. Win. Smith and the Hon. Chas. Jus. Faulkner will be returned by largely-increased majorities over previous elections. The same may be said of Judge t'askie in the Richmond district?the city of Richmond itself giving the democratic ticket some lour hundred majority? a thing almost unprecedented in its history. Judging, therefore, of the spirit of our party throughout the State by what we have seen nearest to us, we can scarcely doubt that the whole democratic congressional ticket has been elected. We have received the following reported majorities from the seventh congressional district : Smith. Snnwdt'i). Alexandria - ?- 4.')S Orange 250 C'ulpeper 162 Fauquier 150 Fairfax - 200 Prince William - 100 Rappahannock. 69 Four counties to hear from, which vciil still further increase Governor Smith's majority. From the Winchester district (the eighth) the news is of the most gratifying character, as will be seen from the following despatch : Martinsmbo. May 29 ?Faulkner's majority in the eighth district ix tiro Oimuand and, i,in.l>i-at? page countv gives him 913. Berkeley 300, ( lark 109, Frederick 527, Jefferson 115. Loudouu gives Lucas 564. All honor to the heroic and steadfast democracy of tho glorious Old Dominion ! The insidious and silly bribe offered in the shape of distribution could not for a moment shake their constancy or warp their fidelity to principle. ANNEXATION IN L1BKRIA. 1 President Benson, of Liberia, in bis message to tho extra session of the legislature of April 6, informs that body that, in conformity with tho act of tho legislature entitled "An act for the relief of the Stato of .Maryland, in Liberia," approved the 7th of February, 1857, he despatched a forec of 115 men, under command of Major General Roberts, and that ho also negotiated a loan for the benefit of the State of $5,000, to be refunded in annual instalments of $500, at G per cent, interest. Among the documents accompanying tho message is a copy of a treaty oi frionitakin rtUNnalvrt ,1 ?C.,I.... ........I,1 ...1 l\.lw r , ' ~ WMWAUaavv* ruary 19 between the republic of Liberia and tin) State of Maryland, in Liberia, ratified by the senate on the 20th February, and copies of the requisite bonds conditioned for the payment to the republic , of ihe sum of ?20,000, in annual instalments of ?.1,000, and pledging the revenue and the sources of revenue of the State of Maryland, in Liberia, thereto. In reference to the difficulties between the Stste of Liberia and the native tribes, the message says "that the necessity for offensive and defensive operations by the furoes of the republic was superseded by tho conclusion of a treaty of peace, friendship, and indemnification between the allies and the tw elve hostile tribes on terms mutually satisfactory and honorable," f'k- 1 1 " ? , i . -a J. j ui- priiici|>;u iMiBiiH'Hs sunmitreu to rue coiisiuri* ation of the extra session of the legislature was a formal application on the part of the State of Maryland to be admitted into the republic as the "county of ('ape I'almas." The application states that the revenue of the State arising from imports ie $1,WW per annum, and the liabilities amount to $3,000, *nd the assets, including public buildings and hills payable, to 810,000. The number of American inhalthunts in the State is 900, and the aboriginal populntion is estimated at 00.000. The new county will ontitlcd to two senators and three members in the lower branch of the legislature. The measure is strongly urged by the governor, and is no doubt the law at this time. CONGRESSIONAL NOMINATION. Hon. Sydenham Moore, of Greene county, has received tire democratic nomination for Congress in the fourth district, Alabama?4o aays the Montgomery Advertiser. , Three United Statos senators from New Hampshire have died within three years, and all while in office, via: Messrs. Nbrris, Charles G. Atherton, and Junes Bell.