FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553  
554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   >>   >|  
ions of the ordinance of '87, should be secured to the inhabitants _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not included within the original States, and that this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.) Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial decisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery. This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter _vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Butler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._ Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps. 566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise _vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her. 6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10, 1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislativ
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553  
554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

slavery

 
States
 

Supreme

 

decided

 
Washington
 

constitution

 
asserted
 

letter

 

abolition

 

France


United

 

Louisiana

 

principle

 

policy

 

adopted

 

Mathews

 

THEMSELVES

 
SLAVEHOLDERS
 

brought

 

exception


residence
 

emancipated

 
master
 
moment
 

EMINENT

 

inhabitants

 

STATESMEN

 

Randolph

 
Lasselle
 

article


Gillespie

 
Spotts
 

Blackford

 

CONCEDED

 

Louise

 

Mariot

 

secured

 

accomplished

 

legislative

 

authority


Lafayette

 

proper

 

effectual

 

effected

 

legislativ

 
assuredly
 

ordinance

 
Morris
 

Isbell

 

Robert