ed by the
lucid and able opinion of Lord Stowell in the more recent case of the
slave Grace, reported in the second volume of Haggard, p. 94; in which
opinion, whilst it is conceded by the learned judge that there existed
no power to coerce the slave whilst in England, that yet, upon her
return to the island of Antigua, her _status_ as a slave was revived,
or, rather, that the title of the owner to the slave as property had
never been extinguished, but had always existed in that island. If the
principle of this decision be applicable as between different portions
of one and the same empire, with how much more force does it apply as
between nations or Governments entirely separate, and absolutely
independent of each other? For in this precise attitude the States of
this Union stand with reference to this subject, and with reference to
the tenure of every description of property vested under their laws
and held within their territorial jurisdiction.

A strong illustration of the principle ruled by Lord Stowell, and of
the effect of that principle even in a case of express _contract_, is
seen in the case of Lewis _v._ Fullerton, decided by the Supreme Court
of Virginia, and reported in the first volume of Randolph, p. 15. The
case was this: A female slave, the property of a citizen of Virginia,
whilst with her master in the State of Ohio, was taken from his
possession under a writ of _habeas corpus_, and set at liberty. Soon,
or immediately after, by agreement between this slave and her master,
a deed was executed in Ohio by the latter, containing a stipulation
that this slave should return to Virginia, and, after a service of two
years in that State, should there be free. The law of Virginia
regulating emancipation required that deeds of emancipation should,
within a given time from their date, be recorded in the court of the
county in which the grantor resided, and declared that deeds with
regard to which this requisite was not complied with should be void.
Lewis, an infant son of this female, under the rules prescribed in
such cases, brought an action, _in forma pauperis_, in one of the
courts of Virginia, for the recovery of his freedom, claimed in virtue
of the transactions above mentioned. Upon an appeal to the Supreme
Court from a judgment against the plaintiff, Roane, Justice, in
delivering the opinion of the court, after disposing of other
questions discussed in that case, remarks:

"As to the deed of emancipati