Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/39

 might have been in the country of his birth, or of that in which he had been previously domiciled, unless it is also recognized by the laws of the country of his actual domicil, and where he is found, and it is sought to be enforced. In Scotland the like doctrine has been solemnly adjudged. The tribunals of France have adopted the same rule, even in relation to slaves coming from and belonging to their own colonies. This is also the undisputed law of England. It has been solemnly decided that the law of England abhors, and will not endure the existence of slavery within the nation; and consequently, as soon as a slave lands in England, he becomes ipso facto a freeman, and discharged from the state of servitude. Independent of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, for the protection of masters in regard to domestic fugitive slaves, there is no doubt that the same principle pervades the common law of the non-slaveholding states in America; that is to say, foreign slaves would no longer be deemed such after their removal thither."

That no particular purpose or length of residence of the master in the free country is requisite to give the slave the right to claim his freedom there, is established by the leading case of Sommersett, decided by the court of King's Bench in 1772; for the return to the writ of habeas corpus in that case showed that the master came with his slave from Virginia to England, merely for the purpose of transacting certain business, and with the intention of returning as soon as he had finished it; and that the respondent, who was captain of a vessel lying in the Thames, and bound for Jamaica, held Sommersett under directions from his master to take him to Jamaica, and there sell him as a slave. And the court held that the slave was entitled to be discharged, Lord Mansfield saying, "The state of slavery is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." 20 Howell's State Trials, 82; Lofft, 19. And the same doctrine had been declared in even stronger terms in the court of chancery ten years earlier, on a bill in equity, filed by an administrator, to recover back a sum of money presented by his intestate on a death-bed to a negro who had been brought to England as a slave. The suit was apparently founded on the supposition that the negro was still a slave, and therefore incapable of receiving a gift. But Lord Chancellor Northington delivered the following opinion: "As soon as a man sets foot on English ground, he is free; a negro may maintain an action against his master 4