193 The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was also relevant. 194Winny v. Whitesides, 1 Mo. 472 (1824), in which Huber in Dallas's translation is cited; Merry v. Tiffin and Menard, 1 Mo. 725 (1827); Milly (a woman of color) v. Smith, 2 Mo. 36 (1828); Vincent (a man of color) v. Duncan, 2 Mo. 24 (1830); Ralph (a man of color) v. Duncan, 3 Mo. 194 (1833); Julia (a woman of color) v. McKinney, 3 Mo. 270 (1833); Nat (a man of color) v. Ruddle, 3 Mo. 400 (1834); cf. La Grange v. Chouteau, 2 Mo. 19 (1828). From 1836, just after the publication of Story’s Conflict, comes the leading Missouri precedent to the same effect: Rachael (a woman of color) v. Walker, 4 Mo. 350; se alsoWilson (a colored man) v. Melvin, 4 Mo. 592 (1837). The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was also a relevant factor in the decisions. For an early, very sophisticated, case recognizing the importance of foreign jurisdictions, but accepting the priority of an overriding statute, seeMahoney v. Ashton, 4 Harris and McHenry 295 (Md. 1799). Under the Constitution of Illinois, slaves who entered the State, with the owner’s permission and established residence, automatically became free.193 Dred Scott returned (or was returned) to Missouri. The issue then arises as to whether he was reenslaved. Under Huber’s doctrine, the Missouri court would have to apply the law of Illinois to decide the question. And then, on this basis, Dred Scott would be free. Such in fact was the holding in a number of Missouri cases, before and also shortly after the publication of Story’s Commentaries.194 If Huber’s doctrine had remained in place, the law would have been so settled to the effect that Dred Scott was free, that no such case could ever have come before the Supreme Court. But could it be argued that on Huber’s view as expressed at ... the law of Missouri could be disallowed on the ground that it was “too revolting? Again the answer must be in the negative. Huber’s axiom rests on theius gentium. Law valid in its own territory is valid everywhere according to his section unless it is so revolting that it is contrary to the law of nations; which means, it is not accepted elsewhere. Slavery was certainly not such a case, since in the United States alone it was accepted in thirteen States. Despite the growing body of opinion in the Western world that slavery should be outlawed, there were still too many slave States in the United States to make possible the argument that, following Huber on the subject of too revolting an example, slavery was contrary to the ius gentium.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=