3. That under the ordinance of 1787 the bare fact
that VincentVincent wrought at the IllinoisIllinois SalineSaline from 1817
till 1825 does not work his emancipation.
4. That under the ordinance of 1787 the plaintiff
can not lawfully claim his freedom by reason of
any residence in IllinoisIllinois which does not amound
to a permanent settlement and the acquistion of a
regular domicil there.
5. That the Constitution of IllinoisIllinois is not and can
not be controlled by the ordinance of 1787 as to the
existence of slavery within that State.
6. That if the Jury shall be of opinion that the
plaintiff constantly down to the Fall of 1889 when
this suit was brought acknowledged himself a
slave such evidence is legal and valid and they may
found their verdict upon it.
These instructions are assigned for error.
1st By the Constitution of IllinoisIllinois Negroes may be
hired to work at the SalineSaline if they be not hired
for more than 12 months at a time.
If a negro were really hired to labor at the SalineSaline
for five years the fact that the negro at the end
of each year was removedk over to KentuckyKentucky and afterwards brought back would not cure the fraud
We conceive then that if the negro were in good faith
hired there for one year only that at the end of the
first year he might be again hired another year
without being taken across the line of the State.
In this instruction then nothing wrong is seen
2nd If the owner of VincentVincent could lawfully hire his
negro for 12 months at the saline an involuntary escape
of his negro at the end of the year would hardly be
construed to cause a forfeiture, but it could hardly
be conceived that the evidence here given could
warrant such an instruction.
It rather appears that the negro was unwilling to go
The instruction then is wrong.
3 Nothing can be conceived more vague than the
instructions here asked. The ordinance was made to
prevent the introduction of slaves into the territory
of which IllinoisIllinois was a part. This court has
several times decided that if the owner of slaves
look them with him into IllinoisIllinois with intent to re-
side there and did reside there keeping his slaves
it was a fraud on the ordinances and the slave be-
come free. If he stay in KentuckyKentucky and send his slave
over to IllinoisIllinois to reside there it is equally a vio-
lation of the provisions of the ordinance The evidence
here is that his owner hired him to labor there.
Had the negro eloped from his master and gone over
to IllinoisIllinois without his owners knowledge or consent
the case is provided for by act itself. The state
of the case did not warrat the instruction It
might mislead the Jury and is wrong.
4. The object of this instruction is not easily
perceived. It appeard to the court that a slave is
not capable of acquiring either a permanent settle-
ment or regular domicil by residence this instruction
is also unwarranted and erroneous.
5th This instruction is not erroneous
6th Any fact admitted by the plaintiff might
be given in evidence against him and he would be
reduced to the necessity of disproving such fact.
But whether he be a slave or not is a conclusion
of law from certain facts which may or may not
exist. Such an admission made even by a lawyer
would be no evidence.
This instruction was surely wrong.
The Counsel for the plaintiffs prayed the court
to instruct the Jury that if the plaintiffs resided at
the OhioOhio SalineSaline as a laborer in the year 1817 by
the consent of his master he was entitled to his
freedom. This instruction was refused.
The constitution of IllinoisIllinois was adopted in
1818 and it was in evidence that the plaintiffs