Julia v. Samuel M. Kinney
View original image: Page  076
[missing figure]
JuliaJulia a Woman of Color
Sam M Kinny

Error to the circuit Court of St. Louis County

This was an action commenced under the [ Statute ] for freedom
verdict & [ Judgment ] against JuliaJulia the plaintiff- The bill of exceptions [ shews ] the
following case, that M Kinny the defendant bought the plaintiff as a Slave from
one Sucinda CarringtonCarrington - that in the year 1829MrsCarringtonCarrington lived in the StateKentucky
of KentuckyKentucky that she then had in her the plaintiff JuliaJulia as a slave, that
she then & there determined & declared her intention to be to remove & take with
her JuliaJulia to the State ofIllinois IllinoisIllinois, that a witness in this cause applied to her to buy
JuliaJulia telling MrsCarringtonCarrington that she could not hold JuliaJulia in IllinoisIllinois as a
Slave, that if she took her there she would be free- Mrs C refused to sell JuliaJulia ,
said she would not keep JuliaJulia in IllinoisIllinois but intended to hire her out in MissouriMissouri-
Accordingly Mrs C moved to IllinoisIllinois, brought with her said JuliaJulia , arrived
in PikePike county Ill about the 27th or 28th of October, settled herself there, purchased land
& she kept JuliaJulia there with her till about the 1st of December the same year exercising
the ordinary acts of ownership & dominion over her which are usually exercised by
masters over their slaves- That in the meantime Mrs CarringtonCarrington hired JuliaJulia about
two days to some person to work, which work was performed and that she received pay
therefor, that about the 1st of December in the same year MrsCarringtonCarrington sent JuliaJulia
to LouisianaLouisiana MissouriMissouri a distance of about 30 miles and hired her out that JuliaJulia lived
in MissouriMissouri sometime, became sick, and that Mrs C, then sent for JuliaJulia took her home
into PikePike county in Ill. where she was kept till she recovered her health - that then
Mrs C, took or sent JuliaJulia to StSt Louis LouisSt Louis and sold her to S M KinneyM Kinney the defendant- several
instructions were asked by the defendant which were given and Excepted to, the defendant
also moved for a nero trial, which was refused- The first instruction given by the Court
is that if the Jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff JuliaJulia was taken into the
State ofIllinois IllinoisIllinois by her owner without any intention on the part of such owner to make
that State the residence of JuliaJulia that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this

View original image: Page  077
[missing figure]
action, we will consider this instruction before we notice the others - the plaintiff claim
to freedom is based on the 6th article of the constitution of the state of IllinoisIllinois which
declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introuduced
into this state otherwise than for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted,-the article then goes on to make some provision with regard to
hiring persons bound to service in other states and concludes by saying any Violation
of this article shall effect the emancipation of such person from his obligation to service
we see by this constitution that the very introduction of Slavery works an Emancipation
of the slave and it is argued that if we give this constitution a literal construction no one
can travel through that state with his slaves without emancipating them - It is true
that a literal construction would lead directly to this result. Every law should be
adjudicated on with a view to the end and object thereof, the object of the constitution
of IllinoisIllinois was not to prevent persons owning slaves in KentuckyKentucky from passing through
IllinoisIllinois with their slave property to MissouriMissouri, but to prevent the relation of master and
slave from existing in that state by an inhabitant and resident thereof. We are farther-
more of opinion that all persons who are citzens of any of the states have a right by the
constitution of the United StatesUnited States to pass through IllinoisIllinois with any sort of property that
they may own in the state where they migrate from. - The 2nd Section of the 4th article
of the [ constution ] of the U.S. says that the citzens of each state shall be entitled to
all the [ privilegs ] and immunities of citizens in the several states we are of opinion
that it is the undoubted right of every citzen of the United StatesUnited States to pass freely through
every other state with his property of ever description including negro slaves without
being in anyway subject to forfeit his property for having done so provided he does
not subject his property by a residence to the action of the laws of the state in which
he may so reside- another view of the subject is that out of the general words of
the IllinoisIllinois constitution of necessity exceptions must be raised, though it is true
that slavery shall not be introudced in that state under penalty of forfeiting the
property yet it can be introudced so far and to permit persons passing through the state
as Emigrants or mere travellers to carry with them their slave property and to retain
in them their their right to such property while they retain the character of Emigrants
or travellers otherwise there could be no emigration through the state with slave
property which is a thing it cannot reasonably be supposed the constitution of IllinoisIllinois
intended to forbid, How long the character of Emigrant or traveller through the state
may last cannot by any genral rule be determined, but it seems that reason does
require it should last so long as might be necessary according to the common mode
of travelling to accomplish a trandit through the state, if any accident should happen
to the emigrant which in ordinary cases would make it reasonable and prudent
for him to suspend his journey for short time we think he might do so without
incurring a forfeiture if he resumed his Journey as soon as he safely could, something
more than the more convenience or ease of the emigrant ought to intervene to save
him from a frofeiture something of the nature of necessity should exist before he would
or ought to be exempt from the forfeiture - if swollen streams of water which could
not be crossed without danger should intervene, serious sickness of the family, broken
wagons & the like should exist, these would be good causes of delay so long as they exist
if the Journey is resumed as soon as these impediments are removed provided also
due diligence is used to remove them - In the case before us the owner of the