Julia v. Samuel M. Kinney
View original image: Page  078
[missing figure]

The slave was not an Emigrant but went into IllinoisIllinois with an avowed view to make that
state her home, she took up her residence there with her slave in her possession & kept the
slave there for upuwards of one month, and treated the slave in all respects as slaves are
treated in states where slavery is allowed, these acts of the owner surely amounted to the
introduction of slavery in Ill: unless therefore the case can be brought within some reason-
-able and Equitable exception to be engrafted on the constitution of IllinoisIllinois the palintiff
will be entitled to exact the forfeiture of Emancipation- In this case we see nothing in the
nature of accident to prevent the owner from taking the plaintiff to MissouriMissouri immediately -
The excuse set up is that the owner was a widow and might not have had the means of
[ immedide ] transportaion of the slave to missouri, that she was a new comer in the country &
might be poor &therefore unable to do it, that some reasonable time ought to be allowed to
her to provide a residence for herself and family and that one month in this case is not
too much, we are of opinion that the excuse to raise an exception must be something more
than the mere convenience or inconvenience of the owner. - But the instruction assumes
that if the owner did not intend to make IllinoisIllinois the residence of the slave then there is no
violation of the constitution, Is it true that if a person says he does not intend to do an act
& yet does it that the act is not done- the constitution of Ill: does not regard the intention
to introduce or not to introduce slavery but prohibits the act- If a person says he
does not intend to introduce slavery yet if he does introduce it defacts can the innocent
intent save him from the forfeiture, we think it casnnot, unless he can also show that his
caseraises a reasonable and necessary exception. But in this case the evidnece is that the
owner did intend and infact did introduce slavery in IllinoisIllinois but declared that she did
not intend to continue it for any length of time but that she would take the slave to MissouriMissouri
and there hire her out, but suppose the owner did not intend to make Ill: the place of
the slaves residence permanently but only for one month, yet slavery is introduced and
continued for the mere convenience of the owner without any circumstances which raise
a just or even a resonable exception in her favor. - The case of WinneyWinney vs. WhitesideWhitesides
decided by this court has been cited to prove that what the owner intended is to be a criterion
to govern the question of freedom or slavery - that was a case where the owner of a slave
removed to the northwestern territory now Illionis, with the slave with the intent to make
that country his residence, and he did in fact make it his residence as well as that of
his slave also- The ordinance of CongressCongress for the Government of that territory declares
there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the Territory - This court
decided that if the owner went there with a slave with intent to make that place his
permanent residence and the residence of his slave and did in fact do so that the slave
was by such residence free But the court did not decide that the slave was free by reason
of the intent being declared - The second instruction given assumes that the slave
is not entitled to freedom because she was taken to IllinoisIllinois and remained there till she was
cured of sickness, we will give no opinion on this point as we consider the case fully
decided on the first and 3rd instructions. - The third instruction is, that the plaintiff
is not entitled to recover under the second section of the 6th Article of the constitution of
of Ill. - The section delcares that no person bound to labor in any other state shall
be hired to labor in this state except within the tract reserved for the salt works It then
concludes as before stated that any violation of this article shall effect the emancipation

View original image: Page  079
[missing figure]
of such person from his obligation to service, whether this instruction intends to decide
that the facts testified are true or untrue or only decides that the proof and case made does
not in law entitle the party to recover we do not exactly know, it seems however that
the instruction is wrong because it decides both the fact and the law - But if the instruc-
tion only assumes to decide the law yet it is wrong, the evidence is that after the slave was
fairly introduced into IllinoisIllinois and settled for the time being but with an intent on the
part of the owner to remove the slave at some future time to MissouriMissouri, the owner did hire the
slave to a person to labor for one or two days & received the pay for the hire - The court instructed
the Jury that this hiring is not a hiring within the prohibition above cited, We suppose the
circuit court thought the degree or quantity too small- We believe the object of this prohibi-
tion was to prevent slave labor from becoming a substitute for white or free labor throughout
the state, the constitution makers have therefore prohibited the thing in every possible
degree, here was a hiring of a person bound to labor in KentuckyKentucky whilst in KentuckyKentucky,
brought into IllinoisIllinois (not to reside there say, if you will) and hired to labor for one or
two days by the owner, what difference can it make if the hiring had been for 100 days,
We see none except in the degree or quantity of time. - With regard to the motion for a new
trial we think the court erred in refusing it, the reasons assigned for the new trial are
that the verdict is against law & Evidence, the Evidence is sufficient to bring the case within
the operation of the constitution - The Judgement of the Circuit CourtCircuit Court is reversed, the
cause is remanded for a new trial

M M Girk
GeorgeGeorge Tompkins