Mary Charlotte, a woman of color v. Gabriel S. Chouteau
View original image: Page  179
[missing figure]

law of EnglandEngland locally; and wherein it legally exists, it
does so only by the force of some local law. Whenever, therefore,
a slave comes from a place where it is recognized, into a place
under the English law, he ceases to be a slave, because the local law
loses its force, and the English law itself neither suffers the relation,
nor will, by the comitas inter communitates, enforce any local
law contrary to the law of nature.â As long therefore, as the law of
EnglandEngland acknowledges the law of nature to be its great principle
and rule, so long must it reject a claim to a right of property in a
man, or in his labour and industry, founded on his being born of
a captive, or on his being seized on violently by a third person, and
sold to the claimant. To use Lord Mansfield's very forcible language
âthe state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable
of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political,
but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after
the reasons, occasion, and time itself, from whence it was
created, are erased from memory. It is so odious, that
nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law.â

This English legal system was further sustained by the
terms of the before-mentioned commission to the Cheif Justice
of the King's Bench, and of the Commissions of other Officials
in CanadaCanada, and continued in full operation until the year
1774, when the British
statute 14 GeorgeGeorge III,
chapter 83, was passed,
which recalled the
French laws with
reference to property
and civil rights. Under
this statute no interference
was allowed
with what had already
been acquired or
judicially determined
under the operation
of the English laws.
W BadgleyW Badgley
Charles A. Terroux
Under this system of English law, public and private,
slavery had no legal existence from the cession of the Country,
as regarded the PanisPanis and negroes referred to above, much
less their children, born after the capitulation and the treaty
of peace, who were free-born. Burge says," Children born
in EnglandEngland of parents, who had been in the Colonies, were not
only at the time of birth absolutely free, but continued so. There
could be no grounds for considering that the children would
become slaves even if they had returned to the Colonies. Such
was the admitted law of Jamaica, and it is belived of
every other West-India colony.â (1 Burge's Commentaries [ on ]

View original image: Page  180
[missing figure]
on Colonial & Foreign laws, p 751.) This is a conclusion of
the law of the County of the birth; not because the birth occurred
in this or that locality, but because it occured under the protection
of the particular system of the law of the County of the birth
being itself repugnant to slavery. In the case of
Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 2 Martin's LouisianaLouisiana Reports,
page 408, before the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of that state, it was assumed,
that if the statues of slavery were dissolved, according to the law
of the domicile of the owner, and of the slave who lives with
him, it would be considered as having legally ceased to exist in
every other place. So that incipient right to freedom of the issue
of a female slave, registered according to the laws of PennsylvaniaPennsylvania,
would prevail in KentuckyKentucky, notwithstanding her removal to
the latter state. Her freedom was not impaired by forcibly
removing her into KentuckyKentucky to defeat her attempt to assert her
freedom, nor by her subsequent removal, voluntary for forced,
into the state of LouisianaLouisiana (1 Burge, loco citato).
Children born therefore after the capitulation, and after the
treaty, are unquestionalby free-born; and with reference to
them, it is difficult to discover a legal principle which
would sanction the position, that a person in possession ofthe
status of freedom could, by his own act, subject himself to
that of slavery." (1 Burge p. 750. see also the case of &
Rawle's Reports, p. 305 & seq..)

Eighth: Was the King's proclamation of the seventh of October 1763,
ever recognized by the British Parlimant as being legal,
and was it ever revoked or repealed?

Answer: It was so recognized by the British act for CanadaCanada,
of 14 Geroge III. Chapter 83 (Known as the QuebecQuebec Act),
instituted, âAn act for making more effectual provision for
the Government of the Province ofProvince of Quebec QuebecProvince of Quebec &caâ, which came
into operation in May 1755. By this act, the criminal law
of EnglandEngland was continued in the Provinice, the "laws of CanadaCanada"
were to be resorted to âin all matters of controversy relative to [ property ]