Rachel v. William Walker
View original image: Page  001
[missing figure]

To the Judge of the St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court.

The petition of RachelRachel , a mulatto woman
aged about twenty years of age represents that about five
years ago she was claimed and possessed as a Slave by
one StocktonStockton , who then took your petitioner
to the territory of MichiganMichigan , where he resided at PrairiePrairie
du ChienChien on the east side of the Mississippi RiverMississippi River
for about two years, holding your petitioner as
a slave during that time at that place & causing
her to work for & serve himself & family at that place
during that time as a slave at which place her child JamesJames HenryHenry was born,she being held by said StocktonStockton : That afterwards he
brought your petitioner to St. LouisSt Louis where he sold
her & said child to one Joseph Klunk, who has recently
sold her & the child to one William WalkerWilliam Walker , who is
a dealer in Slaves & is about to take your
petitioner & the child down the Mississippi RiverMississippi River probably
to New OrleansOrleans for sale; that said WalkerWalker now
holds your petitioner & child in Slavery, claiming her as
his slave, and your petitioner prays that your
petitioner & said child may be allowed to sue as a poor per-
son in the St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court for freedom
& that the said WalkerWalker may be restrained from
carrying her or said child out of the Jurisdiction of the St. LouisCircuit Court
Circuit CourtCircuit Court till the termination of said
Suit.

November 4th, 1834

RachelRachel her Mark
for herself & Child
James HenryHenry

View original image: Page  002
[missing figure]

County of St. Lousi ss:

John a colored man being duly sworn
on his oath saith that he knows RachelRachel the petitioner
within named & has known her for five or six years
that he knows said RachelRachel was claimed & held by said
StocktonStockton as a slave at PrairiePrairie du ChienChien in Mi-
chigan Territory for more than one year, of his
own knowledge, as he saw her there during that
time: & he understood that she had been there held
in the same way by said StocktonStockton for the year
immediately previous thereto: he knows also that said
RachelRachel & her child called JamesJames HenryHenry , born at PrairiePrairie
du ChienChien , were sold by said StocktonStockton to Joseph Klunk
& by him, sold to said William WalkerWilliam Walker : & he has
heard & believes that said WalkerWalker is a trader in
slaves & is about to remove said RachelRachel &
her child from MissouriMissouri down the MississippiMississippi for sale.

Sworn to & Subscribed before
me this 4 Novr. 1834
D HoughD Hough J. P.

Hough

John his mark a Col'd Man

View original image: Page  003
[missing figure]

In vacation
at ChambersChambers
County of St LouisCounty of St Louis

On reading the foregoing petition &
affidavit & being of opinion that said petition
contains sufficient matter to authorize the com

mencement of suits for freedom on behalf of
said RachelRachel & her child JamesJames HenryHenry I here

by order that they be permitted to sue as poor
persons to establish their freedom: & assign
as their counsel JosiahJosiah Spalding SpaldingJosiah Spalding Esq::

And I furthermore order that said peititoner &
child have reasonable liberty to attend their counsel
and the court when occasion may require: & that
said RachelRachel v.JamesJames HenryHenry shall not nor shall either
of them be taken or removed out of the jurisdiction
of the St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court, nor be subject to any
severity because of their application for freedom

St. LouisSt LouisNovember 4th, 1834

L EL E Lawless LawlessL E Lawless
Judge 3rd Judl.. Circuit

View original image: Page  004
[missing figure]
No 82

November Term 1834St Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court

Petition of RachelRachel &
Child JamesJames HenryHenry for
leave to sue for freedom

Filed 4th November 1834

Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble Clerk

View original image: Page  005
[missing figure]

St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court For November Term 1834

County of St. LouisCounty of St LouisSs.: RachelRachel a mulattress (claiming her
freedom & permitted to sue as a poor person) by J. SpaldingJ Spalding
her attorney complains of William WalkerWilliam Walker of a plea of
trespass, for that the said defendant heretofore to wit
on the first day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred & thirty four at said
County with force and arms &c. assaulted the said
plaintiff, & her then & there did beat & bruise & ill
treat & strike & also then & there imprisoned the said
plaintiff & kept & detained her in confinement & res-
trained of her liberty without any reasonable cause
for a long time to wit hitherto contrary to law &
against the will of said plaintiff, and the said plain
tiff avers that before and at the time of the com-
mitting the grievances aforesaid, she was & still is
a free person, & that the defendant then held
& detained her and still holds & detains her in slavery: and other wrongs said defendant then
& there did to said plaintiff,contrary to law &
against the peace & dignity of the State ofMissouri
MissouriMissouri to the damage of said plaintiff of
five hundred dollars & therefore she brings
her suit &c.

J SpaldingJ Spalding
atty for plff

View original image: Page  005
[missing figure]

The State of MissouriMissouri County of Saint LouisCounty of Saint Louis, Ss.

To the Sheriff of the county of Saint LouisSt Louis Greeting

We command you to summon William WalkerWilliam Walker that he be and appear before
the Judge of our Circuit CourtCircuit Court at the next term thereof to be held at the City of StCity of St Louis.
LouisCity of St Louis within and for the County of Saint LouisCounty of Saint Louis on the fourth Monday of November
instant then and there to answer unto RachelRachel a mulatress (claiming her freedom
& permitted to sue as a poor person) of a plea of tresspass to the damage of said
plaintiff of five hundred dollars and have you then there this writ

View original image: Page  006
[missing figure]
[missing figure]
Witness Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble Clerk of our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court
at office this fourth day of November in the year One Thousand eight Hundred and thirty four

Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble Clerk.

View original image: Page  006
[missing figure]

In vacation of Chamber County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis

On reading the foregoing petition & affidavit & being of opinion that said petition contains sufficient
matter to authorize the commencement of suits for freedom on behalf of said RachelRachel & her child JamesJames HenryHenry
I hereby order that they be permitted to sue as poor persons to establish their freedom, & assign as their counsel
Josiah SpaldingJosiah Spalding Esq: and I furthermore order that said petitioner & child have reasonable liberty to attend their
counsel and the court when occasion may require; & that said Rachel & James HenryHenry shall not nor shall
either of them be taken or removed out of the Jurisdiction of the St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court, nor be subject to any severity
because of their application for freedom.

St. LouisSt LouisNovember 4th 1834

L E LawlessL E Lawless Judge 3d Judl Circuit

A True Copy of the order

A GambleArchibald Gamble Clerk

View original image: Page  006
[missing figure]
RachelRachel a woman of color
vs
William WalkerWilliam Walker

And the said defendant WalkerWalker by GambleArchibald Gamble
his attorney comes and defends the force and injury
when &c and says that he is not guilty of the said sup-
posed wrongs and injuries above laid to his charge
in manner and form as the said plaintiff hath above
complained against him and of this he
puts himself upon the Country

H R GambleH R Gamble
Att for Deft

View original image: Page  006
[missing figure]
No. 82

November Term 1834
St. Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court

RachelRachel
vs.
William WalkerWilliam Walker


Trespass for freedom
Issue Summons

J SpaldingJ Spalding
Atty

Filed 4th November 1834

Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble Clerk

View original image: Page  006
[missing figure]

Executed this writ by reading it & the declaration
& the copy of the order made by the Judge
of the Circuit Court of the
third Judicial Circuit to William WalkerWilliam Walker
the defendant in the County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis on the
4th day of November 1834

Judge of Liberation &
7 - 332 -
made to

$ 1.00

JJames Brotherton BrothertonJames Brotherton Sheriff
M BrothertonM Brotherton Dept Shff

View original image: Page  007
[missing figure]

County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis, sct.
State of MissouriMissouri,

To the Sheriff of St. Louis CountyâGreeting.

You are hereby commanded to summon Elias T LanghamElias T Langham Frederich D. Ortley
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, they be and appear in proper
person before the Judge of our Circuit CourtCircuit Court , on the Twenty Eighth day of July instant at the city of St. LouisSt Louis, then and there to
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in
our said Court, wherein RachelRachel is
plaintiff and William WalkerWilliam Walker is
plaintiff and have you then and there this writ.

[missing figure]
Witness, Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court , at the
City of St. LouisCity of St Louis, this Third day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty five

Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble

Clerk, C.C.
View original image: Page  008
[missing figure]

Executed this writ by reading it to Elias TElias T Langham .
LanghamElias T Langham Frederick D. Ortley on the 7th day of July 1835 in the county of St LouisSt Louis

J BrothertonJames Brotherton Shff
By G HammondG Hammond Dept

Service 1.00
View original image: Page  008
[missing figure]

July Term 1835

RachelRachel
vs
William WalkerWilliam Walker

for plff

Elias T LanghamElias T Langham
Frederick D. Ortley

on 28th July

View original image: Page  009
[missing figure]

County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis, sct.
State of MissouriMissouri,

To the Sheriff of St. Louis CountyâGreeting.

You are hereby commanded to summon Elias T LanghamElias T Langham
Fredk D Ortley
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, they be and appear in proper person before the
Judge of our Circuit CourtCircuit Court , on the 17th day of Novr at
the City of St. LouisCity of St Louis, then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy
now pending in our said Court, wherein Racheal is plaintiff
and William WalkerWilliam Walker is defendant on the part of
the Plaintiff and have you then there this writ.

[missing figure]
Witness, Archibald GambleArchibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court , at the City ofCity of St Louis
St. LouisCity of St Louis, this 13th day of October. in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty five

A GambleArchibald Gamble

Clerk C.C.
View original image: Page  010
[missing figure]

Executed this writ by reading it to the
within Named persons on the 19th Oct 1835
in the County of St LouisCounty of St Louis

J BrothertonJames Brotherton Shff
by G HammondG Hammond Depty

service $ 1.00
View original image: Page  010
[missing figure]

Nov Term 1835

Racheal
vsWm WalkerWilliam Walker

for

Elias T. LanghamElias T Langham
Fredk D Ortley

17th Nov for
Plaintiff
View original image: Page  011
[missing figure]

County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis, sct.
State of MissouriMissouri,


To the Sheriff of St. LouisSt Louis CountyßGreeting.

You are hereby commanded to summon
Elias T. LanghamElias T Langham , & Frederick D Ortley
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, he be and appear in proper person
before the Judge of our Circuit CourtCircuit Court , on the Twenty third day of
March next at the city of St. LouisSt Louis, then and there to Testify
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein RachelRachel is plaintiff and William WalkerWilliam Walker is
defendant on the part of the
Plaintiff and have you then and there this writ.

[missing figure]
Witness, John RulandJohn Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court , at the
City of St. LouisCity of St Louis, this 29th day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six

Jn. RulandJohn Ruland

Clerk, C.C.
View original image: Page  012
[missing figure]

Executed this writ by reading it to the within
named persons on the 1st day of March 1836
in the county of St LouisSt Louis

J BrothertonJames Brotherton Shff
by G HammondG Hammond Depty

Service $ 1.00
View original image: Page  012
[missing figure]

March Term 1836

RachelRachel -
vs
WmWilliam Walker . WalkerWilliam Walker

sub: for Plff

Elias T. LanghamElias T Langham 4
Fred. D. Ortley

23 March 1836

View original image: Page  013
[missing figure]

County of St. LouisCounty of St Louis, sct.
State of MissouriMissouri,

To the Sheriff of St. Louis CountyâGreeting.

We command you to attach Elias T. LanghamElias T Langham
by his body and safely keep, so that you have his body before
the Judge of our Circuit CourtCircuit Court , now in session at the City of St. LouisCity of St Louis, within and for the County ofCounty of St Louis
St. LouisCounty of St Louis, on theforthwith 183 then and there to testify
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court , between
/
RachelRachel a woman of color plaintiff and William WalkerWilliam Walker
defendant wherein the said Elias T LanghamElias T Langham
has heretofore been summoned on the part of the said Plaintiff

[missing figure]
Witness, John RulandJohn Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit CourtCircuit Court , at the
City of St. LouisCity of St Louis, this >23, day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six

Jn. RulandJohn Ruland

Clerk, C.C.
View original image: Page  014
[missing figure]

Executed this writ and had the
body of Elias T LanghamElias T Langham in open
court on the 24th day March 1836

James BrothertonJames Brotherton Shff

By M. BrothertonM Brotherton D Shff

service $ 1.00
View original image: Page  014
[missing figure]
23 M

March Term 1836

RachelRachel
vs
William WalkerWilliam Walker

Attachment for

E T Langham

View original image: Page  015
[missing figure]
RachelRachel
vs.
William WalkerWilliam Walker

Be it remembered that on the
trial of this case before the Court sitting as a
Jury Elias T. LanghamElias T Langham was called as a witness on
the behalf of the plaintiff who testified that in
the fall of the year 1830, he the witness then re-
siding at or near the mouth of the St. Peters, came
to St. LouisSt Louis & that one T. B. W. Stockton then sent
by witness to major Brant of St. LouisSt Louis to purchase
a slave: that the plaintiff was purchased
for said StocktonStockton and was by the
witness taken up to him to Fort SnellingFort Snelling at
St. Peters in the same fall, where said StocktonStockton
held her as a Slave, till the fall of the year
1831. when he removed to PrairiePrairie du CheinChein
taking the said RachelRachel with him as his Slave
at which place he held her in slavery, till
about the spring of the year 1834 when
he took her to St. LouisSt Louis and
sold her: that Fort SnellingFort Snelling is on the west
side of the Mississippi RiverMississippi River & North of the StateMissouri
of MissouriMissouri & in the territory of the United StatesUnited States:
that said StocktonStockton , before he bought said RachelRachel
had resided at Fort SnellingFort Snelling about two years & was
still residing there when he bought her, having
just married: that during the whole time he
was at Fort SnellingFort Snelling as aforesaid, he was
there as an officer of the United StatesUnited States army
attached to the troops there by witness believed & during the time
he was at PrairiePrairie du ChienChien , he was likewise
there as such officer, & was in the quarter wal-
ters or commissary's department: that PrairiePrairie

View original image: Page  016
[missing figure]
an ChienChien is on the east side of the Mississi-
sippi River in the territory of MichiganMichigan and that
the said RachelRachel was only employed in attendance upon said StocktonStockton this family

The following extract of a letter of said Stock-
ton was also read in evidence by consent of
parties.

``Rachel the girl who has now sued for her
" freedom was purchased of Major Brant, by
" my direction, and sent up to Fort SnellingFort Snelling
" upper MississippiMississippi to me in the fall of 1830.
" In the fall of 1831 I went on furlough with
" my family & took RachelRachel along with me.
" Early in Spring of 1832 I was placed on duty
" in WashingtonWashington City, where I remained un-
" til August following when I was ordered to
" Fort Crawford, PrairiePrairie du Chien, Michigan
" Territory where I arrived in October following &
" remained there until June 1834 the period at
" which I sold RachelRachel , having taken her with
" me to St. LouisSt Louis MissouriMissouri for that purpose
" Her son was born at Fort Crawford, some
time in the spring or summer of 1834. Da-
"ring all the time I owned her & her child I
" was an officer of the United StatesUnited States army, sta-
"tioned at those different posts by order of the
" proper authority. RachelRachel was never employed
" otherwise there as my private servant and
" in immediate attendance upon my family"

The following statement made by J. SpaldingJ Spalding was
by consent read in evidence for the plaintiff

View original image: Page  017
[missing figure]

in this case, namely:

``About the time of the commencement of
``this suit (the writ had just been served I believe)
``the dependant came to my office and said
``that he ought not to have been sued or some
``thing to that effect: that he had bought Ra
``chel from Mr. Klunk & received her & taken
``her to his farm not knowing that there was
``any claim to freedom but that as soon
``as the writ was served, be went to Klunk
``& cancelled the bargain, and Klunk gave
``him back the consideration money: but
``that Klunk had never executed to him
``a bill of sale for her''.

No other testimony was given on either side of the
Court thereupon decided the law governing the case
to be that if said StocktonStockton was an officer of the
army of the United StatesUnited States while he held the plaintiff
in slavery. Stationed at Fort SnellingFort Snelling & Fort Crawford
by the proper authority; & if he employed the plaintiff
during that time only in personal attendance on himself
and family, that such residence of the plaintiff at
those places as has been proved, does not entitle her
to her freedom. To which opinion of the Court, the plain-
tiff by her counsel excepted: & thereupon the court gave
judgement for the defendant

and afterwards & within the time allowed by
law, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside
the verdict finding of the court & grant a new trial for the following
reasons then filed in writing viz..

View original image: Page  018
[missing figure]

1 Because the finding of the issues by the court
is against law & against evidence.

which motion was by the court overruled: to
which opinion of the court overruling said motion
the plaintiff by her counsel excepted, and prays the
Court to sign this her bill of exceptions which
is done.

L E LawlessL E Lawless


fig=g

/fig
View original image: Page  018
[missing figure]
No 82

November Term 1834

RachelRachel
vs
Wm WalkerWilliam Walker

Bill of exceptions

filed April 5th 1836.

John RulandJohn Ruland Clerk

View original image: Page  018
[missing figure]

Cause remanded & judgt for plff - book 8 page 164

View original image: Page  019
[missing figure]

State of MissouriMissouri. sct.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court . Third Judicial District. June Term 1835.

Tuesday July 5th 1835.
Court met pursuant to adjournment present all the Judges

RachelRachel
vs
William WalkerWilliam Walker

Appeal from St Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court .

Now at this day come the parties by their respective attornies and thereupon all
and singular the premises are by them submitted to the Court, who having heard the argu-
ments of Counsel and being sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises it is consi
-dered and adjudged that the judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid by said Circuit CourtCircuit Court
rendered be reversed, and for nought held and esteemed, and it is further considered that said
cause be remanded to the said Circuit CourtCircuit Court for further proceedings therein in conformity with
the opinion of this Court herein delivered and that the said RachelRachel recover of the said WilliamWilliam Walker
WalkerWilliam Walker
her costs and charges by her about the prosecution of her appear in this behalf expend
-ed and that she have thereof execution. opinion filed

RachelRachel a woman of color
vs.
WalkerWalker

Opinion of the Court delivered by McGirkMcGirk Justice

RachelRachel the plaintiff in error brought an action according to the
Statute for freedom the defendant WalkerWalker pleaded not guilty and a verdict and Judgment
were given for the defendent. it appears by the Record that in the Fall of the year 1830 E. J. Langham
then residing in the MissouriMissouri territory at or near the mouth of the StSt Peters PetersSt Peters came to St LouisSt Louis and
that one J. B. W. Stockton then sent by Witness to Major Brant of St LouisSt Louis to purchase a slave that
the plaintiff was purchased for said StocktonStockton and was by the Witness taken up to him to FortFort Snelling
SnellingFort Snelling at St PetersSt Peters in the same fall: that there said StocktonStockton held her as a slave till the fall of the year
1831 when he removed to PrairiePrairie du ChienChien taking the said RachelRachel with him as his slave at which place
he held her in slavery till about the spring of the year 1834 when he took her to St LouisSt Louis and sold
her. that Fort SnellingFort Snelling is on the west side of the Mississipi river and north of the State of MissouriMissouri
and in the Territory of the United StatesUnited States; that said StocktonStockton before he bought said RachelRachel had
resided at Fort SnellingFort Snelling about two years and was still residing there when he bought the
plaintiff having just married, that StocktonStockton while he resided at fort snelling was an officer of
the U.S. Army. attacked to troops there, that while StocktonStockton was at PrairiePrairie du ChienChien he was also
an officer in the service of the U.S. Army. that PrairiePrairie du ChienChien is in the MichiganMichigan territory and a East
of the Mississipi, that RachelRachel was only employed in attendance on StocktonStockton and his family. it
appeared also that RachelRachel was never employed otherwise than as a private servant in immedi
-ate attendance on StocktonStockton and family and all the time StocktonStockton held her as aforesaid he was in

View original image: Page  020
[missing figure]
the service as an Officer of the Army. it also appeared that WalkerWalker the defendant held under
StocktonStockton . upon this State of evidence the Circuit CourtCircuit Court instructed the Jury that the law was that
& said StocktonStockton was an officer of the Army while he held the Plaintiff in Slavery Stationed at
Fort SnellingFort Snelling and Fort Crawford by the proper authority and if he employed the plaintiff
during that time only in personal attendance on himself and family that such residence of
the plaintiff has been proved does not entitle her to her freedom. This opinion was excepted to
motions were made for a new trial for misinstruction which were overruled.

So sustain this Judgment Mr. GambleArchibald Gamble contends that all the cases heretofore decided proceed on
the ground that a residence in the N.W. Territory was contrary to the Ordinance of 1787 and
amounted to a forfeiture of the property of the owner of a Slave for a violation of the Ordinance and
that by all the decisions made by this Court exceptions are allowed to exist, which Exceptions to
the positive words of the Ordinance must be raised of necessity. one case allowed by the Court is
this that if a person be passing through the Country with slave property which he has a right
to do if high waters detain him with his slave and he resumes his journey as soon as
may be the time he necessarily St aid with his slave shall not be considered as a residence
so as to work a loss of the slave. He then contends that in this case StocktonStockton was a Soldier of
the American Army and as such was bound to be and remain wheresoever his superior
officer should command him to be, that the slave was only with him as a servant not a slave
and being obliged by law to be and romain in a country where slavery is forbidden he had a
right to have his servant there also. Mr SpaldingSpalding answers this argument by saying that although
this officer was bound by law and authority to be and remain in a country where slavery is
not allowed yet no law nor public authority required nor compelled him to take this
person there as a slave nor as a servant.

Having Stated the substance of the arguments on both sides we will proceed to laydown
the law as we understand it. it may not be unprofitable to state again the principles on which
this Court has heretofore rested in the many decisions heretofore made in regard to this Ordinance, it
seems that the ingenuity of counsel and the interest of those disposed to deal in slave property will
never admit anything to be settled in regard to this question. the ordinance of 1787 for the
government of the North Western Territory declares that neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude
shall exist in the same. The first case decided by this Court was that of WinneyWinney vsWhitesideWhitesides -
the facts of that case were that after the making the Ordiance WhitesideWhitesides the owner of WinnyWinny
removed from N Carolina to IllinoisIllinois and brought with him WinnyWinny and resided there three or four
years and left there and removed to MissouriMissouri and took with him the Slave, in that case the Court
declared that such residence by fore of the Ordinance manumitted the slave in that case the

View original image: Page  021
[missing figure]

Court say that the person who takes his slave into said Territory and by lenght of residence there
indicates an intention of making that place his residence and the residence of his slave also
and thereby induces a Jury to believe that fact also by such residence declares his slave free.

And the Court say in the case of La Grange vs.MenardMenard that the Court will raise other
exceptions than those expressed in the Ordinance: the case of La Grange was one where the own
er lived in IllinoisIllinois and had his slave employed in MissouriMissouri and the slave made occasional
visits to his Master's house in IllinoisIllinois the Court declared this did not work on Emancipation

The case of JuliaJulia vs. McHinney decided by this Court in 1833 goes forther in detail as
to the exception which necessity may create than any other. 3 Vol. M.R. 270.

That case decides that when a person does not intend to introduce slavery in the
State of IllinoisIllinois but does in fact introduce it he will forfeit his slave unless he can shew some
reasonable necessity. there is in the Constitution of IllinoisIllinois a provision of the same import of
the provision in the Ordinance under this prohibition in the IllinoisIllinois constitution JuliaJulia was
declared free. In all the cases decided by this Court it is admitted that the people of the
United StatesUnited States have a right to pass through any of the districts where slavery is prohibited with
their slaves and while they justly retain the character of Emigrants passing through
the Country the fact that they have in their possession when so passing slaves does not eman
cipate them under the ordinance. and whether such owner has lost such character for the time
being depends on evidence to be adduced on the trial; Now if it could be proved that he
declared his design was to reside there this would be sufficient evidence that what he did
was done in view of that intent; but if he should declare that it was not his design to re-
side there and yet should do so then the fact would be stronger than the words.

In the case of JuliaJulia many cases are put to shew that an owner of a slave might
remain in the Country for a considerable lenght of time without working a for feiture of his
right to the slavce; the Court say in that case, 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 a short time we think he might do so without incurring a forfeiture if he resume his
journey as soon as may be: Something more than the mere convenience or cese of the Emigrant
ought to intervene to save him from a forfeiture. Something of the nature of necessity
should or ought to exist before he ought to be exempt. if swollen stranes of water which
could not be crossed without danger serious sickness of the family broken wagons and
the like, these things if they exist would be good causes of delay if the journey be resumed
as soon as they are removed.

It may be that the language contained in this case has induced the de-
fendant claiming under StocktonStockton to expect and hope his case would come within the words

View original image: Page  022
[missing figure]
of the opinion is not within its reason.

In that case the Court say there should be something like necessity existing to
justify the owner of a slave to keep such slave in the Country so as to save a forfeiture. the
counsel insist on a necessity as regards the owner to stay and abide in the MissouriMissouri territo-
ry and MichiganMichigan for more than two years and during all that time to keep the plaintiff
there as a slave

It is said the officer was under orders from the government to remain where
he did and therefore a necessity existed which brings him within thereason of the decision,
in Julia's case.

This plea of necessity is well answered by Mr. SpaldingSpalding for the plaintiff which
answer is that though it be true that the officer was bound to remain where he did during
all the time he was there yet no authority of law or the government compelled him to keep
the plaintiff there as a slave. This answer is complete as we think. shall it be said that
because an officer of the army owns slaves in VirginiaVirginia, that when as officer and soldier
he is required to take command of a post in the non-slave holding States or TerritoriesTerritories
he thereby has a right to take with him as many slaves as will suit his interests or con-
venience. it surely cannot be the law. it thus be true then it is also true that the convenience or
supposed convenience of the officer repeals as to him and others who have the same character
the Ordinance and the act of 1821 admitting MissouriMissouri into the Union and also the prohibiti-
ons of the several laws and constitutions of the non slave holding states. But it is said in this
case that the plaintiff was only employed as a body servant to induce the belief of the fact
that the service she performed was necessary or perhaps to establish the fact that the officer
has a right to a family servant. we are yet to learn that the law which gives to officers
servants of a certain sort authorise such officers to hold slaves in lieu of such servants and in
places forbidden by the ordinance. In this case the officer lived in the MissouriMissouri territory at
the time he bought the slave, he sent to a slave holding Country and procured her, this
was his voluntary act done without any other reason than that of convenience and he and
those claiming under him must be holden to abide the consequence of introducing slavery
both in MissouriMissouri Territory and MichiganMichigan contrary to law.

The judgment of the Circuit CourtCircuit Court is reversed. the cause is remanded for a new
trial

M. McGirk

George Tompkins

R. WashR Wash .

View original image: Page  023
[missing figure]

State of MissouriMissouri Sct.

I, John RulandJohn Ruland , Clerk of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court within and for the Third Judicial
District of the State of MissouriMissouri, do hereby Certify that the above and foregoing is a true transcript
of the Judgment rendered and the Opinion delivered by the Supreme CourtSupreme Court aforesaid at the
June term thereof in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, in the
case of RachelRachel vsWalkerWalker , as the same now remains in my office.

[missing figure]
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed the Seal of Said Court at Office in the City of St LouisCity of St Louis
in the County of Saint LouisCounty of Saint Louis. District and State aforesaid
this sixteenth day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six.

Jn. RulandJohn Ruland

Clerk
View original image: Page  024
[missing figure]

Supreme CourtSupreme Court 3d Judicial Dist.
June Term 1835

RachelRachel
vs
WalkerWalker

Judgment & opinion

Filed 16 Aug. 1836

John RulandJohn Ruland Clerk