the inhabitants with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits slavery; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not included within the original States, and that this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.)

Slaveholding states have asserted this power in their judicial decisions.  In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.  This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the case of Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 14 Martin’s La.  Reps. 401.  Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter vs. Fulcher, 1 Leigh’s Reps. 172.  The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Butler vs. Hopper, Washington’s Circuit Court Reps. 508.  This principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall’s Reps. 407; see also, Wilson vs. Isbell, 5 Call’s Reps. 425, Spotts vs. Gillespie, 6 Randolph’s Reps. 566.  The State vs. Lasselle, 1 Blackford’s Reps. 60, Marie Louise vs. Mariot, 8 La.  Reps. 475.  In this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that “residence for one moment” under the laws of France emancipated her.

6.  EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER.  Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, says:  “There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by legislative authority.”  In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10, 1786, he says:  “It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by legislative authority.”  In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he says:  “It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.”  In a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he says:  “There are in Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which nothing is more certain than that they must have, and at a period not remote.”  Speaking of movements in the Virginia Legislature