Commonwealth v. Aves
35 Mass. 193 (1836)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A slave brought voluntarily by their master into a free state where slavery is prohibited becomes free upon entering that state's jurisdiction. The legal status of slavery is based on local positive law and is not a natural right that travels with a person under principles of comity, and the U.S. Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause does not apply to slaves who did not escape.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Slater were citizens of New Orleans, Louisiana, a state where slavery was legal.
- The Slaters owned a young girl named Med as a slave.
- Mrs. Slater traveled to Massachusetts for a temporary visit, bringing Med with her as a personal attendant.
- Mrs. Slater intended to return to Louisiana with Med and continue to hold her as a slave.
- While in Massachusetts, a man named Thomas Aves held Med in his custody on behalf of the Slaters.
Procedural Posture:
- A writ of habeas corpus was issued by a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to inquire into the detention of the child, Med.
- The writ commanded the sheriff to take custody of Med and summon Thomas Aves, the person detaining her, to appear before the court.
- Thomas Aves appeared and made a statement under oath, asserting that he held Med in custody on behalf of her owners, Mr. and Mrs. Slater, who intended to return her to slavery in Louisiana.
- The proceedings were then adjourned from the single justice's hearing into the full session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for a final argument and decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a slave owner who voluntarily brings a slave into Massachusetts for a temporary stay have the authority to restrain the slave's liberty and forcibly remove them from the state to return to a condition of slavery?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw C. J.
No. A slave owner who voluntarily brings a slave into Massachusetts does not have the authority to restrain them or remove them against their will. By the laws of Massachusetts, slavery is contrary to natural right and cannot exist within its jurisdiction. The principle of comity does not require Massachusetts to enforce the slavery laws of another state when they are repugnant to its own fundamental principles. Furthermore, the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution applies only to slaves who have escaped from one state into another, not to those brought voluntarily by their masters. Because Med was brought into Massachusetts by her owner and did not escape, the local law of Massachusetts, which does not recognize slavery, governs her status, and she is therefore free.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant precedent by creating a clear distinction between fugitive slaves and those voluntarily brought into a free state, solidifying the 'freedom principle.' It affirmed the concept of slavery as a purely local institution, existing only by the force of positive state law, and limited the extraterritorial reach of slave state laws under the doctrine of comity. The ruling intensified the national conflict over slavery by creating 'free soil' where the property rights of slaveholders were not recognized, directly challenging the legal underpinnings of slavery's expansion and portability in the antebellum period.
