included in the judgment, which damages shall in all cases be in full satisfaction of interest for the time for which they shall be allowed: Provided, that when the injunction shall be granted to obtain a discovery, or any part of the judgmentProviso. shall remain enjoined, the court may, if it appear just, direct that such damages shall not be paid, or only such proportion thereof as they may deem expedient.
Suit or action may be removed from one county to another.Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in any civil suit or action at law, or any criminal or penal prosecution by information or indictment now depending or hereafter to be commenced, the court, upon a suggestion in writing by any of the parties thereto supported by oath or affirmation, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where such suit or action is depending, may order the same suit or action to be removed into the court holden in the other county in the said district; and the same shall be prosecuted and tried according to law, and the judgment carried into full effect; and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the one county to transmit to the clerk of the other county, a copy of the record of the proceedings, and all the original papers filed in his office in the suit or action;Prosecution by information or indictment may also be removed, on suggestion of the district attorney. and in like manner in any criminal or penal prosecution aforesaid, by information or indictment, if the attorney for the United States for the district of Columbia shall suggest in writing, under his signature, to the court of the county, before whom any such information or indictment is or may be depending, that the United States cannot have a fair and impartial trial in such county, the court may order the trial to be prosecuted and had in the other county, for which purpose the proceedings and all original papers filed in said cause shall be transmitted to the court of such other county, where the same shall be tried and prosecuted to final judgment and execution.
Slaves may be removed from one county to another.Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That hereafter it shall be lawful for any inhabitant or inhabitants in either of the said counties owning and possessing any slave or slaves therein, to remove the same from one county into the other, and to exercise freely and fully all the rights of property in and over the said slave or slaves therein, which would be exercised over him, her, or them, in the county from whence the removal was made, any thing in any legislative act in force at this time in either of the said counties, to the contrary notwithstanding.[1]
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted,- ↑ Slavery in the District of Columbia:—The plaintiffs in error filed a petition for freedom in the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, and they proved that they were born in the state of Virginia, as slaves of Richard B. Lee, now deceased, who moved his family into the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, about the year 1816, leaving the petitioners residing in Virginia as his slaves, until the year 1820, when the petitioner Barbara was removed to the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, where she was hired to Mrs. Muir, and continued with her thus hired for the period of one year. That the petitioner, Sam, was in like manner removed to the county of Alexandria, and was hired to General Walter Jones, for a period of about five or six months. That after the expiration of the said periods of hiring, the petitioners were removed to the said county of Washington, where they continued to reside as the slaves of the said Richard B. Lee until his death, and since, as the slaves of his widow, the defendant. On the part of the defendant in error, a preliminary objection was made to the jurisdiction of the supreme court, growing out of the act of Congress of the 2d of April, 1816, which declares that no cause shall be removed from the circuit court for the District of Columbia, to the supreme court, by appeal or writ of error, unless the matter in dispute shall be of the value of one thousand dollars, or upwards. By the Court—The matter in dispute in this case, is the freedom of the petitioners. The judgment of the court below is against their claims to freedom; the matter in dispute, is, therefore, to the plaintiffs in error, the value of their freedom, and this is not susceptible of a pecuniary valuation. Had the judgment been in favour of the petitioners, and the writ of error brought by the party claiming to be the owner, the value of the slaves as property, would have been the matter in dispute, and affidavits might be admitted to ascertain such value. But affidavits, estimating the value of freedom, are entirely inadmissible, and no doubt is entertained of the jurisdiction of the court. Lee v. Lee, 8 Peters, 44.The circuit court refused to instruct the jury that if they should believe, from the evidence, that bringing the petitioners from Virginia to Alexandria, by their owner, and hiring them there, was merely colourable, with intent to evade the law, that then the petitioners are entitled to their freedom. By the Maryland law, of 1796, it was declared, that it shall not be lawful to import or bring into this state, by land or water, any negro, mulatto, or other slave, for sale, or to reside within this state; and any person brought into this state as a slave, contrary to this act, if a slave before, shall thereupon cease to be the property of the person so importing, and shall be free. And by the act of Congress of the 27th of February, 1801, it is provided, that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they then existed, should be, and continue in force in that part of the district which was ceded by that state to the United States. The
