tes, in operation in the Territory
of Wisconsin at the time of the plaintiff's residence there, did act
directly on the _status_ of the plaintiff, and change his _status_ to
that of a free man.

_Fourth._ The plaintiff and his wife were capable of contracting, and,
with the consent of Dr. Emerson, did contract a marriage in that
Territory, valid under its laws; and the validity of this marriage
cannot be questioned in Missouri, save by showing that it was in fraud
of the laws of that State, or of some right derived from them; which
cannot be shown in this case, because the master consented to it.

_Fifth._ That the consent of the master that his slave, residing in a
country which does not tolerate slavery, may enter into a lawful
contract of marriage, attended with the civil rights and duties which
belong to that condition, is an effectual act of emancipation. And the
law does not enable Dr. Emerson, or any one claiming under him, to
assert a title to the married persons as slaves, and thus destroy the
obligation of the contract of marriage, and bastardize their issue,
and reduce them to slavery.

But it is insisted that the Supreme Court of Missouri has settled this
case by its decision in Scott _v._ Emerson, (15 Missouri Reports,
576;) and that this decision is in conformity with the weight of
authority elsewhere, and with sound principles. If the Supreme Court
of Missouri had placed its decision on the ground that it appeared Dr.
Emerson never became domiciled in the Territory and so its laws could
not rightfully operate on him and his slave; and the facts that he
went there to reside indefinitely, as an officer of the United States,
and that the plaintiff was lawfully married there, with Dr. Emerson's
consent, were left out of view, the decision would find support in
other cases, and I might not be prepared to deny its correctness. But
the decision is not rested on this ground. The domicil of Dr. Emerson
in that Territory is not questioned in that decision; and it is placed
on a broad denial of the operation, in Missouri, of the law of any
foreign State or country upon the _status_ of a slave, going with his
master from Missouri into such foreign State or country, even though
they went thither to become, and actually became, permanent
inhabitants of such foreign State or country, the laws whereof acted
directly on the _status_ of the slave, and changed his _status_ to
that of a freeman.

To the correctness of s