“The first objection,” says Mr. Justice Best, in the case of Forbes and Cochrane, “which occurs to me, in this case, is that it does not appear, in the special case, that the right to slaves exists in East Florida. _That right is not a general but a local right_; it ought, therefore, to have been shown that it existed in Florida, and that the defendants knew of its existence. Assuming, however, that those facts did appear, still, under the circumstances of this case, this action could not be maintained. “The question is, Were these persons slaves at the time when Sir G. Cockburn refused to do the act which he was desired to do? I am decidedly of opinion that they were no longer slaves. The moment they put their feet on board of a _British_ man-of-war, not lying within the waters of East Florida, (where undoubtedly the laws of that country would prevail,) those persons who had before been slaves were free.... Slavery is a local law, and, therefore, if a man wishes to preserve his slaves, let him attach them to him by affection, or make fast the bars of their prison, or rivet well their chains; _for the instant they get beyond the limits where slavery is recognized by the local law, they have broken their chains, they have escaped from their prison, and are free_.” 2 Barn. & Cres. 466-7; _Forbes_ vs. _Cochrane_, S. C., 3 Dowl. & Ryland, 679. “I am of opinion,” says Holroyd, J., in the same case, “that according to the principles of the English law the right to slaves, even in a country where such rights are recognized by law, must be considered as founded, not upon the law of nature, but upon the particular law of that country.” “The law of slavery is a law _in invitum_; _and when a party gets out of the territory where it prevails_, and out of the power of his master, and gets under the protection of another power, without any wrongful act done by the party giving that protection, the right of the master, _which is founded on the municipal law of the particular place only_, does not continue, and there is no right of action against a party who merely receives the slave in that country, without doing any wrongful act.” The definition of slavery given by the Roman law implies that it is local: _Servitus est constitutio juris gentium, qua quis dominio alieno_, CONTRA NATURAM, _subjicitur_. _Commonwealth_ vs. _Aves_, 18 Pick. Rep., 193; _Lunsford_ vs. _Coquillon_, 14 Martin’s Rep. 402. “The relation of owner and slave is a creation of the municipal law.” _Rankin_ vs. _Lydia_, 3 Marshall, 470, Ky.; _Butler_ vs. _Hopper_, 1 Wash. C. C. Rep. 499; _Ex parte Simmons_, 4 Wash. C. C. 296; _Marie Louise_ vs. _Marot et al._, 9 Curry’s Louisiana Rep. 473.