Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-01-10

brother, the defendant his Of KIM who has taken tho
administration OF his During war with Great
britain number OF the intestates slaves captured
and carried OIL by the enemy. The defendant admi-
nistraor OF the deceased has received for
tese slaves under the treaty Of Client and the Conven-
IONS between the United States aud Great Britain The
present SUIT - brought in Chancery by the plaintiffs for
settlement OF the defendants TO re- cover
ne widows share OF the personal estate The defendant
IN ms answer admitting all the material facts in the cause
insists mat the compliments only entitled TO such ne-
res. I'D he money received they would have been
enuued 10 IN the slaves, for which that money
ceved as an indemnity The only question raised in the
cause Is therefore, whether this money be regarded
IN inc allotment to the widow of her share Of the mites
taes personal estate, money slayesl Ire words
oil the act OF Assembly under which claim asserted
are then any person shall die intesate his goods
chaes or any part thereof after funeral debts and
gus expenses paid, II there be child moiety
IL there be child children, third Of the surplus
shall go TO the wife but she shall have no more than
the use Tor her life Of such shall be in her share Sc
&c By the law Of Virginia. slaves regarded as per-
sonar estate The general proposition established by this
act oil Assembly is that the widow is entitled absolutely
to moiey third the may be- OF the personal
estate alter funeral debts and just expenses pad-and the
exception that her interest in Of such sdres shall be
az her snare shall not be absolute, but shall only be
Tor me- 10 lebar her from her general SHARE it
snewn mat her case comes within the excepton-or in
DINER words 10 debar her OF her share enjoyed abso
ue IN The hnd arising out of the depored slaves
DE decided that such slaves will be in her share II the
OF Assembly 10 be construed according the import
us words the statement of the the tina none
OF the depored slaves are or ever can be i'm the share nj
Mrs Blackwell, would without the need of any argument
be decisive OF the question that has been raised Ii
tended however that according certain peculiar rules
oil me Court OF Chancery, that this will look back
The subject out OF which the fund in question has orgna-
ted, without regarding its subsequent ransmuation into
money lis court cannot consider the present case
10 wnch these rules can apply. II is impossible look
al TINS case in point OF view, and consider the
ed as specifically entitled the time of his death 10 the
slaves carried OIL by the enemy. IT, indeed the British
au M any iline, IN conformity with Interpretation
the treaty OF peace, restored the captured slaves, the jus
posi- hn'in" would have re-vesed the interstate his
preventative with the property in the slaves and such
slaves would have been, like any other slaves distributed
and part Of them would have been in the urd0,cs share
bu they were not restored; and the enemy, more than
ten years before the death OF the nestae had in contra
beyond the limits of Virginia, of the United States
Long before his DEATH that act OF carrying them away had
become subject oil negotiation between the
oil the u States and Great Bitain-By the Convention
oil Oct. 1878 IL would that our government nssed
at mat day. aenaiivey for restoration The slaves de-
poF'e", or compensation Tor themand the question be-
tween the governments agreed TO be referred 10 the
arorament OF Emperor Alexander The award OF the Elm.
peror decided that the T.. States were entitled TO claim,
from Great Britain inst naturalization for the slaves
winch had been carried away. Immediately after this
award, in July 1922, Convention entered into
tween the respective plenpoenaiies oil Russia Great
Britain and the U. States for the purpose CARRYING that
award into effect and of providing the mode of ascertain
ing ana determining the rdiue Of the slaves carried away
Tor which tndemn fcdiiOn be made TO the citizens
OF the u Siatesand for the purpose OF securing conpen
fdOn TO the sufferers for their losses Board of Commits
sioners was constituted and in case majority of them
saud not agree upon the acreage ralue be allowed as
compensation for each slave for whom naturalization
was due recourse 20 be had TO the Minister at the
u States oil the Emperor OF Russia and the average un
when nXed and determined in either Of the ways pointed
out by that Convention, rule for the com,
Pe'isdfon to be awarded for each and every slave for
whom II might afterwards be found that ndenlni fcdfio
might be due. After the average value was fixed the
Commissioners TO receive definite list of the slaves
for which the citizens of The u States claimed iudeui
cdon by one OF the articles of this Convention Great
Britain stipulated the sum awarded TO each and
every owner IN lieu OF his slaves, Sc to be paid in SPECIE
&c, condition of such releases and assignments as the
commissioners should direct This the stage at which
the negotiations had arrived when the ntestAte died In
November 1876, by further Convention entered into be-
tween Inc government oil the u. States and Great Britain
the former agreed to accept from the latter $50 for
The use OF the persons entitled and
pensaton under the former Convention and award in full
satisfaction for all claimed by any persons under
them The fund in question his suit is part of thai
money which was received by the defendant. On this
review OF the negotiations between the governments
Is OBVIOUS that aH idea OF specific restoration of
the slaves had, long before Cralc's DEATH been dis
earded by them, and that the claim for the slaves
mad been committed into their acreage uGle by way of
compensation on indemni fcdtion. The slaves them
selves, were regarded wholly lost the sufferers 1t
would seem, then, to be very bold fiction Tor Court OF
Chancery pronounce, that the widow the ntestae i'm
claiming her share of this portion of his personal estate
would be receiving the SLAVES n her share-a compact
ioreSn government to restore slaves, the
saves themselves There is power earth speccal-
y to enforce IT, 1t was probably the power of
ban herself, specifically have performed it, by re-
storing the slaves that had been taken The only
est which Crae had in his slaves when G. Britain f,;cd
or refused to restore them, the claim citizen upon
ms own government, TO redress the wrongs which the
eSed Violation OF tile compact the Fart OF c. Britain
ndd occdsoned The redress insisted upon by our
ment, IN behalf OF its citizens was the alternative of
restitution OF, or full compensation for, the slavcs-and
ultimately, the restitution being given up as
compensation was agreed upon and received IT, al the
une OF Crles DEATH lie had held the contract of one of
MS by which the latter bound himself TO
restore TO the former certain slavesor bound himself AL
Tentatively, to the slaves or to make commentator
Tor hen-or bound himself 10 make compensation for Ger
tain slaves at average value to he ascertaned in a
mode agreed uPon-could it with any propriey he con-
Vhueu Dy hlS administration, that the damages recovered
o. received as compromise by him, after the death of
CTae should he regarded, by legal mcanorphosis as
the slaves themSeves?-l from the very terms of such
contract according 10 their legal import and effect the
contracting party did transfer the slaves but had the
power 10 commute the slaves into equivalent
ahon, Tie administrator could only take the benefit of
he contract such il was-and such the int
himself could have claimed. IL the slaves were deli
VcTed men the assets would consist of slaves-if com
pensation in money recovered or accented nv him
then the assets would be money The court can discover
no equity, as between the widow on the one part and
usbutee on the other to such money into slaves
-Ihuch less, between the widow and the aImnistrato tor
hseI nor can the court perceive that the rights of the
Widow would be less favored where fund! in which
she Is claiming her share, has been derived from t
compact oil foreign State with Gov eminent than If
derived from the contract OF individual with the ines
tate How lar the analogies derived from the cases nut
"neTe the really OF unatcs and infants has been chang
co. oy any MEANS into personality may be applicable TO
case "hce one species OF personal property has taken the
place OF anolheT or how far principles applicable TO the
cases OF hers on the hand and the personal
taivts on the other influence the of
question between the widow and the administrator i'm
relation TO chattcs the court has orborne TO enoure
bul h e doctrines OF real estates, there is nothing TO