The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1848-05-31

whether it ever was designed, or could now
be tolerated, that mans enclosure should
be invaded, perpetuaIly it might be, by pri.
vate persons, with no process of law, TO hunt
up and capture every mackerel, pound of
sugar yard of tape or bottle of molasscs, that
might be unlawfully acquired by one Of his
slaves? Such rule of law, diligently en-
forced, could have but short and turbulent
existence-or, it it triumphed, it is much TO
be apprehended it would triumph over manv
at least, of our opinions. touching the value
Of The institution Of slavery. We are glad
TO find no cogent and sound rules ofn,erpre.
tations, that drive the country to such res
ult or hazard; none that might serve TO place
the police of the slave owners domain, un-
der that species Of vigilance that, too often,
might be quickened less by reverence for
the law, than by covctous craft, or rest
less malice.
BY combining this right to the si:here which
has been prescribed. there does seem to be
a more prudent, rational and natural execu-
tion of the purpose. which is-to "selze,
and take away from any slave" an article
conlraband; bred, raised, or acquired, "lor
the particular and peculiar benefit of such
slave;" or, (as elsewhere expressed in the
Act,) "ior the peculiar use benefit ard pro
fit, of such slave"
1t is not quite apparent, when a slave
raises hog by his masters leave, and kills
and eats it, or divides it among The inmates
of hi, cabin, with his masters knowledge; or
when he builds canoe and fishes by its aid,
IN his masters mill. pond, that this, IN Proprle-
ty Of language-looking either to the f:rce
Of words, or the dictates Of policy, shall be
said, to be for the peculiar use, benefit and
proh," Of the slave. For if he lived the
better, his masters benefit might also be
found in that, seeing that the honest dill.
gcnce Of the slave had not corrupted his
morals, or disturbed the public peace, and
The draft on The owners supplies, might be
so much the less. And so of many other
examples, that might be mentioned.
1t was urged by the counsel, and suggest
ed by the Circuit Judge, that the right of
entry was incident to the power to seize.
There might have been some force in this
view, if it had been urged in defence of a
Magistrate or Constable, at time when
either, or both, might have acted under the
peremmory commands of the Act of 1922
and 1885; but, even in that case; it mi ght
have been well answered, that such reason
ing begged the question:; for, the inquiry is
and would then have been, was it ever re-
qured that the seizure should be made on
The owners premises. The argument loos-
es all its force. as to private individuals act.
ing under the law Of l74O, for they are re-
quired to do nothing.sa The power is one of
permission merely.
A view may be gained as TO this right to
enter the close, from another branch of the
same law. There has ever been, and is
now lively jealousy us to The possession
aud use of fire. arms, and other deadly weap-
ons, by slaves-and, as to suspicious congre-
cations Of them in any place. 1t will be
found, that while in more ancient times, mas
ter were required (oncc in every month -
uide. Act Of 1890. Stat, 345.) to search
The habitations of their own slaves; in later
times. when their search FIR weapons was
to be- made, or these assembagcs to be su-
perviscd and dispersed the law makes its
own agents, and prcscIibes its own accus-
toned forms. Now, when we perceive that
IN the same code. and in more hazardous
times, the public arm is lctlcred in tins great
universal, and truly public concern, shall we
at this dav. incline, to unbnd to invigorate,
and encourage it in the violation of private
domain, when the object is merely to cap
ture, for The fnrtuous gain of one who ncv.
er abored for them, domestic animals, goods
and commodities!
II may be seen, that in l7l2, (when the
code was more stringent than al latter tlmes)
the right to capture any Firearms, by any
person found in possession of a negro,was 10
be exercised only when such slave was ap-
pretended with the weapon, withou, ticket
and out of the limits of his masters p!anla.
ton. (See upon the same subject. Section
and 5, of Act of 1922, 7 Stat. 372-and
See. q. Act of 1875, ST., 3s6-7.)
We may be permitted to look at this ques
ton, from a more elevated position. In the
preamble to the several Acts, proceeding
that Of 174O, We may Gnd the thcmpcr OF
the times, arising no doubt from the greater
rudeness of the institution OF slavcry-attrl
butable, it NAV be. as we'll to the compare
tive inexpcrience of owners, as to the fierce
nature of newly imported Africans. Accor
, dinghy. we have it on the front OF the Acts
passed from TIA to 1885, both inclusive
that slaves were Of nature too barbarous
wild and savage, to be fit for the mild sway
of the compon law. Yet, we do not find
within that period, full, as It manifcstly was
of soliciiude, concerning the tendency o
slaves to nsurrectionary ideas and plots, any
instances, wherein the sanctily of The private
domain was opened to the intrusion of unof
fetal persons. Magistrates, Constables, o'
Patrols, with suitable posse, when that wa