Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1849-01-18
FREEMAN, MONTPELIER, VERMONT, ls49.

tlemen to examine this subject before they base
themselves mon the principle that slaves are
property let that be established, and Congress
will have mower to prohibit the internal slave
trade at its pleasure.
| now moceed 10 another branch OF the case.
With great nropriety the gentleman from New
Hampshire injured, at what time the liability
of Government 10 pay for this slave commenced?
The Question has not been answered, nor do |
think it can be answered. The undertaking
was hazardous in the highest degree. The
troops were all killed but two or three by the
enemy, and those were supposed to be dead
ms man alone escaped unhurt believe. This
danger was foreseen, and the master put price
upon the services TO compare with the risk. Did
this contract bind the Government to pay for the
masters loss, admitting the slave to have been
! propertya MAS it any part of the compact that
the Government should insure the property? 1t
strikes ME that no lawyer would answer in the
affirmative. The law Of baiement is surely un.
derstood by every tyro in the profession. Tie
ballee for hire is bound TO exercise the same de-
gree Of care over the property that careful men
take of their own property. IT, then, the prop
erty be lost the owner sustails such loss. Now,
concedingth man TO be property, the Govern
ment wGulfnot haye been liable had he run A.
way, or been killed by accident, or died of sick
ness Yet sir, when property is lost or destroy
ed by the act of God or the common enemies of
the county, no bailee is ever holden RESPONSE
ble-not even common carriers and that is the
highest species of bailment. Had this officer
acting onfSow responsibility, agreed to take
TINS nngfol1ough the country for hire, admit
ing the riian to have been property, and govern
ed by the same rules of law as though he had
been mule or I'M ASST and he had been cap.
tnred by the enemy, no law would have held
such baco liable. But, sir, an entirely differ
ent rule Of law prevails where the owner of a
chattel lets it to Il baee for wages. Had this
man been mule Or an ass, and the officer had
hired him of the owner for wages to ride through
that county or 10 work IN a team, or in any 9th
er manner, and he had been captured by tie en-
envy, the baiIee would not have been liable upon
any rule or law Of Justice; nor would he have
been liable if lost in any other manner, except
by neglect of the baiIce.
The gentleman from Sou h Carolina [Mr.
Burt said he would place this case upon st,icti,I
legal pr1acpleS. Sir, meet the gentleman on
that proposition. |, too, for the sake Of the ar
gument, am wiling to submit it on principle of
law; and believe that no jurist, or even Justice
of the peace, would hesitate to reject the claim
on those grounds All must admit that the La
bty of the Government concerning this man
ceased when he was captured by the enemy: up
to this point, the Government was not liable. |
understood the author Of this bill Mr.. BuRTl to
argue, however, that we became liable underline
contract of bOment. That contract was ended
when the man was captured The claimant
then failed to perform his part of it. The stipu-
latlon on the part Of the master was, that the
negro should pilot the troops from Tampa Bay
to Fort kirg, the place of their destination, al
the rate of twenty-five dollars per month. He
was captured when only half the distance was
accomplished. Here the master ceased to per
form his compact: it was beyond his power tc
do 80. The contract then ceased to exist; anG
from that time loath the claimanthad no demand
on US, either in equity or in law.
now enter upon an )ther view of the case
1t Is shownb the testimony of General Jesup
that this man was supposed TO have kept up al
understanding with the enemy, tiom the time he
united with Dode'5 command until the massacre
OF that uhtOltunlte battalion; that while he was
with the enemy, which was more than two years
he united iptommitting deprcdatons upon the
frontier settlements in short, that he was one o.
The enemy. Oar army was sent there to protec
this claimant, and his wife and children anG
neghbors, lslinst this very man, who in com.
da add d ar pfpa ad n'G f6s c Eo
dture of blood and treasure by the u. States
was occasionel in part by this very negro, fol
whom the master now claims compensation.
With his extraordinary intelligence, with knowl
pipp ct tho ,.tbinl bo nl Ia l. /
suffered at the hands of those who claimed then
as property, hemust have thirsted for vengeance
lilo could have felt no attachment, no respect
Tor people at whose hands he had received
, nothing but abuse and degradation. 1t was nat
ural that he Should have sought revenge; and il
was natural that his master should become hi:
, victim, if within his power. But our army was
j sent there to protect the people against thei
slaves who wee with the Indians and their effcc
} tive allies TWAS under these circumstances tha
l Lewis was captured, with other enemies. Gen
!, Jesup says TINT he would have tried and hang
} ed him, if he could have found time, This, un
der martial law, he might undoubtedly have
} done AID the gentleman who reported thi,
' bill admitted that in such case this claim woulC
| never have been presented. Suppose he hac
been slain in battle: think we should meye
S have heard of this claim. But why had Genera
t Jesup r,gh to hang him? Because he was al
It enemy, dangerous to the people and to the Gov
r eminent. But who will for moment hesitat,
e to say that he had the same power, yea, create
/ power, to send him out of the neghborhood
d than he had to sIay him in battle, or to hang him
/ Humanity would dictate that he should be sen
If out Of the neighborhood, rather than his lif
/ shoull be sacrificed. Has the claimants los
e been greater than it would have been, had thu
C negro been slain Or hanged? Not at all. lii
l. had been taken in arms, had committed dcpre
Q datlons upon the people; he had occasione,
l. much loss Of blood and treasure in the nation
9. could General Jesup have left him in Florida
Of consistaty with his duty? think not.
IS Here another. important question arises: hal
:; the claimant any right to keep an enemy so dan
l. gcrous within any civilized community? Is Their
Is Il member of this body VINO will rise in his pIac
W and assert that any master possesses the right
= retain such foe on his plantation? Has an
)? man the right to keep rabid dog, or Other ami
NAL and suffer him to 20 at large in the com
Of muny3 | am now arguing the legal question
b. [ am considering this man as property, the sam
as thongb be were an ass or a mule. And la
h. tn duws. kElear and indisputable law, that ha
NC huCil VI UluIC hlNu lllC utSLDNG
II their property, as this man had done, any mem
I'D Der OF tbecommunlty might either have shot hin
mt Or chased him out OF the nclgl!borhood with i'm
Ell punity
ed therefore meet the gentleman who reporte
as this bill on every point involved in this case, lie
IN gal, cquihbe, or constitutional, and can I'm
he no merits in it.
u But, sit, as / am for the moment engaged
lie lcgai examination of the case, desire to fo
he low it a little further This man was guilty I
nd treason arains; the United States, or he was a
er enemy 70 our Government. think it doubtll
as whether slaves can commit treason, as they ow
he no allegiance to our Government. But if h
ng was mai n traitor, he was surely an enemy To tn
country Now, sir, whether traitor or encm,
ire and the master, knowing the fact, had marlboro
is him. adhered to him" Or "gven him aid an
mt co,,r. ,,orld not the master have been uullt