The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-07-11
FREE DISCUSSION IN VIRGINIA.
Prem the Loudoun Chronicle.
TO THE PURI.IC

In order to counteract reports prejudicial TO
my reputation that have grown out of the pre-
sentiment Of the grand jury, deem II an act Of
justice due TO me and the religious society with
which am connected, that my defence, recently
submitted to the court, should be published
The court, after hearing the argument Of the
attorney for the Commonwealth, and my reply,
and considering the affidavit of C. C. Mcintyre,
as well as my own, determined TO quash the pro-
ceedings
SAMUEL M. JASsrY's ANSWER.
Having been summoned to appear before the
Justices Of the county court Of Loudoun, "to
show cause why information shall not be fled
against me upon the presentment Of the grand
jury, for maintaining, Ia an article published In
the Washmgtonian on the 10th Of August last,
that masters haze no right Of properly In their
slaves beg leave TO submit 10 the court the
following good and sufficient reasons why the
said information should not be flied:
First deny the Jaa alleged IN the prssntmeni.
II will be found, on q careful examination Of the
said essay, that far from maintaining that mas
tiers have no right Of property In their slaves
have distinctly sisted, In two paragraphs there
In, that slaves In Virgins are property. The
first Of these paragraphs contains my definition OF
slavery, viz: SIT Is based upon principle rscog.
Missed In all the slave States and expressed in the
laws Of South Carolina in these words Slaves
shall be deemed. held, taken, reputed, and ad-
judged In law TO be ehd,yls peysoaaI In the hands
Of their owners, &cl Slavery, therefore, Ia that
condition 10 which man Is held rs q ohattslp
The second of these paragraphs, towards the
close Of the essay, Is as follows slave 10 TO sill
inteDts and purposes ehot,el PERSONAL, and may
be taken and sold for his masters debts he can
not acquire nor hold property he osn make no
contract that bis master may not annul he can
not contract matrimony, for there Is no legal
marriage for slavssn
Here Is distinct recognition that slaves are
property IN the legal sense Of ths term for by prop
erty is meant anything to which q person has q
legal title; and II would DO absurd ta maintain
that In Virgins the owners Of slaves have no
legal title, when We know that slavery is estab-
lisbsd by law.
In fact, this II the very strongest objection
have 70 the whole system Of American slavery, 10
degrades men by regarding them as property, and
not only a. property bot M ehatfeis p>1sonai
In this respect II differs from that system OF
fsudal bondage which formerly prevailed In Eu-
rope for the serf was attached to the soil he
could be sold Nth Il, but NOT mifhom " and con-
sequently the family ties were not liable to be
broken at the will Of the master. Perhaps IL
may be alleged that the quotation introduced
from the writings Of John Wesley does maintain
that masters have no right Of property In their
! slaves; but beg leave to call your attention to
the language Of Wesley ~ quoted by me. He
says, at cannot DO that either war or contract
can give any man sHeh a wopsrfy In another, ~
! he has In his sheep and oxenn Nov, We know