The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-11-03

, his handp In this case the master il muir
derer. and must himself die the death But
the presumption revives and shall IN law DC
equivalent to proof if the beating is with rod,
and not a deadly instrument and II the SER
want survives for q day or two that the master
, did not intend to take the life OF his servant,
Cor had he intended to 10 he would probably
f have taken a more efficient instrument, and
would have continued its use tall his object was
accomplished. The phrase, "he shall not De
punished can only mean not as murderer
for when the master was to be severely punish
ed for knocking out his servants tooth, 1t wonld
be preposterous to suppose that he might with
impnnity beat him 20 cruelty as To cause hls
death.
The Jewish law went farther, probably. than
any other has ever gone in furnishing offences
against the pereon The principle of the law
on this subject was, Eye for eye, tooth Tor
tooth. hand for hand, foo, for foot, burning for
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe
En-. XXI, "a, rs. Hence, eff man cause a
blemish in his neighbor, as ne hath done so
shall it be done unto him-breach for breach,
eve for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused
| a blemish in n man so shall it be done unto
him again. n-Lep. XIV, 10, 20. We can read
ily believe that masters subject 20 such la"
would be exceedingly careful how they "caus-
ed blemish in a servant. BY this law ser
want had the same protection against outrage
as his master himself. But a still farther pro
lection was afforded him by another law II
a man smite the eye OF his servant or the eye
of his maid, that it perish he shall let him 60
free for his eyes sake and II he smite out ms
man servants tooth, or his mald-servant tooth,
he shall let him 60 free for his tooth 8 sake
En- xxi, 90 81 Thus, while public justice was
avenged in causing the master to lose an eye
or a tooth the servant was In greater or less
degree compensated by the recovery of MS free
dom, without restoring any portion OF the wages
he had received for the whole term
MASTERS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BEAT THEIR
SERVANTS.
No power is given in the law to master to
chastse his servant nor is there hint gwen
that any such right was claimed and exercised
The law, indeed, supposes that masters might
beat and murder servants as well as other men,
and provides for their punishment but it no
where intimates that master may lawfully
beat his servant however moderately. Indeed
where courts of Justice were expressly restrain
ed from awarding more stripes than forty as a
punishment for crime, (Dem. XIV, 81 it cannot
be supposed that Jewish masters were permit
ted to WELD the scourge at pleasure.
SERVANTS MIGHT ACQUIRE AND HOLD 70
PROPERTY.
No law prevented the servant from acquiring |
and holding property We have seen HIM au-
thorized to redeem himself to vacate his con
tract with his master for the remainder Of his |
term if he be able, "Out of the money that he
was bought for" out of the wages he had re-
ceived in advance, by paying back an equitable
portion of the money for the unexpired term.
When Saul was at loss for a present to Sam
uel, his servant offered him money for the pur-
pose.-I Sam tx, 8. The servant had money
IN his pocket, which was more than his young
master had. Gehazi, servant to Elisha, fraud |
uently obtained considerable money, no at
tempt was made to take the money from him,
nor does the narrative contain the slightest in |
timation, that, being a servant the money be- |
longad to his master. The fac. that Ziba, the |
servant Of Saul, had himself twenty servants,
proves cOnclusively that obed does not mean
slave; but it does not prove that domestic ser
wants were capable of holding property, as there
is no reason for believing that he was domes-
tc-he seems rather to have been land agent |
Still, the right of domestics to property is be- |
yond doubt, and the allusion we have quoted |
to the money he had received from his master
and his right to use it for his own redemption, |
settles the point.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF SERVANTS.
To the privileges granted by the Mosaic law
to the six years servant is still to be added the
regard paid to his religious rights On the |
subject of religious Observances he appears to |
have been placed on an entire equality with his
master. Not only was every seventh day alb |
stracted from labor, but twenty-five days were |
to be spent at Jerusalem during the three ma
tional festivals together with few other days
of religious solemnities, in which no work was
to be done; and to these days of leisure are to
be added the time spent in travelling to and
from Jerusalem three times year. 1t is re-
markable that although the women were not
required to attend the national festivals, yet
Moses, speaking of the two feasts of Weeks and
Of Tabernacles, says of each, Thou shalt re-
joice in thy feast, thou and thy son and thy
daughter thy man servant and thy maid ser
vant"-Deut. xvi, III, IA. This language, al
though never understood as commanding the
attendance of the women, certainly permits and
recommends it,
DOMESTIC SERVANTS NOT PERMITTED To
DISSOLVE THEIR CONTRACT EXCEPT By
REDEMPTION.
Before dsmissing the subject of Hebrew do
mestics it may be well to notice mistake into
which some Ant-Slavery writer's have fallen.
The law as we have seen, pointed ont a meth
cd in which the servant might at any time dis
solve his contract for six years service. He
might redeem himself by paying back to his
master, "out of the money that he was bought
for" an equitable portion of tho wages he had
received in proportion to the uuexpred term
for which he had bound himself. If he had
not the money, any relation or friend might ad-
vance it for him, and then he went out free
Lev XIV, $3.50 Hence we find, in Nehemiah.
certain of the returned Jews complaining OF
then poverty, and stating, as grievance result
ing from 1T, that they brought into bondage
(servce) their sons and daughters, "neither is
it IN our power 10 redeem them, for other men
have our lands and vineyards. v, 5.
The writer's alluded to- overlooking this wise,
just and mcrciul provision, have supposed that
the servant might at pleasure abscond from his
master, without paying back the unearned
wages be had received. This opinion is found
cd on Deut. XIII, Is: Thou shalt not deliver
unto his master the servant which is escaped
from his master unto thee. He shall dwell
with thee, even among you in that place which
he shall choose in one Of thy gates, where it
hketh. him best; thou shalt not Cypress him"
If this law applied to the six years servants.
then it in fact nullifed and destroyed the most
merctul and blessed system Of domestic seryi.
tude the world has ever known A poor man
hires in Scripture language, sells himself, for
six years as n servant and receives down his
wages for the whole term The next day, with
tho money in his pocket he leaves his employ.
err, and with perfect IMMUNITY resides where he
pleases, enjoying the fruit of his fraud and
breach of faith 1t is impossible to suppose
that God ever made law so inconsistent with
Justice and fair dealing and so destructive to
the very system he had established; 1r who,
under such law, would pay wages in advance
We find that two of Shemer's servants abscond-
ed and took shelter in the family of the King
OF Gath, and that they were pursued and re.