The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-23
LETTER X.


LETTER X
COLONIAL AND SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION
FAILED TO LEGALIZE sLAvERY-TESTI
MoNY OF sLAvEHOLDING JURISTs.
lcoNcLUDED
To the Friends of american Liberty:
cannot spare room for an exhibition of al
the efforts he makes to find the origin of legal.
lied Slavery but gives up, in despair. In "the
granted privilege by the Emperor Charles y he
could not find the first introduction Of Slavery
into the New World, /" for it Z" was intended as
means CT enabling the planters TO dispense with
the Slavery of the Indians by their European
conquerors" And he does not intimate that
their Slavery was legal He finally settles
down upon this conclusion:
However, we are Of opinion that it mag be
laid dowl as Z legal axiom, that in all Gov.
erDmeuts in which the municipal regulations
are no. absolutely opposed to Slavery, persons
already reduced to that state may be held in
1T; and we also assume, as a first principle, that
Slavery has been permitted and tolerated in all
the Colonies established in America by Eu-
l0pean Powers, most clearly as relates to the
blacks and Africans; and also, in relation to
indians in the fret periods of conquest and
colonization. wheeler, p. Is American
Slave Code, p. 269.
What a falling of is here" Slavery, in
stead Of requiring municipal law for its etab-
hshment requires municipal law for It's proki-
hilton lf this be 30, the decision of Judge
Matthews in the case Of Marie Louise may be
questioned. Slavery becomes the condition of
nature, and statute law must interpose before
1T can be displaced In Maine and Massachu-
sets, where there are probably no statutes
absolutely opposed to Slavery" persons at
ready reduced to Slavery may be held in it y
glorious uncertainty of the law" when ex-
pounded to meet the anomalies of Slavery
BY the same illegal axiom,n assault and
battery, when once committed, might be con-
tinued legally, if there are no express statutes
against ia legal axiom" that ignores or
reyerses common law
Nothing short of positive, local, municipal
law, be 1t remembered can legalizs Slavery.
This is admitted. This is iudicialy decided.
This was our starting point Slaveholding
Judges ransack all the legal and historical
archives of the country in quest of the said
positive, local, municipal law. In vain they
can find no trace Of a." They yield the point
They confess, frankly, the failure. "NoNE
HAVE BEEN FOUND AUTHORIZING THE SLAVE
RY OF THE BLACKS" Very well-what next (?
A verdcs for Freedom No; an opinion -
not a municipal law, butOnly an "opinion"--
not that it Is but that it MAY be whenever
common sense and humanity permit it) ga
legal axiom" that-that 1chGti In substance
that any man that can catch Niger" and
fetter him, and drive him, may legally continue
to do so, provided no positive local, rUnie;-
pal law" has been enacted against it The
law logic Of John Hawkins revived again Such
are the shifts and exigencies of slayeholdinC,
in quest Of legalizatiOni
After all, a closer scrutiny will perhaps en-
able us to recall the severity of this last re-
mark, as applied to the amiable and discrimi-
mating Judge Matthews, however Just it may
be in lis application to those who deliberately
defend tie legal tenure Of slavehclding.
Judge Matthews does not SGy that slavehold-
ing was ever Lcgdii-ed but only that it was
permitted and tolerated" He does not say
that Slavery is nor legal, but only that the
slave may be held in his present sad condi-
tion, however the tenure whether legal or
o;heraisel under which he is held may be de-
scribed. Undoubtedly he may but only be-
cause the guilty Government continues 10 {" toll
crate " the outrages it ought to suppress
In saying that Slavery was tolerated in all
the colonies" Judge Matthews, by an obvious
implication, denied that it had ever been legal
I-ed. No acute lawyer who uses legal terms
with precision ever speaks Of practice which
he considers legal as being tolerated Govern
ments protect, but DO not tolerate, men in the
enjoyment OF their lawful nights Abuses and
nuisances are tolerated. bu. not innocent. law
full acts
Judge Matthews then declined to hberate the
slave not on the ground that he was legduy
enslaved, but on the ground of the tolerance
tiorbearance) hitherto exercised and which it
was deemed difficult, inconvenient. ipconpru
Gus, or ungraceful for him. as a STAKEHOLDER
among shareholders to terminate Thus Mad
lson continued STAKEHOLDER, though be de-
MED the legality Of property in man, and would
no: consent that the Federal Constitution should
contain en- admission of it's legality. On the
whole, it is not to be admitted that a iuris. of
Judge Matthew's attainments and standing
would stultify himself by admitting the Legal
ity Of slaveSoldng after having declared that
IL could mol be legaiized without positive mu.
nicipal law, no traces " of which could be
fund He did not do il. as his words show.
tie carefully and adroitly avoided doing it.
though deciding against claim for freedom.
This fact is fr'l OF instruction, deserving to be
studied and remembered
The language and the course of Judge Mat
thews may remind one Of an expression used
by the celebrated Dr. Hopkins, who, in his
writings charges the magistrates with "conni-
ring at the Practice OF slayeholding. This
meaning is evident from the consideration that
magistrates are never said to conniuen at
what is legal. DIR. Hopkins expresses himself
In accordance with this when he saws. further.
that our modern Slavery differs from the an
oent, as being "trithout the express san,tion of
eiul Gorernment'* Judge Matthews cannot
b, cleared from the charge of conniuingD at
the practice, though he had too much intelli-
geoce and decency TO pronounce it legal
Ia the case of Hudgins Us. Wright, Noven-
Der term, 1906, the Court nd: I" The Slavery
Of the African negro has erited from the time
Of bringing them into the colony. In many Of
the States, express enGctrnents have been made
declaring them slaves; in others, they are slave;
bs cusroM'-1. Henry and Munford's Virginia
reports, 1879; Wheeier's Law of Slavery, p IL
GoodelrS American Slave Code, p. 263.
This falls snort of affirming the legality O.
Slavery in eng Of the States, and amounts tC
an implication that it is not legal 10 some o
them. No one doubts that Slavery has eristet
from the period specified. So has petty lar
ceny and many other unlawful practices. And
the express enactmen:s" alluded to are no
shown, nor even affirmed to have been valid.
"In other (States) they are slaves by Gus
TOM" that is, without the existence of "expres
statutes" or positive law; and, consequently
their Slavery is illegal.
Ia the case of ii all as. Mullen, June Term
1921, Judge Johnson said Bat the condition
and rights of slaves in this State depend DO
exclusively on the civil or feudal law, but may
perhaps, rest upon both ,. subject, nevertheless
60 such changes in their condition, &C., as TIT
laws of the State may prescribe-"-5 Har.