Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-15

l. + "
am glad you give 80 much attention to the
Nebraska question. The people are waking
up | have not found Q Wing or Democrat
who is not opposed to Douglass bill.
Forthe National Era.
THE LEGAL TENURE OF SLAVERY.
LETTER x.
COLONIAL AND SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION
FAILED TO ALIZE SLAVERY-TESTI-
MoNY OF ST. HOLDING JURIsTs.
IcoNcLUDED
To the Friends of american Liberty.
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 "c0nni.
ving at the practice Of slaveholding. This
meaning is evident from the consideration that
magistrates are never said to " c0nniUeo ut
what is legal. DR.. Hopkins expresses himself
| in accordance with this, when he says, further,
that our modern Slavery differs from the an
cient. as being pithout the cypress sanction of
ciuii GOVERNMENTS Judge Matthews cannot
History Of Slavery and AntiSlavery, p rs.
DO cleared from the charge of connipingo ct
gence and decency to pronounce it legal.
Der term, 1906, the Court said: o. The Slavery
of the African negro has eristed from the time
of bringing them into the colony. In many Of
the States, cypress enactments have been made,
declaring them slaves; in others, they are slaves
by cusToMn--1. Henry and Munford's Virginia
reports, 1879; Wheeler's Law of Slavery, p ~ !;
Goodell's American Slave Code, D. 263
This falls short Of affirming the legality of
Slavery in Gny Of the States, and amounts to
an implication that it is not legal in some Of
them. No one doubts that Slavery has existed
from the period specified So has petty lar
ceny and many other unlawful, practices. And
! the express enactmentsn alluded to are not
shown, nor even affirmed, to have been valid
"Iu other (States) they are slaves by Gus
TONI that is, without the existence of express
statutesn or positive law and, consequently,
their Slavery is illegal.
In the case of Hall u.s. Mullen, Juno Term,
1921, Judge Johnson said: "But the condition
and rights Of slaves in this State depend not
exclusively on the civil or feudal law, but may,
perhaps, rest upon both, subject, nevertheless,
TO such changes in their condition, So, as the
laws of the State may prcscriben-5 Har. g.
Johns Maryland Reports 100; Wheeler PIP.
TO- IL; Slave Code, p. 264.
Here again, we see an anxious and unsatis
factory search after the legal foundations and
origin of Slavery. No mention is made OF
municipal law n-"the laws of the State ~
as having originated or legalized the relation,
but only as regulating and changing its incl
dents The Judge knew better than to attempt
citing either the Statutes or the Constitution
Of Maryland, for the origin or legality of Ma
- L. L.. A. n
| lRoman) civil law, and to the feudal law, (once
existing in Europe, but never in America) for
their origin. Nothing Of "local, municipal
positive law,n can be predcated of these; and
consequently, nothing that could legalize Sla-
very, Hthe creature ONLY Of municipal law.
After all, the Judge finds that Slavery cannot
depend exclusively either on the civil or feu.
dial law yet he consoles himself with the
conjecture, that "perhdps, IL mag rest, in part,
upon both subject to such Legislative reguls-
ton as shall prevent the inc onvenient definition
and limitation of Slavery to those less rigid
standards. The legality Of Slavery being thus
| (according TO Judge Johnson) involved in doubt
and uncertainty, he was bound to decide in
favor of liberty, according to the common
law maxim, HWhenever the question Of liber-
ty seems doubtful, the decision must be in favor
Of liberty
| shall cite but one instance more. In the
case Of 9The State Us. Waggoner, April Term,
1872 the Jud Q said: "They Qndians) have
80 long been recognised as slaves in our law.
that it would be as great violation of the
rights Of property to establish q contrary de-
cision at the present day, az IL ,oould in the
case of the africans, and as useless 10 investi
gate tie manner an ighich they originally lost
their freedomv--l Halstead's New Jersey Re-
ports, 374-476; Am. Slave Code, p 265.
In this New Jersey decision, the more liberal
and righteous doctrine Of the Southern Courts,
that prescription is never pleadable to claim
for freedom il entirely set aside. Prescrip-
ton, or length Of time, is made the only found
alton Of Slavery! Nothing is said Of statutes,
laws, constitutions compromises, or under
standings Of any kind-nothing in the shape Of
alocal, municipal, or positive law, in any pos
sble form. The plain, unyarnished PROPOSE
ton is this; that Iong-continued practices,
ton, and constitute law, unless special statutes
abolish them. If this DO 90, then legal SOL
ence,n Common law and 80 forth, are mere
phrases without meaning.
My main object in this letter was to show
that there were no statutes creating the rela-
ton of Slavery during the colonial period.
have proved more than this, by the testimony
Of slaveholding jurists themselves one ofwhom
testi6as that there were no such statutes in
1897, and the other, that mono could be found
in 1917. To the proper place ! shall produce
further testimony from slaveholding statesmen,
and from the Federal Courts, affirming or ad-
hitting that no such statutes could be found
| in 1850 and 1853 But must first show the
illegality Of Slavery from considerations and
evidences Of Different character and earlier
] date, WILLIAM GooDELL