The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-06-30

Ineht, not 0OuHO Dy acts Ot aiiLsucnl
unless particularly named"
Now if the "eommon law had no al
Iowance orauthority in America. while
it was a British Colony, by what rule
Of logic could it give force after we threw
off the British yoke, and setupa govern
nent ofour own. But you contend that 1t
wherever the jurisdiction of the
Court of Kings bench extended, and that
it extended to the then British colonies ;
now the Uni.ed States of America. Ad-
nit, for arguments sake, that the Com-
mon Law was adopted in this Territory,
or rather in this country, while it. was
the Territory of Missouri, which really
did take place in 1915. in the following
language: BE it enacted, &c, that the
Common Law of England, which is of
a general nature, and all statutes made
BY the British Parliament-ia and of, or
to supply the defects of the Common
Law, made prior to the fourth year OF
James the First, 1904, and Of general
nature, and not local to that Kingdom,
which said Common Law and statutes
are not contrary to the Las0s Of this Ter
ritory, and not repugnant to, nor ineon-
consistent with the Constitution and laws
of the United States, shall be the rule OF
decision in this Territory"
So you see that the adoption of the
Common Law of EHgiaed did not inval-
idate the civil code then IN force in the
Territory; because they did not adopt
any of the Common Law contrary to the
laws Of the Territory.
But l must examine your Common
Law little further Missouri only adj
opted the Common Law up to 1904, and
your famous Sommerset case occurred in
l772, just 1853 years after, SO it is OF no
consequence what the Common Law was
held to be after we adopted it. What il
was before that time is to the point; and
thatI mean to examine and ascertain
According to your own showing the
Common Law is of no force in Kansas,
Notwithstanding old Mansfetd's detuna.
Let us see how things stood about the
time we adopted the Common Law, 1904.
From the language of Blackstone, on
page 425 of his Commentaries, one WOO
suppose that slavery existed in England
in his day, or in former times. He re-
marks, in commenting on certain laws,
hence, too, it follows that the infamous
and unchristian practice of Withholding
baptism from negro servants, least they
should thereby gain their liberty, is to,
tally without foundation, or excuse; but
the slave is entitled to the same protec.
ton in England before as after baptism,
and whatever service the heather negro
owed of right to his American master by
general, not local law, the same he il
bound to render when brought to Eng.
land and made achristian.' By referring tc
Lord Raymond's Rept., page 146, thai
case was decided in the fifth year o.
William and Mary: "a man may have
property an negro bog, and may main.
tain an action of trover for him because
negroes are Aeathens."
By referring to past history we find thai
Sir John Howkins was the first English.
man that introduced the practice of kid
mapping negroes in Africa and transport
Ing them to the West Indies, to colonies
where your Kings bench extended and
your Common Law; and Mr.. Hawkins
If mistake not, was law author ol
commentator. in the reign ofQueen Eliz
abeth.
In 1920 the Dutch sold a cargo O
negroes in Virginia, which seems to bt
the beginning OF African slavery in North
America. But it is truly absurd to deny
that slavery was sanctioned by the Law
of England. The fact is as notorious a:
that slavery now exists in the Sou herr
States of this Union /; and it has existed
in nearly every one of the original thir
teen States, and that, too. without any
positive municipal law establishing it.
The records of New Netherlands al
Jude to lis existence in their settlements
on the banks of the Hudson as early a,
1926; and slavery is mentioned in Mas.
sachusetts between 1850 and 1641. II
1916 they opposed the introduction o.
slaves as heinous crime, and, finally
about the period of the revolution it was
abolished in Massachusetts,. Slavery ex.
listed in Connecticut as late as 1884 II
New York and Pennsylvania it existed
as frmlyand with as much rigor as in any
southern State in this union. New York
in particular, was more stringent than
any slave state that I know of at this
time. She made it crime for any ne.
gro to talk impudently to any christian,
for which he should receive not exceed.
ing 40 lashes, at the discretion of any
Justice of the Peace. But this was in
imitation of the old Jewish law, which
forbid any to speak evil of the Lords an.
nointed, for our forefathers were mostly
christians of the puritan stock, and NO
to be insulted by heathen negroes.
En- I740 it was observed by the Legis
lature of New York, .'that all due en-
couragement should be given to the di
rect importatioR OF slaves, and all snug
ling of slaves condemned as an eminent
discouragement to the fair trader" L
the common law was so hosti9eso slavery
why did it admit of such laws, and the
traffic in human flesh as you phihnthro
pists are pleased to term slavery?
The truth is slavery did exist in Eng
land and all of her American and Yves
India colonies. before and after the reyo
luton, and British statesmen and British
subjects were in the traffic, and British
law coinived at the Traffic. But jus
like some of the people and States of on
own country, when the competition be
came so strong that no more money wa:
to be made by the traffic, their conscience
checked them, and then. from envy O
those who were making money, they de
noauced the traffic as unhoiy, unjust ant
damnable.
The opponents of slavery viii have t
base their opposition on other ground
J than relying on the common Law of Eng
land, as in loFce in this territory, or tina
it cannot exist except by positive munic
ipal law, while the reverse is true that
does exist every where until prohibise
by law. This seems to be the eommo
law of nations and the history OF Africa
seryi.ude