New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-10-20
APPRENTICES AND SLAVES.

To ne'Tditor Of The n. Y Tribune.
SIR; In leading article on Judge kanes las,
which appeared in your columns the otaer day nno
the following query
DOES Judge Kane pretend that Virginia master who voun
der,ske 10 hold him here utder his Virginia ndentures
Now. cir. do you mean that mas er cannot carry
his apprentice from one State to another and sill hold
him to his ndentures2 ,,,,
Yours respectfully AN INQUIRER.
Certainly: that is just what we mean and the
point is one well settled in law. Apprentices can
not be held in one State under indentures entered
into in another In the second volume of Picker
ine's reports, page $50, in the case OF CONN u.s.
Bassett, the Judgment of the Supreme court Of
Massachusetts, was given as follows
"We think it very clear from all the authorities that
an indenture of apprentice gives no authority to the
master 10 transport the apprentice beyond the urs.
dction with which the contract entered into and
with reference TO which the parties contracted Gases
have been decided in this Commonwealth which re-
rognize this restriction upon the rights OF masters
Hal " Gardner, l Mass. Keep. l72; Ddrs v.
CoJurn, Mass. Rep. 299; Commonwealth " Hamit-
toa Mass. Rep. pa S9c1 also Is ue Jaw 81 po Iu
sylyania, Com monredh v. Edrards, Blnney 2o2.
The case of Commonwealth V. Eirards, above
cited. was habeas corpus issued to the defendant
70 bring I'D the body of Maria Stark, an infant IN
his custody, to which he made return that he heid
her as an apprentice, to serve until the age OF
eighteen, BY virtue of an indenture duly executed
BY an overseer of the poor in the borough OF Nor
folk, Virginia Upon this point Chiefjustee Tilgh-
man, in his opinion, said:
although there Is no express stipula IN that the
apprentce shall not be removed from Nrgnla, yet II
40 10 be understood from the nature OF the case IL
must be supposed that when the legislature OF any
State vests in it's courts power over the persons OF
ornhsns that power 10 be exercised that the or
nbans shall not be withdrawn to places beyond the
Jurisdiction Of the State except those who are oounu
10 the sea service which must necessarily carry them
abroad While within that jurisdiction they are sure
NJ nroteotion from the same laws which authorized
their binding. But the moment they enter coun-
try where other laws prevail, they may receive
treatment very different from what was con-
formulated by the courts under whose autnony
thew were bound. II it be permitted to remove thie
npnrcntce bey ond the limits of Virginia, she may DC
carried TO the West or East Indies. There IS no me-
dunn The service must either be restricted 10 NH-
pinis or not restricted at ALL The consequence OF d
boundless license of removal would De monsrous.
Instead Of afordirg protection to orpnans tle sou'
which was instructed with their supern'enuenoe
might only be exposing them 10 hardship and rum
l am, therefore, of opinion that Maria STARK c1n-
not be held in this State by virtue of the indenlure e4'
ecued in Virginia"
In this opinion all the other judges concurred
We think these legal authorities ought to satisfy
our correspondent