Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-08-29
From the Springfield Republican.
THE EXTINCTION OF SLAVERY IN MAS
SACHUSETTS.

Emory Washburn read paper upon this inter
estng subject before the Massachusetts, Historical
Socety,at a recent meeting. The article is too ex-
tensive Cor our columns. but we attempt 80 repro.
duce it in substance.
Slavery was not abolished in this State by speci-
al law, but by the decision Of the courts that was
inconsistent with the bill of rights aud with the
higher law of eternal justice. The Judges OF those
days had not learned to sco at the Divine law but
unanimously held with Blackstone that any laws
against the laws of natural justice are void, and
that laws upholding Slavery are against the laws
of nature.
Judge Lowell member of the committee for
drafting the Constitution introduced the first article
of the Declaration Of Rights for the purpose OF
rendering Slavery unconstitutional in Massachu'
setts. This article following closely the Decara
ton of Independence, is as follows:
'All men are born free and equal, and have GER
tain natural, essential, and unalienable rights {;
among Which may be reckoned the right of enjoying
and defending their lives and liberties that of ac-
quiring, possessing and protecting property in
fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and
happiness"
That human Slavery could not by any means ex-
ist under this broad declaration, was seen then as
clearly as now, and the decisions OF the courts
were given in accordance with it. But Slavery
was not abolished by the first decision to that effect
The decisions affected only the particular cases
brought to the attention Of the courts, and Slavery
gradually expired under the influence of law and
public opinion against it.
The first noticed by Mr.. Washburn, is that
of James rs Lechmerc, in which the plaintiff, n
negro sued his master for assault and battery, and
for imprisoning and holding him in scrvtude.--
The Suffolk Court of Common Pleas decided in IA
vOr of the master but the slave appealed and the
Superior Court decided in his favor, giving him
his liberty and damages besides. This was in 1863.
nearly two years before the famous decision o!
Lord Mansfield, that made Slavery impossible in
Englan l. and the decisions seem to have been bas-
ed upon the same general principle IN both cases.
! Another case was that of Quork W llker rs. Ma
lthanelJennison commenced ill thew orceser Court
Of Common Pleas in 1871, with several other suits
involving the questions, and The same parties.
Caleb Strong aud Levi Lincoln houored and ven
cradle names--were counsel fer tho negro Gov
| Gill was the chief justice. The decision was thai
the negro was entitled to his freedom. This cast
was carried up to the Superior Court, where thu
decision reatiirmed Both of the counsel for tn
slave, though neither of those for the master, an'
one of the judges of the inferior court and all th
judges Of the Superior Court who sat in the case
rs we'll as the chief justice, had themselves beeI
members of the Convention which formed the Con
stitution, and must have understood the intention
of its trainers upon subject that had so often AM
SO recently been ngitating the public mind. AM
their decision assumes n more than ordinarily au
hortative character ,inasmuch it utters not onl
ii judgement founded upon the language of that r
strument, but speaks the sentiment which dictate
that language ITSELF
Mr.. Washburn has in his possession the brie
used by Pr Lincoln in arguing the case, an
furnishes the following valuable synopsis of th
argument:
The counsel for the master rested his rights
among other things, upon the following points
In the first place, the negro was servant by hi
own consent, and therefore the defendant was i
able for enticing him away.
But to this it was answered, that if such wer
the case, there must be some evidence of ha
consent, either expressed or implied and the term
of it must be unders TODD. Besides, some term o
time must be agreed upon, for if he consented
to be the plaintiffs servant, snd no time wa
agreed upon, it would be only during hi
own will, which he may put an end to when
ever he pleases. But that in fact there was NJ
evidence of consent in the case.
In the next place, the plaintiff insisted he wa
his servant by virtue of bill Of sale by wcl
; he became the property of Caldwell. from WHOM
he passed to the plaintiff as husband of his own
er; and such bill Of sale produced on the trial
And the general right of holding property il
slaves was sustained upon several grounds. Isl
1t is declared in Exodus, of q mans servant, tina
she is his money.
But said the defendants counsel, it is indee
said in Exodus that mans servant ia his money
and from this the counsel on the other side argue
in favor of Slavery. But are you to try cases b
the old Jewish law ? This was indulgence
e that nation, and they would only make slaves
/; the heather around them But even 10y their sever
. laws, which required an eye for an eye, and
e tooth fpr tooth, men were not allowed to make
c slave Of brother They might not make slave
e him, though they might hire hm In the preser
e case ,Quork was their brother; they had commo
# origin were descended from common parent, wei
e clothed with the same kind of aesl, breathed Il
e same breath Of life, and had common Savior.
Dfl 1t was contended that the custom and usage
v the country considered Slavery as right. But
Of replied. the objection to this is, that custor
-. ~..l .
m void. SO far as this question depends upon t
ID laws Of tie State any laws against the laws of
n, ture are void And that laws unfolding Slave