Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-06-22

az property, and though IN arranging tne
spportionment OF the ratio OF direct taxation eno OF
repressptstion OF the several States in Congress, slaves
embraced under the general designation Of "three
ffths of all other PERSONS" yettheir rights as persons
are utterly ignored, and they are counted as such IN
that instrument merely III the adjustment OF the ratio
of taxation and of the rights of their owners and
their owners property to federal representation
bred Scott v. Sanford. 10 Howard U. 5. X. 4li;o
vol. Madison Slate Papers, tit. slaves. And That
Congress has passed no law, and has no authority Il"
pass any law, touching the rights and relatiohs OIL
Virginia masters in and to their slaves as property
except to recognise, protect aud enforce those rights
and relations AZ they exist under the State Consiltu'
ton aud lava, need scarcely be stated TO the supreme
judiciary of Virginia, whose decisions have amply
illustrated a noble tsaliy TO the supremacy OF State
sovereignty in all matters within the sacred circle OF
its peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction.
By the Constitution OF Virginia, slaves are expressly
recognized as property, and not at all as persona hnv'
ing civil rights in any respect whatsoever. Art. W.
Sects. ~, -.
Aud now looking TO the statute law Of the
State. we find that from the earliest period, go
far a. their civil status is concerned, slaves are
always spoken Of and treated in the numerous
acts of the House Of Burgeases aud the General
Assembly, as mere property. IL Is ENRIQUE Ihc' ;na
there is no statute directly reducing negroes INTO
slavery. '.In 1920" says Captain smith, ~ Dn'ch
ship of ware, brought us ~ nrSars, tor sale; they
were bought by the colnnIsts; aid that was Inc origin
of African slavery in Virginia. They were first RI.
ne peTSOIdt tDatttler "eIo uouSut oou eo'
aud held like any other personal estate, were subisct
TO the payment at debts, and went to the executor or
administrator, like any other personality. Then. Tor
q long time, in particular cases, such as descenta' &C.
they were made real estate. and passed TO the heIr al
law. 3 Hen. Stat. Lnrg. 333, October. llo5; = Hen
Stat. Lsrg. a22. Feb. l757; y Wa.h. /, 4 ibid 6S, 40;
> II. IL NJ. So; Il Munf. 2UO.
They continued 10 he such real estate during Inc
whole period Of the Revolution, aud down TO l792
when by Il c. Chap. lob, it was enacted that 'al
lao. -. I'll aA,,rt1 ,F n fttrS
in this Commonwealth, shall be held, taken aud ad
Judged to be personal estate" This was re- enacted
by | K. G.. p. 43l. 1919; and by Code of Virginia, p
I5S, 1919, it is suumsrily said Slaves shall DC
deemed personal estate"
Looking at Theses acts, it is cafe to cay that the la"
regards Il negro slave, go far as bis civil status ls con
cerned. as purely and absolutely as mere proper
~, TO be bought and sold, and pass and descend, as q
tract Of land, a horse or an OK. -.
From this it necessarily follows, that the condition
of the negro in.elavery, is that of absolute civil inca
pscity, or rather of absolute civil non entity. He u
certainly incapable of owning property of any kind
He il incapable of making any legal contract oy
which property of any kind may be- acquired or held
And he can do no civil legal act, by which the pro
perty Of other persons can be- lawfully divested, OF
alieDsted, or the relations of property be in any wise
legally changed or affected. In regard to property
and the relations OF property, he Il emphsflcally ahu
absolutely unknown TO the law, except as the subject
of property owned by another.
ut UIC III VI oll vi " " iVSt"t
case, have well expressed the law, in the Southern
States, upon this point: "Under our system of law, Il
slave can make no contract. In the nature OF things
he cannot. He is, in contemplation of law, not a per
con for that purpose. He has no legal capacity Ia
make a contract he has no legal mind. He is the
property of his master, and all the proceeds of his Ia
Dor belong to bis owner. If property il devised or
given to him, the devise or bequest il void, and tue
personally given either belongs to the giver or be
comes the property of the owner. A elaTe has no le'
II .Ak.. -. -. M NJ, n ari,-,po L cr a. q
witnessin certain cases. In the Southern States the
policy of our laws in keeping slaves within their pro
per sphere, has run through al! the legislation OF which
their acts are the subject. matter" And the court
then decided that Contracts made by slaves are
void, and it q slave executes his note or bond, and II
free man is the security upon it, the note or bond ID
void, and the security not liable" Butler v. Faux
Quarterly Law Journal for April 1857, p. l4l.
In Virginia the statutes are numerous In which the
legal incspacity Of slaves TO make contracts is clearly
declared or implied, and the policy Of keeping them
10 their ''proper sphere of absolute civil non entity
distinctly enforced by various penalties inflicted upon
all persons trading or dealing with them. October
l705. chap. SO, sec. Is, 3 Stat. Lsrg. 45O; November
1853, chap. :, Is Stat. Larg. $50; 1885, l2 Stat. Larg
1873. 1892, chap. l03, X. C.; 1919, l K. G. chap. Ill;
l849, Code OF Va. p. 400.
Aud THE, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virgi
mia has expressly decided that "a Court OF Equity
canuot enforce a promise made by a master that he
will enancipste his slave, after a certain condition
e " x HulSu uAIktO ~ oSNh =" t''
Sawney vs. Garter, S Rand. l73. In that case Judge
Coalter, delivering the opinion of the whole court,
strongly says 1.-The pauper in this case, claims his
freedom on al alleged contract between his master
and him, at the time he was purchased at an eIechtor.
sale, that on paying his purchase money, he should
be free. He alleges that he has paid accordingly; but
that his master would not emancipate him..
= There is no case in this court. that l
can find, ~iustifying the idea that u Court OF Equity
can enforce such Il contract; but the reverse has oeeIi
decided, ss will bs seen hereafter.
In Stevenson V. Singleton, | Leigh, II, the case OF n
contract between muster and slave, whereby the mas
ter agreed TO emsnripa;e the slave Tor : l,0oO, TO he
paid by the slave to him, of which the slave paid
Sj66; Cabell, j., delivering the opinion OF a full court,
says: in the case OF Sswney v. Carter, = Rand. l73
this court refused, on great consideration. to enforce
a promise by q master 10 enlancipate his slave. IL Ii
impossible TO distinguish that case from this. The
court proceeded on the principle, that II 10 not com.
tent to a court OF chancery to enforce a contract be
tween master and slave, even though the contract
should be fully complied with on the part OF the
slave"
If legal rights lie conceded the slave, the courts
would be converted into a constant forum for settling
the disputes between master and slave; from which,
as was well said Gholson, n~rguendo in Adams .. Gil
lam, ] Pat. e Heath, l6l, would arise a state OF
things utterly Incompatible with the proper subordi
nation OF the slave, nay with the existence of slavery
in the community. Nor, indeed, from the relation
between master and slave, can any contract, by or
" ltu a Slnb oCtlDk " lulbC ohu ~ Ho y" IEht
have any possible legal validity whatever. To con.
stitute a good contract, the parties must be free
agents: but rs the will OF the master 10 the will of the
slave, the necessary independence and freedom 10
make the contract, or not, does not exist. A still
further and stronger reason is, that since the slave
himself, and all the acquisitions OF the slave, belong
absolutely 10 the master, a contract by the master
with his slave is but a contract by the master with
his own property for his own property. 1t is no an
swer to say that the slave is competent TO contract
With fha pDnaent nf hs nUuaY with n third n6ranU.
because such person bas no control over the slave,
who, Tor The purposes OF the contract, may be re.
garded as the agent Of the master.
There have been similar decisions 10 the above in
all the Southern States in which questions OF this kind
have been presented for adjudication.
That u promise or declaration made 10 a slave, or
for his benefit, cannot be enforced in q court Of law
or equity that u slave cannot cue or be s%ued-(ihe
exceptional case Of q suit for freedom being provided
TOR by statute or proceeding upon the legal fiction
that he is free and is, therefore, entitled to relief from
bondage)-ihat he cannot own or acquire property
OF any kind, in any way; that he can make no valid
contract Of any sort-Dot even the contract of mar
riage that he has in fine, no civil rights whichever {;
that all his civil rights OF every character are trans
terred TO his master that law az TO him is only a com.
pact between his rulers and The questions which con-
Germ him are matters between them See Be8ll ".
Joseph, Ia negro.l Harden, 81 The State v. samuel,
. Dew. Il Bait. III Hall v. Dolly Mullen, S Har. d
John. I9U; Susan v. David Wells, 8 Brevard, IL
Bland and Norfolk v. Negro Bowling, Gist v. Tookey,
, Rich. 424; State, use Of Clements v. Van Lear IT
ais, 5 Maryland Rep. 90; Sarah aud Malinda " Ga.
rsuer ct ais, 81 Ala. 7l9; Smith v. State, 8 Ala. 99n {;
Bynum v. Bostick, 4 Dess. ESQ Cunningham v.
Cunningham. Cam. & Nor. 1853 Girod v. Lewis &
Mart. LIS. Rep. 559; Brandon ct ais. v. Planters
a. Merchants Bank of Huntsville, | Stewards
Rep, $40; Lucy and clark, 4 Mon. 1871 Elmer.
son v. Rowland, ! Masons Rep. As; Graves ".
Allen, Is Is Mou. X. 1870; Len0ir y. Sylvester. |
Bailey, 63!; Elk Parte B~oylston, = Stroth. 80;
and that the Common Law ia not applicable TO the
Of the slave, see State v. Boom, Taylor's Rep.
lO5, State v. Mann, Q Dew. g. Bait. Lsw Rep. $40
Fable v Browns .x'or. = Hill, 37S; Neal v. Ear.
rer, = Georgia Rep. $3.50; in which last csse, after
an elaborate argument by the bar, aud great consi-
by the court. il was held, in a judgment
eviucing much learning and ability, that the Law of
had NO application to African Slavery in
or Georges; that the Common Law of Eng.
land is inaplilicab!e to the institution of slavery, ex
to protect the rights OF the master; that the civil