Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1858-06-24
sisvery--Its sfatus--The supreme Cour
OF Apueais of Virpinia,


to the institution of negro slavery that has
been adjudicated since the times Of Lord
Mansfield.
Bayly VS.. Poindcxter's Executor, has
marked out anew the civil relation of master
aud slave, and, establishes great funda-
mental principle of the law Of emancipation.
1t il, therefore, of vast Importance, not only
u Virginia, but to the whole South.
a brief sketch of this important case nay
be necessary to the comprehension Of the
ruling of the Court. IL Is the bred Scott
decision applied TO slaves. James L. PJin-
dexter, by his will, gave his slaves 'the
choice of being emancipated, or sold public
ly" The executor filed bill in the Circuit
Court, I'VE belieye,) # New Kent, Judge
Clopton presiding, asking the Court to con-
strue the will uuUn several important points;
the most important OF which were, whether
the slaves were absolutely omanCipatod; end
whether if they were emaucIpated only on
condition Of subsequent choice, they had the
legal capacity to make the necessary cleo
ton. Judge Clopton decided, that they were
absolutely cmanGipated by the will, and that
II was not necessary to AK or obtain their
choice in the matter. The residuarY lesa-
tees Of PUindeXter, Appealed from this deci-
sion TO the Supreme Court Of Appeals of
this State. Elaborate arguments were heard,
by the ablest counsel, on both sides, by a
court Of four judges, who being unable TO
come to a decision, held the case under con-
sheraton from the Spring term, 1857, uo-
til the Fa! term, when the Court being still
uuadvised of its decision, il is said equally
divided, the fifth Judge having taken his
seat Il rC-argumcnt was called for, and the
case was again elabOTately argued in writing
by Mr.. Pierce Gov. Gregory, and Judge
John Robertson, for the lcgatccs, aud by
Mr.. Branch and Judge Crump for the slaves.
At this hearing Of the case additional oOun.
sci was called IN, Mr. john Howard for the
leSatees, aud Mr.. Jno. N. Patton, Sr., for the
slaves.
The absence of all positivc law fxing the
legal character of slavery gave rise to the
great difficulty in the case. Former deci-
siOns upon emancipa,ing wills, increased
this difficulty and Impressed upon COUNSEL
the necessity of Distinguishing the questions
under tins will from those aCiudicatcd In
former decisions. The particular question
in Bayly W.. Poindexter, involving the civil
and social rights and legal capacity OF the
negro race IN Virginia, had not been cou-id-
cred. Ih!s case, therefore, opened a vide
field for original reasoning, on principle and
from analogy, and the greatest possible
scope was given for legal logic and acumen.
The previous decisions alluded to seem TO
have given great practical difficulty to the
court.
10 the cases OF Peasants aud Pleasapts,
! (l8G4, and Elders and Elders, (I834,) the
Court had virtually passed upon wills giving
to slaves an election between freedom ana
slsvery--and had declared the slaves to be
emancipated by those wills--but those deci
s!oas turned upon points and reasons that
did not necessarily involve consideration OF
| the great question as to whether slaves have,
Ia law, any civil or social rights, and any
legal capacity to make such an election. Ii
was known 70 be the fact that the legal pro-
tesslon throughout the State hal acquiesced
in these decisions as establishing the capaci
~ Of election in slaves, and. hence, emanci.
patton UNDER all such wills; and under the
supposed authority Of these decisions, wills
bad been drawn all over the State. Under
this aspect the decision Of the case # B4yly
VS.. P0Indexter involved matter OF great pc
cuniary responsibility to a large number Of
persons and of great practical importance
|
had acted under the decisions Of $500 and
1884 might be held liable under the late
decisions, TO account for the slaves wrongful.
ly permitted to 20 free, and rs 10 the great
case IF Somerset, before Lord Mansfield,
where, though orly one slave was directly
involved, II 200 werO lying 10 London Dock
awaitlng their fate in the decision, 50 here
the expected freedom OF thousands to whom
election had been given, depended upon the
decision OF this case.
The decision OF the court, delivered BY
Judge Daniel, nay be found il the January
number Of the Quarterly Law Journal. The
majority Ct the court decided that the wi Of
| POIudexter did not absolutely emancpate
ais slaves; that it gave them Il mere choice
! between freedom and slavery: that the act Of
election by the slaves to be tree was 3 cUndi-
! lion precedent 10 their becoming tree: and
that the performance of that act involved the
exercise OF civil and social rights and legal
capacity.
This brought directly before the court the
questions: have Virginia slaves any such
rights or capacity? Is the condition one
which they have the civil right and legal ca
pa:iJy to perform?
The court, after instiruting n leaTGeI Gin.
curry INTO tLc true condition here If the class
u persons to which slaves belong" said that
the case OK Peasants against Peasants, and
the case OF Elder against Elder were not
binding authority, ingSmuch as the question
now presented for consideration does not APP
pear to have been argued, or adjudgcd by
the court, and was passed over in silence, as
not distinctly arising in the cases, and that
therefore, the question was ono to be tested
by the general and acknowledged principles
pertaining to the subject, and not as one con.
trollod by the il fucuce Of special adjudi-
cation" And when we assent to the gene
raj prOpusjtIGu," said Judge Daniel, in biz
! luminous opinion, alter examining all thc
authorities cited, when we assent to tue gen
erai proposition, as tbink We must do, that
our sia"c7 have 10 clylior social rIghts--that
they have no legal capacity to make, dis
charge, or assent to contract; that though
master en,er il tie forms OF an agreement
| with bis slave to uIauUmIt him, and the slave
proceeds fully to perform all required cf him
IN the agreement, he is without remedy in
case the master refuse to comply with h.s
part Of the agreement and that slave cau-
not take anything under devise or will, eX-
! cept bis freedom, we are led, necessarily, u
the conclusion, that nothing short Of the cX
hibtion a positive enactment or Of legal
decisions having equal force, can demonstrate
Oh - ., al.