New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-02-26
NEW YORK DAILY TRIBUNE FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1855.

new domestic relation, in which the wife m ,sht be-
come the property of the husband. as wife bat
not 90 8 chattel Il certainly never could have
been the intention of The Legislature 10 give the
free negro yendlble interest in his wife, sincs TO
have done so would have been in violation oil the
spirit Of the Constitution of Kentucky and OF the
very statute under consideration. stephen could
take only limited interest in Cynthis, and that
interest was clearly one which did not extend 10 the
power Of disposipg Of her person. Ifhe could cell
her, lie could slso sell her offspring. She might
have ten or fifteen children al at the mercy OF the
father, who might thus become large Shareholder
in spite of the sprit of the statute. Surely. the
Legislature of Kentucky could never have cOntem-
plated an absurdty Ike this. In Interpreting
law it's trainers must BE- considered as rational be-
ings incapable of undoipg with one hand what they
DO with the other If the statute in question did
not contemplate the acquisition of limited inter-
est, il is hard to say what it did contemplate 1t
expressly prohibits free negroes from owning
slaves, but it provides method by which tree
husband may emanoipate his slave wife or free
child his slave parent. In the whole slave code we
know of no provision better entitled to be called
humane, and we regret TO see its benevolent pro-
visions dubbed away by a court OF justice
Slaves in Kentucky are personal property
Whether property in the may be passed oy paro'
contract We do not know but certainly there can %
reason. in cases of disputed doubtful title, for
adherng to the rules of evidence with the tenac"!
necessary and proper enough in real actions. AS q
general re in most Courts parol testimony VIII not
be permitted to vary the contents OF written
instrument But nothing of the kind was neehed
in this case. All that was required was sufhcieh'
evidence to explain the real character OF the bill OF
sale to Stephen, and the real intention OF the ven
dor. We think, therefore, that it would have
been entirely competent for the Court to have
gone behind the bill, and TO have inquired into the
intention of Joseph Kyler in making the sale OF
Cynthia to Stephen No less was it the duty OF
the Court to exhibit that tenderness for liberty and
for woman which is entertained in most Tribunals
of the common law. Equally was il the right and
the duty Of the Court to consider the intention oil
the Legislature in enscting the statute. We con-
Tess that the statute is framed in laundering way
as most statutes are. But any man with nail al
eve can see what provision was intended. We
hope that the next Legislature of Kentucky VIII
put the question past all doubt.
II is pretty hard case for poor man to have
his horse his COW, or his hog seized BY the consta
bic and sold for debt. The laws of Kentucky IN
terpose to prevent these cruel seizures. But they
are impotent, it seems, to prevent the attachment
of freemsn's wife, living with him in fsncled Sc
curity, and her sale under the hammer Should
this decision become settled law, it will be utterly
impossible for a free negro in Kentuky to rescue
bis wife, father, mother or child from Slavery.
We should think that public opinion, eten in Ken
lucky would be strong enough to frown down such
proceedings as those which We have described.
We do not see how human being, after levying
on mans wife and selling her to satisfy his debt,
can look his fellow-creatures in the face. We did
mean to express the hope that this case might be
carried to the Supreme Court but We remember
the bred Scott decision, and abstain from any such
foil