Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-06-11
From the Cleveland Leader.
IMPORTANT QUESTION--IS A SLAVE A
PERSON.

Another important Slave question has been
brought before the United States Supreme Court.
1t is whether a Slave is a person, and amenable to
the laws of Congress! The case was argued a
few days ago before Chief Justice fancy and
Judge Hallyburton, sitting in the Circuit Court of
the United States at Richmond, Va, by John
Howard Esq, for the slave, or her owner, and
John Gregory Esq, for the United States. The
legal point is. whether a slare can be punished
under the act Of Congress, which says that ANY
person who shall take or steal a letter from the
Post Office" &c,
"a report of the case to the Times states that
on the part of the Slave, it was contended by Mr..
Howard that rs the act did not specially point to
slaves, it applied prima .taeie only to 'persons"
known to the law as having legal rights and res
possibilities, and who could be tried and legally
punished as provided by the act, and under the
usual forms of law as administered in the United
States Courts that a slave is not such a legal
"person" within the meaning of the act, being re-
cognized by law only as property. To sustain
this view Of the case, he cited the Constitution OF
the United States, construed by the Supreme
Court Of the United States in the bred Scott case,
as recognizing slaves only as property, and the
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, as decid.
ing in Bayly VS.. Poinde1ter. and other recent
cases, that a slave has no legal rights whatever
that he is not legally a person, but a thing, so far
as the civil law is concerned, which was sufficient
for the purpose Of the argument in this case;
that in accordance with these views, this act Of
Congress clearly showed that slaves we're never
intended to be embraced therein. since the pun.
ishment is fine or i'm prisonment, and sometimes
both ; that it was impossible, in q legal sense,
either to fine a slave or deprive him Of his liberty
because he has neither property nor liberty to b'
taken away, his legal character consisting in q de
NAL to him of the rights of property and liberty
so that a judgment against him, depriving him o
J either, to any extent, would be q legal nullity ant
absurdity."
Other inconSruities and absurdities in the cas-
were pressed upon the attention of the Court. an,
the reasoning in the bred Scott decision was quo'
; ed to show that negro slaves are not entitled t
any of the personal rights secured to citizens
Counsel argued that the slave in question Nigh
be tried, and if guilty punished under the Stat
laws for larceny Of the letter and it's contents, an
, to this the owner would not object. She ought t
, be whipped he sail, and sent about her business
= and not sent to the Washington prison from two
ten years, to the total loss Of her service to he
. master during that time.
The argument for the defence is supposed t
= harmonize with the bred Scott decision. and tina
the Chief Justice will be consistent with himsel
and decide that the woman Amy is not a woman
or a person of any description, but a thing, ha'
q ing no rights, and who cannot be punished fc
SHINING against the laws of the United Sta,e'
This is a great country !"