Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-05-14

for the District law courts and local administrG-
tions of it's own, but, instead ofproviding homo'
goneous code for the entire District, the laws OF
Maryland and Of Virginia, as they stood at that
moment, wero continued in force, on the north and
south sides Of the Potomac respectively. This
was doubt intended as mere temporary ar
rangement but subsequently, when it has been
attempted, rs has been several times done, to pro-
vide code for the District, the Slavery question,
that constant enemy as well Of harmony as of
progress and improvement has interviewed to pre-
vehtit Mr.. Stanton, orc OF nr. Sickle's counsel,
in reference to some remarks of Mr.. Carli'le, hop
ed the gentleman would not log the question of
Slavery into the case. But the question of Slave
ry is in the case already, without being lugged in
by anybody. 1t 10 tho Slavery question which
hasleft the District of Columbia with the code Of
laws which it has, and which thus intervenes to
regulate the selection of the Jury by which Mr..
Scklcs 10 to be tried.
One of the strange consequences of the make
shift system of Jurisprudence adopted in the Dis
trict wss, that, until few years ago, when the
Virginia portion was ceded back again, the Dis.
trict had two codes-onc for the north side of the
Potomac, the other for the South side, which dif-
fered and even con1icted in some important partic-
ulars. The two portions of the District occupying,
as to laws, the position of two independent States,
this independence and opposition were particu.
larly apparent on the sub ect of Slavery. BY the
law Of Maryland, as it stood when the Maryland
code was adopted for the Northern portion Of the
District of Columbia it was forbidden to bring
slaves into that State to be permanently held there
This exclusion was held to apply to slaves trans
fe-red from the southern to the northern portion
of the District, who in repeated ccsou, vero ad
judged to be entitled to their freedom, because
contrary to this prohibition, they had been re-
moved from Alexandria 10 Washington. These
decisions wers made at time when tho Southern
Courts and lawyers still leaned in favor of free
dom and they had become the received law of
the District previous to that lurching over to the
side of Slavery which forms so marked feature
in the Southern law reports of the last ten or IF
teen years. Yet, means no doubt would have been
found for setting aside these DECISIONS had not the
retrocesson of Alexandria County to Virginia ,'e.
livered the District of Columbia from the anomaly
of being governed by two independent end some
times conflicting codes.
The other singularity, however, still remains.
The District is governed by an Anticipated code
originally made for the State of Maryland, naans
of the provisions of which have long since been
superseded in that State. There is no more re.
markable thing in our American social ard politi-
cal system that the constant change 1--WE do not say
it is always for the better) which our laws are
dergoing. We seem to be much in the predica.
ment Of boy who is growing rapidly, and who
constantly has to cast aside his old shoes, hats
coats and trowsers, even before they are old, and
to have new ones. Some economical parents go
upon the principle that i: is Just Ga well not to
be very particular about the quality of the gar
ments which young Hopeful will certainly out
grow long before he puts them to much wear.
And some of our economical legislators seem to
proceed much on the same principle, so that,
while Legislature after Legislature literally con.
tributes to our legal apparel, it will not al
ways do to examine too closely the texture or
workmanship of the new outfit. To this prevail
ing custom the District of Columbia forms re-.
markable exception. The laws there are almost
as Interchangeable at those Of the Melcs and Per
slams. There is not State in this Union, sixty
year old, or anything like it, which has mt had
in that tim, two or three codifcatons and revisals
as they st and to- day, do not afford some striking
contrasts TO the code of sizty years ago. The
District of Columbia, on the contrary, with the
large and growing City of Washington, for so
many years the very headquarters of domestic
progression, is, in legal point Of view, scarcely
more than the Maryland Of sixty years since. We
can hardly say it ia that. For, though it be true
that Congress has now and then very sparingly in
terfered to cut away here and there provision Of
the old Maryland code, it is also true that the Ma.
ryland code of 1901, ma lie up as it was of repeat
ed ro oenactm :nts of old colonial laws, going b. ok
to the early times of the Colony, containing many
things which even in 1901, were antiquated if not
obsolete, and of the existence Of which nobody
seems to know anything till, after lying, year af'
ter year and lustyum after lustrum forgotten and
unused, they are unexpectedly dug up to Sc pu:
In force on sone particular occasion. Thus, this
provision of requiring jurors the possession of
property to the amount of $500, enforced in the
Sickles case, seems (vhether it 70 regarded as a
good or as bad one) to have been so little in use
that the District Attorney, although practition-
er of fifteen years standing only lighted upon it
as he was making his preparations for this trial.
There are some other provisions OF this old
Maryland code long disregarded in the same man
ner, but which, perhaps, SOME time or other some.
body in authority may insist upon enforcing.
Thus, by an old act, originally passed in l75 but
which still forms part Of the code in force in the
District of Columbia, "any person whatsoever
travelling out of the county Of his residence with
cut pass under the seal of the county, and COM
ing thus unprovided into the District of Columbia,
may be apprehended and carried before a mags-
trete, and, if not sufficiently known, able to
give good account Of himself, may at the mags'
trates discretion be committed to Jail for siZ
months, or until the procurement of certificate
or other justification that he or she is not a ser
want" And even after this certificate is obtained,
in order to secure his discharge, The imprisoned
party must pay the jaior his board at the rate OF
ten pounds of tobacco, or one days service for
every day of imprisonment and also the person
Il l. t.La