Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-07-24
maCio-as-a 6alrsss :. csE.s---s,.s,.,.


xcCi6=as=a 6slless ~ Gss,ss S=5aSe-s.s---7
On the 2e.h OF Deesmber 1850, and 81 ,f .TTr-.e
1851 Henry Ches conveyed certain slaves To Tsssa i
Williams and William Rodgers, respectively by bins
of sale absolute upon their faces reserving posses
sion Of the slaves, however, during his hfe. The
sole ohieot Of these conveyances WIS to effpcsfha
emancipation of said slaves, Immediately on thu
death Of said Chiles and this method was resorted
To- by the advice of Williams and Rodgers, that in
the state of the law, the slaves eoud not oe emanc
Finding that he has been deceived BY Williams
and ROdgers-in whom he had repOsed great conf
dence-and that they were fraudulentiy setting up
claims to the slaves absolute owners because the
trust had not been expressed on the face OF the bills
of sale: Chiles fled bill IN the Chaneery Court az
Knoxville in Nav, 1858, against Williams and ROdg-
ers TO have the absolute bills OF sale caneeled ana
the legal title dvested out Of them 50 as tnat ns
most cherished purpose, the emancipation OF the
slaves might not by the gross fraud Of the trustees
be defeated or in any way embarrassed. lt ls not
inmated in that bill that Chies desired 20 MIKE the
gift of freedom to the slaves: the contrary their
emancipation is affirmed to be the faTorite object,
to secure which, beyond all hazard, was the sole
purpose of the bill.
Pending that suit Chiles died and the csuse hav-
ing been reversed in the names Of his executors,
final decree was made therein in January 1851. By
which among other things said bills Of sale were
decreed fraudulent and void, and the possession Of
the slaves was ordered to be delivered to the exec
utors of Chiles. On the 9th OF Dec 1854 during the
nendency of the cause, Chiles made and published
his last will and testament, IN which ne provided
for the emancipation of said slaves and devises and
bcaueaths to them certain real and personal prop
Sba widow dissented from the viii and One of the
objects of the present bill is, to have the rights Of
the dissenting widow, and also Of the slaves dec&F
ed by decree of the chancellor. The main point Of
iuuuiFy Is the slaves invested with the right
of freedom by the acts of Chlles prior to the execu
ton of the viii s the right to freedom derived
solely from the will The chancellor held that the
right of the slaves rested alone upon the viii and
conse nuepty that. against the dissenting widow,
the slaves are TO be trested part Of the tesla
TORS estate at his DEATH 70 one third OF which she
entitled The decree however. gives TO the widow
not one third of the slaves in specie but the value IN
ope of one third o. the slaves to De paid out Of the
narp1iarv Iegscies given to others By the will.
We think the decree Is erroneous. By our law.
the riobt of freedom far it in the power Of
the owner to bestow' that right upon his slaves,
NAV be confirmed by parole, nothing more is requi-
site than the full and free consent or agreement Of
the owner to invest the slave with such right
A uscl1nisry consideration, moving from the
slave ts the owner, is not essential The right Is
not impaiPed by force of formal cOutracf, IN the
Iecal sense: for the slave SUCH is incapable Of
making a contract for his freedom Of paying q
vaIuab consideration. as he ca1 have nothing TO
give. The right must therefore De regarded IN the
0resent case as the purest gift OF the owner, based
uDou some moral and not on a legal consideration.
Whether or not such gift may be revoked before
being complete by the act OF emancipation OF the
n the sanitary ueLlOQ We ue64 not now llf~
ouire IL is clear that the fling of the bill BY
Gbiles against Williams and Rogers, was not m
tended to revoke the gift Of freedom. on the con
trsrv was designated TO secure them in that gift.
And no less clear that the decree in that cause
cannot be construed to operate as revocation OF
the g,ft of freedom.
The decree cOutemglItei nothing more than 20
divest the legal title to the slaves cut Of Williams
and Rodgers The right Of the slaves was not 10
Judgment nor were they parties 70 the SUIT Ihs
frt bv which the right intended 70 be secured
was not declared in the bill of sale but vested sole
IL in ygrols consequently the decree c2neelhng the
hills Of sale and divesng the legal title Of Williams
AMI RODGERS cannot be held to have any effect upon
the parole trust previously declared in favor OF the
slaves. and by which in and of itself, the slaves
| were vested with as perfect right Of freedom,
| and was in their owners power TO bestOWi which
Oift was never revoked. but on the contrary, was
TeafirUed in the bill filed against " Niams and Rod
gers and also in the viii Of Z hlies
In this view the slaves were not the property OF
the estate of Ches at his death: nor did they be
come the property Of his estate by force OF the
sti0n of the conveyance TO Williams and Eodg-
ers bv the decree rendered after his death; conse
/ 0uontfv the widow can assert no claim to sad
/ slaves.
The slaves are clearly entitled to their freedoms
but hey must be sent to the Western coast oi Atri
ca unless they shall bring themselves within the
exemption of the recent enacments upon that sub
| ject. ~, M 'Ni'N'
| A true copy: VI. r. CAswELI- Clerk