The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-09-27

~
ph;l,de,pbia Press with the following
extracts from various decisions oil the
Southern bench, in regard to the rights OF
slayes and slAve-owners. Read them
and say whether that man has not just
reason 70 blush who would prolong the
ext ,tenoe of a system that tramples on
the plainest principles Of natural justice
THE SLAVE A NOBODY.
The slave In the South 10 regarded 80
nobody; he has no legal existence; lave
passed for the protection OF others do
not embrace him unless be is specially
named; "of the rights Of personal secu.
rity, personal liberty, and private prop
erty, no ia deprived, and the slave is be j.
pro nullisr George vs.. The State, 81
Miss. Rep, 317)
The master is necessarily a despot
"The slave to remain = slave, must be
made sensible that there is no appeal
from his MASTER" Estate Va. David, 4
Jones, N. Gar, 353) Be no ever so sick
the owner and overseer is the judg,
whether he il able OF unable 10 work
90 ala. Rep. 028)
COVENANTS WITH SLAVES NOT BlNDISG
A promise made TO him by his master
has no binding force or validity.
This was exempliied in the case OF
Bland VS.. negro Downing, 60 Gill q Johns-
on's Maryland Repor's,) whore the plain
tiff Eve blush to say she was a woman)
Akreed that IL her slave would pay her
$500, she would give him his freedom.
He faithfully and honestly paid the
mount, waiting several years TOR At, and
then, claiming her promise, was refused
The rigid law of slavery was in her
favor, the Judge saying "tbere could be
no valid contract between master and
slave;" but as, fortunately for the Lo,T
fellow, she had suffered him to live In
New York, a free State, for two years,
she was held to have liberat ID him, and
her nefarious attempt to b Id him IN
bondage, when she had received bis hard
earnings paid to her in good faith, was
frustrated.
Nor has he any right TO personal pro-
perty. All belongs TO his master; and
even where the master is g n arous enoug b
TO confer boon upon the slave, the hard
spirit of slavery, in the shape Of odlous
enactments, comes in TO prevent 1t. Thus,
In Louisiana emancipation is prohibited,
and the slave can, under no circumstsn-
ces be freed and thus, in that State,
where . will liberating one poor follOw
from servitude, he was complacently told
that "a slave cannot DO a party 20 any
suit but one for freedom, and that eman-
cipation being prohibited by law, b
could not even sue for that" (Jamisol
Va Bridge; ii Louisiana Reports, 81
The power Of the master over the per-
son OF the slave necessarily involves the
right Of chastisement, and this may be-
inflicted IN such proportions and to such
extent as the owner may deem proper
there being but single limitation that
II should not be excessive, but whether
it is or not is left for jury (slavehold-
ers Of course) 70 judge.
Thus we find the following case
State vs.. Man, 2 Devereux, 1853, in which
IL appears, that master having hired o
female slSve to another person, the latter
undertook to chastise her for having
committed (so says the repori) small
offense. During the process she ran Il
her master for the time called upon her
to stop, which she refusing TO do, with
the chivAlric spirit of the South, th'
slave being o woman, he shot ct snC
wounded her. But, a.as! she had no re.
dress. The judge tells her the master il
not liable 10 indictment for assault anC
battery; and feeling how contrary 10 al
sense Of justice and humanity such a de.
eision must appear, is compelled TO say
"a judge cannot but lament when suct
cases as the present are brought int
judgment u is impossible that he reason
upon Which they 90 can 10 appreciated, bu
tOhere Institutions similar to our otcn eris
and are thoroughly understood 1he strug.
gle, too in He JUDGES o0n breast betiOesn n,
feelings Of the man and the duty of the uaagis
trGte, is a ssvere one. I iOouH gladly hav,
oto'ded This ungratsfm question"
SLAVES MAY DE HUNTED WITH Dcss.
Witness the case of M man VS.. Gard.
ner Davis, l8 Georgia Rep, 722 In which
IL was decided, that cit is lawful TO hum
runaway slaves with dogs provided il
DO done with due degree of caution
and circumspeotion." In that case th,
plaintiff had hired bis slave to the de,
PENDANT Whilst in the service Of the lat
tor he ran sway. His master, for the tim
being, employed q creature by the nam
OF HAmblin, who hunted him with dogs
but the poor follow, terrified by the pur
suit, plunged into a creek aud wa
drowned. The owner sued him for th
value Of the slave, such an idea SO pun
ishing the miscreant eriminally beinl
out Of the question. But the owner i
told by the court "that il lie lawful 4
hunt . slave with dogs on general prinei
pies, provided the dogs would NOS lasoer
ate, and otherwise materially ipjure IN
slave-the statute OF the State prohibit
ing the use of harsh or cruel treatmen
Of slaves, using the words iHRoos,sdlR
biting or tearing ioih dogs"
But this approves itself also 20 ID
moral and religious convictions Of %
judge, who says: The South has los
sixty thousand slaves, worth twonty 1v
or thirty millions. Instead therefore, o
relaxing the means allowed by law 10
the security aud enjoyment Of this specie
Of property, the facilities offered for il
escape, and the temptation aud snoour
agement held out to induce II, oonstrsi
us, willingly or otherwise 90 red ubl
our vigilance, and to tighten the cord
that bind the negro TO his condition o
servitude."
according to the pro-slavery code 0
humanity, not only slaves, but also tplit
s,sy NAV ha riohtf,II, ,b...A - -...