Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1865-11-07

The opinion of the Court of Appeals in the matter
OF negro apprenticeship, is new warning that the
old tyranny will never let the negro free till every
of its representatives is expelled from power.
The Legislature of 1868 magnanlmously repeated the
free negro idtrS" which the Constitution had an
nulled, in order to clear that blot from the Code
Unfortunately it overlooked the negro apprentice
laws"
On the adoption Of the Constitution every man
who could lay violent hands on an infant negro,
dragged him before Justice of the Peace, or Or
phans, Court. and had him bound till full age to
work for nothing, under these exceptional laws.
Writs of habeaS corpus were sued out for these
urchins Of oppression, at the instance of their pa
the negro apprentice laws" did not create contract
OF apprenticeship which involved stpulations for the
infant well as the master but simply imposed in
voluntary servitude on the infant. which bound him
to the master but gave him benefits, or rights or
consideration for his abor and that this was inrol-
isRed
The general apprentice law applicable to white and
black alike, untouched by this decision, and re-
by which the master binds himself to feed, clOthe
and educate the infant IN consideration OF his work.
The decision of Judge Bond that the excep-
tional law crushed slavery and was roid that the
general law created contract for a consideration,
and was constitutional: that negroes bound under
this were apprentices but under the other s'ares,
and so not bound at all--and he turned them free
No appeal lies from habeas corpus.
Appeals was resolved to drag the question there. He
found an indictment for harbOring enticing ap-
prentice in Anne Arundel court the record did not
premiership; the jury found verdict of guilty, and
there the case oughtto have ended-for there was
question open on it for the Court of Appeals to de-
eide.
He got an agreement that the question of the ap-
prentice laws should be considered alone the ap-
peal and the record went up.
Now it is plain from this statement that the appeal
contriyance to get opinion out of the Court
Of Appeal without case which gave the Court juris-
The judgment was Clearly right and must be af
frmed for nothing showed the apprenticeship to be
unl nIthi but hn l1w n
ship and the question related only to the special law
of negro apprenticeship.
liver opinion which is mere Obfer dictu to re
the slavery of the during their minority,
extend it.
1t would seem that the question was not even ar
gued, we may judge from the grounds of the opin-
ion, or if argued it was certainly msapprehended.
garded as slave within the meaning of the term as
applied to the slave population of the State" But
this is mere begging of the question.
There were divers degrees and kinds of Involuntary
se'oit@de recognized by law and imposed on free ne
which were authorized by the 2lst Section of the
Bill Of Rights authorizing the legislature to pass such
ulation as they might deem necessary.
The SD section of Goth article authorized the Or.
pha?s Court to order any free a negro not OF good
slave for year: and by section 3D. if he did not
hire" himself within ten days to some respectable
white person, to serve slave for year. he to
be again sold above, every successive there
after.
Thus is free negro who continues so for his life
though sold every year. not to be slave but to serre
So by Jacobs Infamous law free negroes were to be
hired out by the year, whether they would not,
and compelled to serve against their will.
Is not then, Involuntary servitude" inflicted on
free negroes by that very name? If so: it is plain
that being free negro did not secure him from in
voluntary seryude under the old law: that even if
free negro" bound under the apprentice laws, was
not regarded asa slave under the old law that does
I hat / I 1G pr-
vitnde" prohibited by the New Constitution;
The court argues the constitutionality of an ap-
prentice law and its necessity; but nobody ever ques
toned either
does not refer to the provisions E which dis
apprentice law, and make the former void.
1t says the same tribunal and the same term of
service are prescribed in both: and that true; but
why did not the court grapple with the real question
and say that though the tribunal and term be the
same the conditions of apprenticeship under the
general law and that the only question arises on this
difference about which the court is silenr
The general law binds the master ~ to teach the
useful art trade % to find him good and sufficient
clothing, meat, drink, washing and lodging, and
metc and these things are required to be part OF the
ndenture of apprenticeship and for these consdera-
tions the apprentice is to labor for the master.
That is a contract for consideration.
, The negro apprentice law expressly provides that
the Orphans Court may bind the free negro to some
white person, and there stops.
1t does not require a stipulation to learn the
child to labor.
1t expressly exempts the master from every obi-
cation by enacting that the indenture shall contain
the name and age of the child and the name of the
MASTER and that is all which is necessary to its vail
dity; and Sec. Sc adds that it shall not be necessary
to require any education to be given to the negro.
So there is literally contract duty imposed
the master to give the negro either clothing food
or education, instruction any art or trade,
even to teach him to labor.
All this is left to the presumed interest and
humanity Of the master just it respecting the
slave.
1t would at least have exhibited some confidence
in its opinion to have stated those provisions out of
which alone the question arises to have told the
people of the State that the law declared that the
Orphans Court has under the statute the absolute
power to bind free negro" to labor for a white
man. against his will till Is q years old without any
compensation advantage stipulated for the free
negro;" and that this servitude which is uncompen-
sated and not voluntary is not iRUotuntay seyUUde"
and that the master is entitled to enjoy the proceeds
of this uncompensated labor though the Bill of
Rights solemny declares in its first article that all
are endowed by their creator with certain ina
ienable rights, among which is the enjoyment of the
proceeds of their own labor"
The Court Of Appeals have added to those clauses
unless the Orphans Court giUe them to a MASTER
We think the writ of hGbeds corpus will continue to
run in spite of this unudicial dictum
We think it likely the people will not forget this
attempt to annul the Constitution they have just
adopted by a hostile court.