The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-11-02
Z Iron the Baltimore Americana y
NEGRO APPRENTICE CASE In BALTIMORE
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE. -

! 0NA O~~~~~-'
JUSTICE CHASE.
The ha6eas corpus case of Elizabeth Tur-
ner, colored, aged Il years, before Chief
Justice Chase, Gin chambers,) OF which pre-
vious mention has been made. was this NOR
ming disposed disposed of by Chief Justice
Chase, she being discharged from the custo-
dy of Philemon T. Hambleton, of st. Mich
ael's, Talbot county, to whom the Orphans
Court of that county had apprentlced her
on the Sd of November, 1865. and given
over to the care and guardianship of her
mother, Elizabeth Minoky, formerly Turner,
whose husband, Charles Henry Minoky,
through counsel, Messrs. Henry Stockbrldge,
o. F. Bump, and NJ. NJ Pussy, filed the pc
tition for the writ, which was made return
able on Tuesday. e.. .-... ...-.
There was no appearance OF counsel on
behalf of the respondent, and the Chief JUS
tee filed the following important opinion IN
the case:
In tile matter of Elizabeth Turner, Petition
e. for qo15t Of Ha6eas corpus: The Petition
err in this case seeks relief from restraint and
detention by Philemon T. Hambleton, OF
Talbot county, in Maryland, in alleged con.
travention of the Constitution and laws OF
the United states. The facts, as they appear
from the return made by Mr.. Hambeton to
the writ, and by his verbal statement made
in court, and admitted as part of the return
are substantially as follows:
The petitioner, Elizabeth Turner, young
person of color, and her mother were, prior
to the adoption of the Maryland constitu-
ton of 1864, slaves of the respondent
That constitution went into operation on the
list of November, 1864 and prohibited sla-
very. Almost Immediately thereafter many
of the freed people of Talbot county were
collected together under some local authorl-
ty, the nature of which does not clearly APP
pear, and the younger persons were bound
as apprentices, usually, if not always. to
their late masters. Among Others, Eliza
beth, the petitioner, was apprenticed to
Hambleton by an indenture dated on the Sd
of November, two days after the new constl-
tuition went into operation.
Upon comparing the terms of this inClen-
ture (Which is claimed to have been execu-
ted under the laws of Maryland relating to
negro apprentices with those required by
the law of Maryland in the indentures for
the apprenticeship OF white persons, the va
rance is manifest. The petitioner under
this indenture is not entitled to any educa-
ton a white apprentice must be taught
reading, writing, and arithmetic. The pc
titioner is liable to be assigned and transfer
red at the will of the master to any person
in the same country; the white apprentice
ter over the petitioner is described in the
law as property and interest :" no such
description is applied to authority over a
white apprentice. 1t is unnecessary to men
ton other particulars.
Such is the case. I regret that I have
been obliged to consider it without the ben
eft Of any argument in support of the claim
of the respondent to the writ. But l have
considered it with care, and an earnest de-
sire to reach right conclusions.
For the present | shall restrict myself to a
brief statement of these conclusions, with
out going into the grounds of them. The
time does not allow more.
The following propositions, then, seem to
ME to be sound law. and they decide the
case:
1. The first clause of the thirteenth amend
ment of the Constitution of the United
States interdicts slavery and involuntary
servltude, except punishment for crime,
and establishes freedom as the constitution
al right of all persons in the United States.
2. The alleged apprenticeship in the pres
ent case is involuntary servitude, within the
meaning of these words in the amendment
3. II this were otherwise, the indenture
set forth in the return does not contain i'm
portant provisions for the security and ben
eft of the apprentice which are required by
the laws of Maryland in indentures of white
apprentices, and is, therefore, in contraven-
ton of that clause of the first section Of the
civil rights law enacted by Congress on the
9th of April, 1865, which assures to all i
zens, without regard to race color, "4dll
and equal benefit of all laws and proceed
ings for the security of persons and property
as is enjoyed by white citizens.''
4. This law having been enacted under
the second clause the thirteenth amendment
in enforcement of the first clause of the
same amendment, is constitutional. and ap-
plies to all conditions prophibited by it,
whether originating in transactions before or
since its enactment.
8. Colored persons equally with white per-
sons are citizens of the United States.
The petitioner, therefore, must be dis
charged from restraint by the respondent.
The Chief Justice passed the following Or
Ter: Ordered by the Court, this 18th day of
October, A. d. 1867, that Elizabeth Turner
be discharged from the custody of Phile-
non t. Hambleton, upon the ground that
he detention and restraint complained Of
IS in violation of the Constitution and laws
IF the United States, and it is further order
ed that the costs of this proceeding be paid
by the petitioner.