Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1867-10-23
The Civil Rights Bill Constitutional.

BALTIMORE, October l6.-Chlef Justice
Chase, sitting in the Circuit Court this
morning, rendered his decision In habeas
corpus case on the petition OF Elizabeth
Turner, mulatto girl, apprenticed under
the Negro Apprentice Law OF Maryland IN
1864. Immediately after the Constitution OF
that year abolishing slavery went into oper-
alton.
The decision of the Judge, delivered this
morning, is as follows. 1t states the whole
case; ;.
The petitioner in this case seeks relief
from restraint and detention by Philemon L.
Hambleton, of Talbot county, IN Maryland,
In alleged contravention of the constitution
and laws of the United States. The facts.
as they appear from the return made by Mr.
Hambleton to the Court 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 constitution
of 1864, slaves of the respondent. The
constitution went into operation November
lst, 1864, and prohibited slavery. Almost
Immediately thereafter many OF the freed
people of Talbot county were collected to-
gether under some local authority, the ma;
turc of which does not clearly appear, and
the young persons were bound as apprentl.
ces, usually, if not always, to their late
masters.
Among others Elizabeth, the petitioner,
was apprenticed to Hambleton by an linden
ture dated November Sd, two days after the
new constitution went into operation. Upon
comparing the terms of this indenture, which
is claimed to have been executed under the
law OF Maryland relating to negro apprentl-
IL bx,t ha lou of
| ryland in indentures for white persons, the
variance is manifest
The petitioner under this indenture is not
entitled to any education-a white appren-
tice must be taught reading, writing and
arithmetic. The petitioner is liable to be
| assigned and transferred at the will OF the
master to any person in the same county
the white apprentice is not thus liable. The
authority of the master over the petitioner
| is described in the law as property and in
terest; no such description is applied to
authority over white apprentice.
| 1t is unnecessary to mention other partlc-
ulars. Such is the case, and regret that |
have been obliged to consider it without the
benefit of any argument in support OF the
claim of the respondent to the writ; but |
have considered it with care, and an earnest
desire to reach right conclusions. For the
present, l shall restrict myself to a brief
statement of these conclusions, without 60
ing into the grounds of them. The time
does not allow more. The following propo-
sitions. then, seem to me to be sound law,
and they decide the case:
First-The first clause OF the thirteenth
amendment of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States interdicts slavery and involuntary
servitude, except as punishment for crime
and establishes freedom as the constitutions
right Of all persons in the United States.
Second-The alleged apprenticeship IL
the present case is involuntary servitude
within the meaning of these words in the
amendment.
Third-If this were otherwise, the linden
ture set forth in the return does not contain
important provisions for the security ant
benefit of the apprentice, which are requlr
ed by the laws of Maryland in indentures o
white apprentices, and is, therefore, in con
travention of that clause of the first section
of the Civil Rights Law, enacted by Con
gress on April 9th, 1866.
Fourtt-This law having been enactet
under the second clause of the thirteentl
amendment, in the enforcement of the frs
clause of the amendment is constitutional
and applies to all conditions prohibited by it
whether originating in transactions befor
or since its enactment.
E Fifth-Colored persons, equally with whites
are citizens of the United States
The petitioner must be discharged fror
restraint by the respondent.
1