Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-23

At Baltimore, on the 18th inst, a case
was heard by Chief Justice Chase involv-
ing the cOnstitutiOnality of 8 State law,
conflicting with the " Civil Rights BILL
The facts are sufficiently stated in the
decision Of Mr.. Chief Justice, which was
IS follows:
The petitioner in this case seeks relief.
from restraint and detention by Philemon
T. Hamb,st1n, of Talbot county, ia
Maryland, in alleged cOn~traventiOn of
the Constitution and laws Of the United
States. These facts, as they appear from
the return made by Mr.. HampIeten to
the writ, and BY his verbal statement
made in court, and admitted as part Of
the returns, are substantially as follows {;
The petitioner, Elizabeth Turner, a
young person Of color, and her mother,
were, prior to the adoption Of the Mary
land constitution Of 1854, slaves of
the respondent. That the constitution
went into operation November l., 1854.
and prohibited slavery. Almost i'm
mediately thereafter, many of the freed
people of Talbot county were collected
together under some local authority, the
nature Of which does not clearly D
The younger persons were bound as ap-
prentices, usually, if not always, 10 their
- A4N1AEAGs &AA4OAk ONAAGA6f GAlLhDEAUa
the petitioner, was spprenticed 70 Ham
bleton by an indenture dated the Sd Of
November, two days after the new Con-
stitution went into operation. Upon
comparing the terms Of this indenture,
which is claimed 70 have been executed
under the laws of Maryland, relating
10 negro apprentices, with those required
by the laws Of Maryland in linden
lures for the apprenticeship of white per-
sons, the variance is manifest. The peti.
toner, under this indenture, Is not en-
titled 20 any education. A white appren-
uce must be taught reading, writing and
arithmetic. The petitioner is liable 10 |
be assigned and transferred at the will
OF the master to any person in the same /
county. The white apprentice is NOT
thus liable to the authority of the mas.
ter. The authority Of the master over
the peJuOner Is described In thelaW a a
property and interest. No such descrip-
ton Is applied to authority over q white
apprentice. 1t Is unnecessary to mem
ton other particulars. Such Il fba
case. I regret 1 have been OBLIGED
to consider it without the benefit Of
any argument in support of the claim ~
the resp0 ldent to the writ; but l have
considered it with care and an earnest
desire TO reach right conclusions. For
the present ! shall restrict myself to a
brief statement Of these conclusions,
without going into the grounds Of them.
time does not allow more. The
following propositions seem to me to be
sound, and they decide the case:
J. The first clause OF the thirteenth
amendment TO the Constitution of the
United States interdicts slavery or inVol-
untary seryitqde, eXceptas 3 punishment
for crime, and establishes freedom as the
constitutional right Of all persons in the
States.
2. The alleged apprenticeship Ia the
present case is involuntary servitude,
the meaning Of these words in
the amendment.
8. If this were otherwise, the inden-
set forth in the return does not con-
tain the important provisions for the
and benefit Of the apprentice /
which are required by the laws of
Maryland in the indentures OF white ,
apprentices, and therefore thew are in .
,ontravention Of that clause of the first !
Of the Civil Rights Law, enacted
~ Congress, April 9, 1853. !
4. The law having been enacted under :
he second clause Of the thirteenth !
amendment, the enforcement of the first ,
of the same amendment il eonsti- :
u%tional, and applies to all conditions
by it, whether originating in
transactions before or since the amend :
aent. d
5. COlOred persons, equally with white 2
egsOns, are citizens ofthe United States.
he petitioner, therefore, must be dis a.
hsrged from restraint by the respon- I
emit. c