Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1867-09-18
Debts for Negroes.

|
=; We cannot concur with the reasoning Of the
Judge in this case. The illustrations are not
applicable, in our humble opinion. There is
no parallel between the mere destruction f
property after it is barganed for and note
! given by the purchaser, and the case where
| the right to the property itself is taken away
/ by public law, and the holding of the proper.
! " By individuals, declared to be unlawful and
criminal. There is no resemblance in the
! case of mule or cotton bale or other things
taken or destroyed by an army or stolen or
"liftedn BY an enemy or invader, and the case
4 which was before The Court There would be
q resent blence if the public law had declared,
in regard to cotton or mules, that it should be
forever hereafter unlawful or criminal to hold
mules or cotton as property: thus annullinng
all human title to such properly, and punish
ing all who attempt to hold it. In such
case. we should hold that the Government
could not, according TO law or reason, compel
man, who had contracted to pay for such
property, tc the performance of contract, as
we'll us thatit lght not in the case OF negroes.
! But the Governments, State and Federal,
have not thus acted in regard to mules and
cotton. NJ Government ever has acted thus
ir regard to such property, and, 1t would be
safe to say, never will, 1nles5 it be possible,
when the fauaticsm of New England has cx-
haus,ed itself upon negroes, it shall take
charge of the liberties of mules and asses, and
emancipate them from the bit and gcarlng,
and give them tue right of suffrage. We
dare say they would cease to work to make
th.ir own corn md grass having tendency
to relapse to wild state, aud bray Justify to
be fed ont of the public crib aud show a de-
cided inclination to invade the pasture grounds
and fields Of their former owners. Until
Government thus enfranchises the mule, un-
der the lead of New England, which, we pre-
sumo, s yet in tile distant future, there eau
he no parallel in the case of mules captured
in war and negroes enancipated, not by war
merely, but by the fundamental law Of the
| United States and U! the State OF South
Carolina.
In regard to the Illustration CT land taken
by the Sta1e there is 10 real resemblance. In
such cases, the State does not destroy 1t rs
property at all, but approprsles its use, as
/ property, to itself for time, and whenever
the Slale abandons that use and occupation,
the possessiun revrrts to the original owner,
and if lie then resumes possession, there IS
no danger of his being punished. Any indl-
yiduai may take and hold his property when
tn. use rf il is abandoned by the State. But
A slave, once rlnanclpatrd, cannot be reclaimed
any more forever. Nob.'dy during the war
thought any rhing strange thai the S;a;e Gov
erumcut controlled the services OF negroes oc-
casionaily, for war purposes, or imagined That
they were not liable to pay for negroes pur,
ciiased. The temporary or partial use oi
property by the State, exercised IN various
WAYS and occa ,ions in the shape tt taxation,
temporary seizlrc &c, is necessary incl
d.rt to ii, aud elects no mans title, only 50
lonr rs the seizure las S. The Constitution
of the States and United States, an the gene
raj sentiments OF ma kind, dictate compen-
sation for property taken, in all things lhai
are property by nature neithe' has the F'gAi
of governments ever bccn lec1gniz.d 10 sak.
lrsy the privilege OF property in beasts and
inanimaie things, but very different Is II VITA
sc-f; and saws State alcr 5 e in ArnerI-
ca ba; exercised the right OF freeing slaves
in 50 doi,;k. they have dissolved all contracts
in relation to saves No ucne has ever argued
that HE States have, III emancipating slaves.
violated The Constitutional prohibition as 10
;uuorins the ohlgatiun Of Contracts. The
rign: To properly III slaves, always, therefore:
in all CHRISTIAN countries especially, dill red
totally ir.m nlaer species Of property III lis
! y.fy nature. Ii was Il mere righi 10 me ser.
r;c,.; ~. tabor Of tic S,ars and such control oi
i,,. rorsons. and no m,re, aS was Necessary
+, SECURE scch labor. No man had the right
+, XIII 4 save aui use his dy i'm any way he
Pleased lie Was pun shaolc tor murder II he
dd sI he was pu"ls'i;.olt lor not leedlnS ana
c!otbiag The slave. The STATE, therefore or
w..cr,ver The sovereign power lodged always
had the rigat 10 c,l;ancipate slaves tor rea-
sons of or at pubic Interest /; In her words,
the paramount title IT, con rel the services oi
the Slaves. always rested with tue Govern
ment. Every man who s"ll his negro. and
warranted him slave for life, contemplated
! that this right of the Cove nmcnt would no!
h4 and warranted that il would not be, exer-
cispd during tue life lime Vi the slave; as has
been said. he warranted legal utie during
,.,.t lie. Whatever is done by the soreretJ"
,,0,csy or w,aever right is asserted oy 1t, Is
m .ie law All! tight legal in fact, rs to every
.m..y. u.;!:i.l j., iar':aictun, AND is esseciaiy =
.....i-,.,, n., Fo.9tS j: Jhen, there was IN 'ic
. >. r,..rr.fs =. .r.r.'t ah' safe OF The o:i'eu
ST.. :sv ri.s s - efaailepue slaves or, !,
,:,.r .r - 90 a. lii;ii, ti,'o asserted ard
,,.; 49,. r.!,f. ,.ril, ii = Come .rresis-
lb.y obi.s. III. o. Al nrn Il cannot amount
T., aIytnu,g else Ii. :rasDn aud law shAn th'
n .serii,,u Of lllic by tnem, aud the warranty
of The seller was broken when tits title came
interfering with the purchaser. How can
The Court. mere subordinate creature O.
the sovereign prwer, which has seized, with
ire own hand. tue ctcriiul control OF the ser
vices of the slave, and made it most crimlna
aud punishable for the purchaser to CLAIM
those services, yet claim tue right TO treat the
acts Of this dread sovereign with disregard
by compelling payment for what the pla'ht'l
nor defendant could not hold as properly, ahu
on the attempt for which, hc would severely
punish with all the artillery of the la%.
We expect hereafter to give more lul
slat,nert of those reasons which We regart
nc conclusive on the la,o involved. In fact
having heard the argument Of MIR. Reed, ane
the law eases cited by him sustaining his po
s;tion, we do not think that he has yet beer
answered or refuted by anything said in be-
half of the plaintiff.
: AS to the question of the compulsory pay
ment under proceeding of scquestratio6n by
the late Confederate Government, the Cour
holds. az did Cbief Justice Chase in similai
, case, that there was no legal governmental
, power exercised. We have never learned th'
law as requiring government to be absolute
} ly legal to make its acts valid as to indlyldu
t ais. A de facto government is sufficient
r We believe the Court denies that it was
! government de .facto. 1t is not improbable
that, under the prevailing sentiments OF th'
: country, that will be the decision reached b.
the Supreme Court. .Iany of us, however
8 whatever the ruling may be, must continue t.
think without pretending to speak of the lie
! gaitv Of the Confederate Government, tina
t i, wns n ,rnvcrument dc tdciO, for more thai