Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1867-10-23

/ n DkCISION AGAINST lCLAF ERf --0dTEIiIu
has endeavored to perpetuate some rules of
slavery by keeping on her statute book a
different code of laws for colored apprentices
! than for those who are white. The validity
of the law in relation to colored apprentices
has recently been brought to test before the
United States Court in that State, Chief
Justice Chase presiding, in the of Eliza
beth Turner, a colored minor, who was
brought into court on habeas corpus, her
counsel asking her release from apprentice
ship ON the grounds that the laws under
which she was held were in conflict with the
civil rights enactment. Chief Justice Chase
after considering the question presented, de-
cided that the apprentice was illegally held,
delivering the following opinion
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 that the
Constitution went into operation Nov. |, in
1864, and prohibited slavery almost immedi-
atcIy thereafter. Many of the freed people
of Talbot county were collected together un-
der some local authority, the nature of
which does not clearly appear, and the
usually, if not always, to their late masters
Among others, Elizabeth, the petitioner,
was apprenticed to Mr.. Hambleton, bv an
indenture dated on the Sd of November. two
days after the new constitution went into op-
Grafton Upon comparing the terms of this
indenture, which is claimed to have been ex-
ecuted under the law of Maryland relating
TO negro apprentices, with those required by
the law of Maryland in indentures for the
apprenticeship of white persons, the vari-
ance is manifest. The petitioner under this
Indenture is not entitled to any education.
\ white apprentice 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 apprentice is described in the law a
property and interest. No such description
is applied to authority over a white appren-
tice. 1t is unnecessary to mention other
particulars. Such is the case. | regret
that [ have been obliged to consider it with
out the benefit of any argument in support
of the claim of the respondent to the writ.
But l 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. The
trial does not allow of more. The following
propositions seem to me to be sound and they
decide the case
LIST. The first clause of the 18th amend
ment of the Constitution of the United States
interdicts slavery or involuntary servitude
exceptas punishment for crime, and estab-
fishes freedom the constitutional right of
all persons in the United States
ID. The alleged apprenticeship in the pres
ent is involuntary servitude within the
meaning of these words in the amendment.
Sd If this were otherwise, the indenture
set forth in the return does not contain i'm
portant provisions for the security and bene-
lit 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 LIST section of the
civil rights law, enacted by Congress, April
9, 1866.
18th This law having been enacted under
the second clause of the 18th amendment in
enforcement of the lst clause Of the same
amendment, is CONSTITUTIONAL and applies to
all conditions prohibited by it. whether
originating in transactions before or since it's
enactment.
9TH Colored persons equally with white
persons citizens of the United States.
The petitioner must, therefore, be discharged
from restraint by the respondent.