The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-07-07
when was the the Institution of Slavery
Abolished and made Unlawful.


when was the the Institution of slavery
Abolished and made Unlawful,
Not at date efproclamation, January, 1, 1868.
Decision Of the Supreme Court Of North
Carolina
In the case Of Harrell cs. Watson, from
Hartford county, Chief Justice Pearson de.
livered the following opinion on Monday
last, all the Justices concurrinr;
PEARSON, G. ]. M
we listened with pleasure to the argu-
ment OF Mr.. Yates. He was candid and
seems to have investigated the subject with
much diligence; but we cannot concur in
his conclusions.
he says, the bond is void for want of
consideration. The reply is: 1st. A bond
needs no consideration. The solemn act of
sealing and delivering is deed, a M;ng
done. which, by the rule of the common law,
mas Iuii force and effect, without any con-
sideration. Nudum pactum applies only to
simple contracts-deeds need no considera-
ton except such as take effect under the
doctrine OF uses, or such as are made void
by the statutes of Elizabeth as against cred
ltors and purchasers for valuable consdera-
ton, but are valid as at common law be-
tween the parties.
This is Misrepresentation of the law into
which many ofthe profession seem to have
fallen by reason of inaccuracy in Blackstone's
commentaries, who, we take occasion to say,
is popular, and not an accurate text writer
like Coke or Fearne. For instance, Black
stone adopts the definition given by Coke
OF deed-"an instrument of writing on
parchment or paper sealed and delivered"-
and yet he afterwards goes on to say, "a
deed must be supported by sufficient con-
slderation." His remark is evidently to be
understood, as having reference to
deeds taking effect under the doctrine of
uses, and to the statutes,of Elizabeth. For,
beyond all question, a deed is binding be-
tween the parties without any consideration.
End. There was, in our case a valuable con-
slderation. The slave bargained for was
delivered to the defendant at the date of
sale in September 1864 and he had his SER
vices until 1865. and upon the supposition
that the thing sold, to-wit, the negro, was
IN TACT freeman and not the subject of sale
from and after the proclamation of Jan. 1,
1868. The defendant hal notice of this
fact, as well as the plaintiff, and according to
the rule of law and of equity and of justice
in its ordinary sense, she who is to have the
gain should bear the loss" as is said. Balm
VS.. Parker, So N. c., 1871 The matter de-
pended upon future contingencies, and the
defendant gave his bond for the price and
took the chances.
The reference made by Mr. Yates to the
law authorizing an inquiry in regard to
contracts payable expressly or implicitly in
currency, and allowing jury to fix the value
thereof, has no application to our case, for it
turns not on the value, but on the caidity
OF the obligation sued upon
In the second place, Mr.. Yates took the
position that the bond was void as against
the policy OF the law, in this, by the proca-
nation OF the President of January 1st, 1868,
all slaves are set free from and after that
date. So at the time of the sale. the person
sold was not slave but free man.
Admitting the premises, we do not sec
how the conclusion follows Say, according
to the view of President Lincoln, the person
sold was free man, at the time of the sale,
how could it obstruct his policy, that the
supposed title to the person as slave was
afterwards transferred from A to b. Ger
talnly 1t could make no difference in legal
effect, whether the individual was held as a
slave by the one or the other, provided, I'M
der the existing state of things, the individ-
nal was to be held asia slave in the same To-
cality
But we do not admit the premises, to wit:
that by force of the proclamation of the
President, all slaves are set free from and
after January LIST, 1868.
BY the act of Congress of July, 1862,
The slaves of persons who shall hereafter
give aid to the rebellion, taking refuge within
the lines of the army" and all slaves cap
tured from such persons, or deserted by
them, and coming under the control of the
government of the United States" and call
slaves of such persons, found or being within
any place, occupied by rebel forces, and af-
forwards occupied by the forces OF the Uni
ted States, shall be deemed captives of war,
and shall he forever free of their servitude,
and not again held as slaves"
This act of the Legislative branch of the
government of the United States is, by its
terms, confined to slaves personally, and APP
plies only to such individuals as may come
under the control of the government 1t
recognises the existence of slavery, and can
not, in any point of view, have the effect of
a6olishing and making unlaacful the institu-
ton Of slage1y in the States where the insti-
tuition then existed and was recognized by
law.
The proclamation of the President is SIM
ply war measure of the erecuti0e branch of
the government, called for in order to an
nounce what States were in rebellion, and to
what localities, the act of 1862 was applca-
BILE. 1t does not profess, and indeed the
President, without the concurrence of the
legislative branch of the government. could
not arrogate to himself the power, as war
measure, to abolish and make unlawful the
institution of slavery in the States, declared
by him to bein rebellion. So far from assum-
ing power to do so, the proclamation is,
by its terms, confined to slaves personally,
and in its practical effect it was limited to
such slaves individually as should come
under the control of the armies of the United
States, so the institution of slauery was not
abolished or made unlawful, either by tho
act of 1862 or by the proclamation of the
President. whiting on the war pow
ers of the President" So.
In like manner the military order of Gen.
Sherman, after the surrender, simply had the
effect of announcing, that the whole State
was then under the control of the army of
the United States, and that by force of the
act of 1862, and the proclamation Of the
President, and the order of General Sherman
as military commander, all persons then helt
as slaves in the State of North Carolina
were free and should be so treated
This operated upon persons then held as
slaves in the State of North Carolina, but
surely military order could not have the
effect of abolishing or making unlawful the