Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-07-02

ing to the view of President Lincoln. the
person sold was free man, at the time OF
the sale, how could it ohstruct his policy,
that the supposed title to the person as Il
slave was afterwards transferred from A To
B. Certainly it could make no difference
in legal effect, whether the individual was
held as a slave by the one or the other,
provided, under the existing state of
things, the individual was to be held as a
slave in the same locality.
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 1st, 1868
By the act Ct Congress Of July, 1862,
| 'Ihe slaves Of persons who shall hereaf-
ter give aid to the rebellion, taking refuge
within the lines OF the army" AID all
slaves captured from such persons. or de
serted by them. and coming under the con
troll q the government of t. United
States" and ''a.l slaves OF such persons
found OF being within any pa2v occupied
by rebel forces, ana afterwards occupied
by the forces OF the United States, shall
be deemed captiyes Of war, and shall be
forever free Of their ser7itude and not
again held "a slaves
This act OF the legis!0tice branch of the
government OF the United States is. by its
terms, confined to slaves personally, and
applies only to such individuals as may
come under the control of the government.
It recognises the existence Of slavery, and
cannot, in any point of view, have the ef-
feet of abolishing and making wahtpfm he
institution of sIovery in the States where
the institution then existed and vas recog-
nized by law.
The proclamation of the President is
simply war measure of the erecMtire
branch Of the government, called for in
order 10 announce what States were in re-
beliion, and to what localities, the act of
1862 was applicable. It does not, perhaps,
and indeed the President, without the con
currCEce 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 slave
~ in the States, declared by him to be in
rebellion, SO far from assuming 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 con-
troll of the armies of the United States, so
the institution Of Slare,'y was not abolished
Or made unlawful, either by the act of
1862 or by the proclamation OF the Presi-
dent.-See "Whiting on the war powers
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 power of the act of 1862, and the pro-
clamation of the President, and the order
of General Sherman as military comman-
der, all persons then held as slaves in the
State Of North Carolina were free and
should be SO treated. This operated upon
persons then held rs slaves III the State Of
North Carolina, but surely military order
could not have the effect Of abolishing OF
making unla wful the institution of slavery.
That was left as an act that could only be
done by the gO0ernn2ent Of the United
States or by an ordinance OF convention
of the people of the State apart from the
action of the government Of the United
States and the convention Of the State,
there could have been, in legal contemtla-
ton, no more wrong in procuring other
slaves to supply the place Of those taken
from Us by the results Of the war, than IN
buying other property to put In place OF
that taken from us by the armies OF the
United Stats and of the Confederate
States.
So our case comes back to this point in
April 1864, the plaintiff, as administrator,
in the county Of Hartford, which was not
within the lines or under the control of the
army of tho United States, offers Tor sale,
according to the laws Of the State, and does
sell at auction a negro man slave. Tho de-
PENDANT becomes the purchaser, pays part
of the price, takes the slave, and executes
his bond for the balance of the price. In
what point, if void, can this transaction be
considered against public policy, OF as so
violating good morals as to authorize q
court OF justice to refuse tc enforce the con-
tract ? AS is said Chopper vs.. Phillips
Phil Ed 200) ''the transaction was one in
the ordinary course Of business, done with
out any reference to the operations Of the
government Of the United States or
OF the Confederate States, without any
criminal intent to aid the rebellion, and to
hold the contract void, will simply have
the effect to encourage dishonesty"
It was not against the public policy of
the STATE of North Carolina, according to
the laws then existing and recognized both
by the wrongful government then i'll
power and the rightful government which
was, for the time deprived of its power. -
1t was not against the policy of the act of
Congress, 1862, OF Of the proclamation of
the President, for, as we have seen, itcOuld
not effect that policy, in localities not I'M
der the control Of the armies of the United
States, whether person was:held as q slave
by A or by 3, provided, under the circum-
stances, he was to be the slave Of some per
son. SO far as good morals are involved,
the matter is not to be viewed, as VIC con-
ceive, from Il standpoint, where the in
stitution Of slavery is deemed wicked and
in violation Of the laws Of God and of the
rights Of man; but from IA standpoint,
where the institution was considered as es
tablished and made lawful by the laws Of
the State, and recognized and protected by |
the Constitution Of the United States, aud
had been handed down and acted upon
from father to son among our people from
the first settlement Of the colony of Caro-
lima.
The Court is unable to see any ground,
either on the ground OF public policy or of
good morals, upon which it should refuse
to enforce this contract and allow the de-
PENDANT to escape the payment Of just
debt.
Woodfn VS. Sudden. Phil zoo, is IN
point. True, the question Was not made,
but that proves it had not entered into the
head of any one TO conceive that the act of
hiring slave or of selling a slave IN North
Carolina outside of the lines of the .. S.
Army was against public policy, or against