Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-06-30

| fine ST not less than ten nor more than
Fifty dollars, and imprisonm snt for not less
than one nor more than two years; and fol-
the second offensc, by imprisonment for
four years. Act of 1881, CHI. 102. Act
of 1912, CHI. 19l. BY provisions subse-
quently enacted, manumitted slaves were
absolutely prohibited from remaining in
| the State upon any terms.
AS was said in the opinion of this court
on the former hearing of this cause g
Head, 73D, "The predominant idea and
purpose il the mlnd of The tesiator was
the emancipation of his slaves, after they
had served his wife during her life.'' He
guards this purpose with most earnest
solicitude as a principal purpose OF his
will; and in the codicil, evidently consid-
ering the impossibiiity that his slaves
should ever enjoy freedom in this State,
he revokes the permission given in the
original will, to remain here and receive 6
| portion of the fund, and requires all to go
TO Liberia, and at the same time holds a
scourge over his relatives who might be
under temptation to attempt to defeat his
benevolent purpose.
These limitations were wise when the
win was executed, in view of the primary
object of the teststor. But when
slavery was abolished, and the
whole cenor and policy of the
law in regard to emancipated slaves
was changed; and under the laws and
Constitution of this State and of the United
States all men were invested with equal
rights, as to residence and property, the
reason of these limitations wholly failed.
There was no longer any reason why
the negroes should go to Liberia to re-
ceive the benefit of the testator' bounty.
If the negroes and the fund were sent to
Liberia, and the fund there distributed to
them, they would have perfect right to
return to this country in the same vessel
which took them out, bringing the money
with them.
The Court will not go through with the
merely useless Formally of sending this
fund in charge of special messenger to
Africa and sending the legatees there to
receive ii at the expenditure of the major
part of the fund while the legatees and
the fund are both liz the presence of the
Court. 1t cannot be presumed that the
testator intended the enactment of such q
farcical proceeding.
Even if it were held that ii was neces-
sary that the negroes should 60 to Africa
to receive this fund, the filing of bill
insisting upon their right to receive it
here would not amount to forfeiture or
remuneration of the legacy, of which
the next of kin could take advantage. II
such forfeiture or remuneration should
occur, those next entitled may present
their claim to the fund; but until
that time they have no title to interfere
for the purpose of insisting upon the per-
Torrance of conditions in which they
have no interest.
By the terms of the viii the remainder
of the fund, after the payment of the
expenses of transportation, was to be
divided among the negroes.
If any unexpected circumstances
should lessen the anticipated expense, or
if some society or individual should as
sumo the entire expense, the fund thereby
saved would be for the benefit of the
benefciaries and not for that of the next
of kin. Unexpected circumstances have
rendered any expenditure for tranEporta-
ton unnecessary; but it does not concern
the next of kin whether it be necessary
to eXpend much, little or nothing for
that purpose.
The decree of the Chancellor upon the
above mentioned petition Is affirmed.
GgoRGB ANDREWS, Judge.
A true copy: ]. G. FRAZER, Clerk.