Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-11-21
SLAVE CONTRACTS.
SyRopsts Of an able Argument by Hon.
A n. Garland, before the United
States supreme CegFG

Annexed is a synopsis of the able and ex-
lsusiive arRumen OF Hon. A. Il. Garland, in
the case involving slave contracts, now pend
ing in the UEited states supreme court. We
regret that lack OF space prevents our giving
n null the entire Rrgume
In the court below, at Little Rock, his Honor
Judge aidwell held that slavery was the crea-
ture OF statute law, contrary to natural Justice,
and, being now abolished, the collection OF
notes given IN payment for slaves cannot now
be enforced in the courts His opinion. which
Is Ingenious and well reasoned, Is familiar TO
The readers OF the APPEAL, having been pub
nshed at the time. II has since been nled in
he supreme court, as an argument In the case.
But for the le' 9Th Of Colonel Gariand's argu-
ment, We would be glad TO lay 1t before our
readers, that we might have the reRsonings
pro and con on this interesting question.
He combats at Length the argument that
slavery was the creature of statute law in the
States or a custom among the States, and
shows the fallacy of the equality OF all men by
cOpious extrac s from Bnwyer, DOmat 81. Au-
justine, Wildman and HERON, who say that in
one stHge Of society slavery Is as natural as
freedom in another Emerson, who shows
that slavery wss recognized among all
ancient %nstions; proves II among the
early English, in the De SerYitude" OF
Fleta +" aud the " Viilenage" of Lord Coke /:
shows that It was encouraged and protected
by numerous acts Of parliament, by the Crown
and by the Judicial decrees ofthe ablest jurists
Of the realm nom SharswOOd on BLACKSTONE,
and Burlington on Statutes, that il was part of
the common law when America was settled,
ana BROUGHT over and Incorporated with IL.
And from Lord StOwell in the Grace case in
1877, that tn privy council aud the courts
we're every day carving Il into effect in mat
ters Of properly, supported by statutes, and that
IN the colonies II is Incorporated into full life.
II is the system ofthe state. and of every in
d vidual in it,; and by Jud Q Story thet this
decision was impreguahle, there being ouly
one English decision, that OF Lord Mansfield
n the somerset case ofJudge-nade-law tOthe
contraryg
And srraying authorities from almost every
State and the federal courts, and the views OF
statesmen from the Federaiist 10 Lincoln, that
property in slaves WAS subject 10 the same
law, in every way, that other proper y was.
That property in slaves being now prohibi-
ed here. eau no more effect the emedy here
Tor purchase money than II could in the States
heretofore prohibiting slavery, and In
England, on suits for purchase money
brought In those countries. Many authorities
are cited 10 show that the lex t0cl ooatriciug
governs. Sir William Scott In the case OF LIE
Lais the Court Of Exch"quer in Baron VS..
Denman Chief Justice Marshall in the Ante
lope; Santos vs.. Hlidge, - EngliSn Common
Laws; and numerous state authorities.
There is no breach Of warranty in the case:
The seller Is not bOun TO warrant the buyer
against acts of mere force. or the act OF The
sovereign" He who reaps the profit ought
70 bear the los" DumotY Justiniauian and many
mOderI authorities.
II there is breach Of warranty, the seller Is
liable over TO the purchaser. The principle
would go further Those who have collected
tor slaves may be eOmpelled 10 refund |
should De compelled to disgOrge. The negro
himself should Oe allowed TO recover cOmpen- /
satlon for this violation Of their rights : but
this would be eZ post fdcto-making thar nm
which was lawful at the time-"just
what legislative will cannot do, a d no fine-
spun Ideas OF higher law, morality, original
SIN, Total deprAvlty, or anything of that sort
can quite bring that about, however warm and
spectacle Of rendering judgment for the
price Of a human being