Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-08-24
AN ECHO OF SLAVERY.
The Rights of Slaves Daughter Esta
lished by Superior Judge Levy.

the superior Court OF San francisco:
This proceeding was heard for the pur-
pose of determining which of two clam
ants is entitled to inherit the estate of de-
ceased.
The facts as l find them are as follows:
The deceased was born of slave parents,
himself slave from his birth, in the State
of Tennessee, in the early part of the cen
tury. The master with his slaves moved
to Missouri. Anthony was sold to one
Ellis and while living with him was mated,
according to the custom of slaves TO
Rachel, a female slave, also owned by
Ellis. A result of this union was q daugh-
ter named Caroline. The union between
Anthony and Rachel continued for many
years, until Ellis sold mother and daughter
TO one Scott, also in Missouri. Anthony
continued to visit his daughter and her
slave mother, and another child was born
them, which was sold at the age of ten
years and was reported to have died about
1910, and has, in fact, not since been heard
from. Caroline was born about 1926 and
| remained with ner mother until 1852,
when she was sold to one Rousseau and re-
moved to California, where she became
free and married Chesterfield Jackson,
When Caroline was about six years old his
master forbade Anthony to visit Rachel,
| and he was thus forced to break off sill in
tercourse with her and never saw her
| again. She remained slave until freed BY
the Declaration of Emancipation by Presi-
dent Lincoln.
After Anthony had thus been separated
from Rachel, he was induced to assume
matrimonial relations with female slave,
also belonging TO Ellis, named MarvanZa.
The result of their relations was q male
child, which died in infancy and later on
daughter named Elizabeth. Anthony
procured his freedom and came TO Califor-
mia in 1852. Remaining here one year he
returned to Missouri, purchased Maryanza
| and Elizabeth from their master and
brought them to San Francisco. Up to this
time he was known as Eli, but be now
adopted the name of Waddy. Elizabeth
| died in San Francisco without descendants.
Waddy always acknowledged Caroline as
his daughter, before and after she came to
California, and she lived with him. Mary
ANA was afterward legally married to him.
Waddy left last will wherein he leaves
all his estate to his wife, Maryanza, and
says: u do hereby expressly omit to make
any provision for Caroline Jackson 1t is
evident that Waddy expected his wife to
survive him, and she in turn made will
leaving the estate to Caroline, with a re-
quest to take care of her father. But
Maryanza died a few months before her
husband, and left no descendants of any
kind
A sister of Waddy, named Lavina Phil
lips, disputes the right of Caroline to the
succession. Her right to the inheritance is
denied on the ground that the union between
Anthony and Rachel was void, because
slaves were incapable of entering into a
marriage contract and that Caroline, being
an Legitimate child, cannot inherit; thar,
being a slave Waddy could not bv adop-
Oft hor hill ct,a,
and his recognition of her after she became
of age was not In conformity with Section
1887 OF the Civil Code. Section go of the
Civil Code, which provides that public ac-
acknowledgement of an illegitmate child
works an adoption, does not apply to
adults, and has been so interpreted in re
Pico, 81 Cal, "a. And l must coneede the
proposition that marriages between slaves
were void. The duties of the marriage
contract were necessarily incompatible with
the nature of slavery its subjects could
not contract, and marriage is based on con-
tract. The paramount right of ownership
| IN the slaves, as property, prevented the in
dependent relation of marriage between
them; and if slavery were still in exist
ence the child of such marriage could not
inherit, nor could the occasion to inherit
from slave parents arise in state of sery-
itude.
But by the emancipation of the slaves
the relations changed; the marriage of the
slave, which was void, became valid alb
i1aitiO. The child which was a mere in
crease in the wealth of the master and bore
no legal relation to its progenitors became
the child of its parents, endowed by the
declaration of freedom with parentage and
legitimacy 1t was no longer mere chat
tel, but human being with the rights and
privileges OF free born citizen. The mar
rage between its parents, which was void.
was none the less marriage according 10
the custom of the slave, and the issue of a
marriage, null in law, are legitimate in this
State. Civil Code, Sec. 1879
1t is true, as counsel asserts, that the
prime object of this section was to legit;ma-
tize the offspring of incestuous marriages,
but l can see no reason why it must be
limited to that class. for instance, mar
riages of white persons with negroes or
mulattoes are void, still the issue of such
marriage would be legitimate, because of
Section 1887 and so, if any other marriages
should be declared void by the statute, ii is
| the purpose of this section to exclude the
issue from the injury. If at the time of
emancipation Waddy and Rachel had lived
together in slave marriage, there is no cues
! ton that the marriage would have been as
valid and binding as if originally con-
tracted between free: white persons, and
If emancipation worked such effect on the
status of the parent, there is no good reason
for holding that it operated differently on
the offspring.
Even as the civil rights of the parents
were dormant during slavery, but attached
| on the emancipation, so the dormant rights
OF the child to be human being instead of
chattel, to have father and mother instead
or master, and all those rights which are
Iy,h 70 T-an I i
| and attached to it. as If il had been born
without the misfortune of slavery. And
this result must follow, even If the parents
refused to continue their marital relations
| after emancipation. They might, if they
| pleased, waive the advantages of that great
charter, ,but only for themselves, not for
their offspring they might refuse the
| quickening dTaueht of freedom as it affected
them, but their refusal could not bar their
child from obtaining the benefits which it
| bestowed on the colored race.
have carefully examined all the cases
cited by counsel, some of which, especially
so Alabama, $40, oppose the idea that the
child begotten in slavery could inherit from
the father after emancipation, where the
cohabitation between the parents had ceased
before. Unaided by the mass of conflicting
authorities to determine this cause upon
well-eStablished precedent, ] have endeay-
ored to reason out result which is i'm
posed as moral obligation by the natural
law, and which the municipal law can well
afford to adopt, as the true Interpretation,
when it is unfettered by binding and au-
Informative precedent. Therefore, to COM
ment on the cases cited by counsel would
be to extend this already extended opinion
without purpose. The conclusion which
must he reached from the foregoing reason
ing is that Caroline Jackson is entitled to
the inheritance. 1t is so ordered
QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTRICITY.
Interesting Answers Given to Twenty
Leading Ones.
compiled from ScTibner's Monthlyl
/. How strong a current is used to send