Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1913-10-10
aHiseellansol1s Reading.
OLD SLAVE LAWS
There Was Justice Even Before the
Civil War.

| H0To was SuoktCO GNS" s'O
| Civil War.
Newberry Observer. u..-..,.
The following letter was written by
the late Chief Justice John Bolton
o'Neall Of Newberry to the New York
Tribune in 1858:
Sir: 1 have looked through Mrs.
Stoves Key to Uncle Tom, and find
so many mistakes, as to the negro
/ laws of South Carolina, that think to
put the matter right I should place in
your hands a digest Of the same pre-
pared by me In 1S4S. You will, ac-
cordingly, herewith receive 1t. You
will see in it my opinion, freely ex-
pressed, of its (the law's) imperfec-
tions and wrong actions, and my sug-
gestion Of remedies.
I am sorry to say that the excite
ment growing out Of the Abolition
movement at the north has hitherto
prevented the legislature from acting.
My belief is If the people Of the south
are let alone desirable reforms will
soon be brought to pass.
Some Of the mistakes of Mrs. Stowe
ought to be particularly noticed.
In the State vs.. Manner, referred to
in the Key, page 72, laid down the
position that at common law, when as.
by the act Of 1740, slave is declared
to be chattel, there could be no such
thing as an assault and battery on
him. That this is undesirable law can
hardly be questioned.
But in that same case 1t was ruled
and held (indeed 1t Is the point Of the
case), inasmuch as the murder Of a
slave had been by the act Of 1921,
made felony, an assault and battery
with intent to kill and murder a slave
was an indictable offence, as misde-
meanor.
The act Of 1S41 intended to remedy
the defect in our Jurisprudence, that
an indictment for assault and battery
on slave would not lie, provided that
the unlawful whipping Of a slave
should be a misdemeanor punishable
on conviction by fine and imprison-
ment. (See the digest, p. 19}. This
act has been rigidly enforced by our
courts and punishment has followed.
Why the full decision in the State vs.
Maner and the act Of 1921 should have
been withheld in a book prepared, as
we are told, with no pleasure and
much pain" Is wonderful. 49,.
In the south the very reverse Of the
principle maintained in the State vs..
Maner, Digest, North Carolina, Rev.
Stat. 269, Key II, has been decided. In
Hilton VS.. CASTOR, Balm 95, Digest 43,
1t was held that hirer who unmerci-
fully beat slave is liable for the same
to the owner, and verdict for heavy
damages was sustained. Why was this
not noticed? Was the sole object to
find everything Objectionable and ex-1
clude everything favorable?
In the Key. 81, it is alleged that the
act Of 1921 diminishes the penalty for
killing a slave in sudden heat and pas
sion. This is a strange mistake. The
act of 1740 fixed the penalty at $50
pounds Of current money. Currency
Is seven for one sterling; the penalty
would be therefore, so pounds sterling,
which extended to dollars, at As Sd
currency, amounts to $214.2s. The pc
cuniary penalty in the act Of 1921 is
$500-more than twice as much as the
penalty of 174O. Under the act Of 1921
Imprisonment not exceeding six
months was superadded.
The Key afirms that wilful, delib-
crate murder Of slave cannot occur
in the sense of the act. At page 10
Of the Digest which send to you, it
will be seen that this is a mistake. ITO
constitute the murder Of a slave, no
other ingredients are necessary than
such as enter into the offense Of mur-
der at common law" The State vs.
Cheatwood, Hill, 459. Under the act
of 1921 several convictions of the
murder Of slaves have been had. In
the past winter a master was hanged
at Bennettsville, Marlborough district,
South Carolina, for the murder Of his
own slave.
The case Of Eliza Rowland was tried
before me, at Charleston, as stated in
the Key, SO. The report there given Is
taken from the Courier. Like all 9TH
er newspaper reports, 1t only gives
such parts Of the case as are deemed
attractive to the public eye. The facts
are stated, believe, correctly, but the
editor does not undertake to give even
q synopsis Of my charge.
The attorney general gave in evil
dence Mrs. Rowland's statement, in
which the death Of the slave occurred.
According to that, she had no agency
whatever in producing 1t, and hence
therefore she could not be guilty; and
this l was bound to say and did say to
the jury. One of the counsel Of the
prisoner had talked much Of the i'm
policy Of the act of 1921. Taking a
different view, thought 1t my duty to
maintain in the strongest language Of
which I was master both the policy
and wisdom of the act So too in the
course of argument, the provisions Of
the act of 1740, which declares that
the master, or other person, having
charge of the slave whose death may
take place, when no other white per-
son is present, shall be deemed and
taken to be the slayer unless the said
owner, or other person having the care
shall make the contrary appear by the
testimony, or shall exculpate himself
on his own oath, had been drawn In
question. My opinion was always
against the provision being construed
as in "pari materia" with the act of
1921, and therefore be taken as part of
1t. But the court Of appeals Of South
Carolina, before I was on the bench,
in the State VS.. Baine, Digest McC.
533, ruled that a prisoner on trial for
the murder Of slave under the act of
| 1921, and whose death took place when
| no white person was present, and while
| the slave was in his charge, might ex-
| culpate himself on his oath. l was