The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-09-12
British Labor Notes

reactionary of the Seamen's Union,
who in this work of trade union dis
ruption is the agent of the mine
owners, While the reactionaries of
the British Trade Union Congress are
dwelling their fire against the radi-
Gals they are mild in their criticism
of Hodges and his scabbing activities.
A. J. Cook, of the outstanding leaders
in the Miners Federation, has stood
with the militants in the trade union
movement. There is no doubt but
the reactionaries will now plot to re-
move him from his position.
THERE is no difference between the
4 British workingclass sap who
votes for the tories or liberals and
his American prototype who votes for
either the democrats or republicans.
A Daily Herald reporter knocking
around with his ear to the ground
met a worker who believed that la
Dor would do better by voting for
the tories than for the Labor Party
because the former had money and
could create prosperity. This fellow
was also in favor of war on the
theory that it was necessary to
periodically kill off the surplus popu-
lation and because during wartime
money is more available. You could
meet this type in any cafeteria in the
city or even on the benches of some
of the city parks. This patriotic fell
lows salary was $3.50 per week.
1T may be surprise to many of our
L readers that chattel slavery exists
and is legally recognized in the
British empire. In a legal decision
recently handed down by the supreme
court of Sierra Leone which has been
a British protectorate since 1895.
The decision held that slaves are
legally heidi in the protectorate and
that their owners have a legal right
of recapturek and to the use of rea-
sonable force in effecting It. The
number of slaves held in the Pro-
tectorate is not known. The opinion
of the Christian British judges chat
decided in favor of a slave master
whose human chattel escaped from
him and wasLrecaptured is taken from
the Daily Hkrald:
Mr.. Justica Aitken, in the course of
his judgement in the Court of Appeal,
which was published in the Man
chester Guardian, after reviewing the
history of the Protectorate since it
was constituted in August, 1895, said:
"At that date it is admitted, on all
hands, that the institution of slavery
flourished throughout the territories
comprised in the new Protectorate;
and their can be no doubt that ma
tive law and custom clearly recog-
nized a right in the owner to re
capture his runaway slave by any
means within his power"
Quoting from an amended ordi-
nance passed in 1926, he pointed out
that the amendments provided
After the commencement of this
ordinance ~ all persons born or
brought into the Protectorate are
hereby declared to be free.
(2) All persons treated as slaves
or held in any manner of servitude
shaN be and become free on the
death Of their masters and owner.
(3) No claim for or in respect of
any slave shall be entertained by any
of the courts in Che Protectorate.
"Now it seems to me-" continued
the judge, ''that the former rights of
a slaveowner over his slave remain
in force in the Protectorate, except in
so far as they have been modified or
taken away by the express provisions
of the Legislature, or by any neces-
sary implication.
81 hold that the defendants in each
of these two cases should have been
acquitted, and that the judgments of
conviction in the court below should
be set aside"
Mr.. Justice Sa~rey Cookson con-
Cured.
"The question involved here is" he
said, "can a runaway slave in the
Protectorate territory of this Colony
take action against his master who
retakes him and so regains his rights
of possession in him against the