Year: 1859

SLAVE CRIMINALS.


The case of the United States ys. Amy. femslo
slave, just decided by ChiefJustce Tsney, in the
United States Circuit Court for the Eastern Dis.
trict of Virginia, indicates = new pretensiou on
the part Of tie shareholders


This woman wss tried and convicted for robbng
the United States mail. We have seen no report
Of the trial. Probably, being the case Of slave,
the Richmond newspapers did not think it worth
reporting Therefore we are unable to say whether,
in committing the robbery. the woman acted on
her own account. or whether she was coaNed or
whipped into it by the person in whose employ she
was. However that might be, the counsel, BY
whom che was defended, setup that, being slave,
aid therefore a mere piece of property. without
any legal control over her own actions she did not
fall within the puryiew Of the act Of Congress, and
must be acquitted. The instruction beng refused,
and the women convicted. the question was again
raised and argued on 8 motion to grant new trial


The ground taken in support of this motion was,
that as the act Of Congress Furnishing robbery OF
the mail spoke only of "persons," as it made no
reference TO the rights Of the owner, and contained
no provision for compensating him for his loss OF
service, therefore the act could not have been in
tended to include slaves That Congress could not
have had slaves in its mind in framing this law was
further argued from the fact that some of the Of
fenses mentioned in it were punishable by hne,
sort of punishment wholly inapplicsbe to slave,
who has no property and can have none, and who
being incapable of making contract, cannot bor-
row while t. keep him in Jail, to compel the mas
ter TO pay, would be TO punish the innocent master
for the crime tf the slave.


The venerable Chief Justice appears to have
been exceedingly grayeled by this argument He
confessed that the sections Of the act inhicting
fines could hardly be supposed 10 have been in
tended TO embrace slaves He had great doubts
whether a Court of Justice could lawfully mprison
a party for not doing an act which by the law Of
his condition it was impossible for him to perform
In his anxiety TO shield the pocket of the master,
the learned Chief Justice appears to have forgotten
the case of husbands who are often imprisoned to
compel them to pay fines imposed upon their wives
married women so far as relates to holding prop
erty or to making contracts, standing, by the COM
mon law, stiH in force in most of the States, in the
position Of slaves We think, indeed, there are
cases in the books in which the wife having been
convicted on the husbands complaint, of assault
and battery on the husbands person, the husband
has been sent to Jail for non-payment Of the fine
imposed upon her in consequence.


As, however, in this particular case, the punish
ment was not fine, but imprisonment in the PeIi-
tertiary from two to ten years-that being pun
ishment which the slave would feel-tbe Chief
Justice seemed to think that the above objection
did not apply. But why not II it be unjust to
punish the master instead Of the slave, Is 1t mt
equally urjust TO punish the master along with
the slave If it be unjust to the master to compel
him to redeem bis slave from imprisonment by the
PAYMENT of fifty or one hundred dollars, is it not
still more unjust to shut the slave up in prison, and
TO refuse TO allow the master to redeem him at all


Upon second thought, it did occur to the Judge
that the distinction between the two cases was not
so clear as he had at first supposed. However,
for the security of the United States mails, which
otherwise would be- in no small danger from slaves
iutored and trained TO the business Of robbery, the
Judge insisted upon sending the slave to the Peni-
tentiary, turning over the owner for his compensa-
ton to Congress, that being, as he remarked, not
judicial, but u political question: upon which the
Chief Justice, it seems, has somewhat tardiy found
out that it is not his province to give an opinion.


But, though declining to commit himself upon it,
the whole tenor of his argument does, in fact COM
NIT him, and we must expect to have added to the
list of slaveholdng pretensions the claim that
whenever slaves are punished by imprisonment for
offenses against the United States, the master must
be compensated for his loss out Of the national