Year: 1871

by Hon. A. Fl. Garland, of Little


Rock, to the Supreme Court of the


United States, in favor of the validity


OF slave contracts made before the


emancipation proclamation.


The case was taken up on writ of
error from the U. S. circuit court for


the eastern district Of Arkansas. The
original suit was brought for recovery
on note, given in the purchase of a


negro slave in 1861. The plea set up


by counsel for the defendants was


breach of warranty, since the bill of


sale conveying the title to the negro


warranted him to be slave for life.


and be was soon thereafter set free by


President Lincoln's proclamation of


emancipation. To which plea the


plaintiff demurrcd, but was overruIed


by Judge Caldwell. Some of or


readers viii remember TO have read the


opinion Of Judge Caldwell in the case,


published in full in the Gazette. The
counsel for the defendants asked that


heopinion of.the Judge as published,
be filed as their argument before the
Supreme Court of the United States.
With al understanding of these facts,
the argument Of Mr.. Garland will be
read with more interest.


Mr.. Garland takes the ground that
there was no breach of warranty CON-
mitted in the selling of the negro, and
no lack Of consideration ensued. The
sale would have been perfect after the
transfer of the property without any
bill of sale. The bill of sale in war,
ranting the negro to be slave for life,
must be construed as all snch instru-
ments in those days were generally
understood, and especially as they were
understood by tho parties to the con-
tract which simply meant that the
negro was bondsman from birth, and
had never been free up to the time of
the sale. And all pleas to any
other effect set up by any individual
the defendant pledged himself to meet.
Bills Of sale of this kind never war
ranted against the acts of the sovereign.
The transfer Of property-whether per-
sonal or real-never warranted against
accidents Of war, or famine, fire, earth,
quako' ~ pestilence. One argument
introduced to uphold the decision of
the court below is based upon section
of the constitution of tlHs State. which
went into operation in 1868, and which
declares all contracts for the purchase
and sale Of slaves null and void, and
prohibits all courts Of the State from
taking cognizance ofsuits founded upon
them.


Mr.. Garland contends that the clause
cited has no bearing upon the case,
from the fact that the court in which
the case was then being tried was no
court Of this State. And as far as the
clause was intended to apply, it is in
conflict with the clause Of the consti-
tuition of the United States, which de-
clares that no State shall pass any law
the obligation of contracts.
But the clause Of the State Constitu-
tion alluded to, cannot, by any possi-
bility of legal ingenuity, be constructed
to restrict the operations of the Federal
Courts. Upon this point the words of
the argument are-'It SO happens
that in the court from which this case
comes, there were several judgments
of this kind remaining unsatisfed when
this became a part of the Constitution.
Under ths construction given to this
section by the argument alluded to,
the defendants can enjoin them" This,
Mr.. Garland contends would lead to
confusion and embarrsss-
manipulating the Federal courts en-
tirely at the whim of the State Courts,
and in fact is in substance a grosser
Instance OF notification than any thing
ever advocated by Mr.. Calhoun. This
doctrine, traced to its legitimate re-
suits, would throw a mellow light
around secession, and render it respec-