THE POWER GRANTED BY LAW TO THE MASTER. According to the law of Louisiana, "A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and his labour; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master." Civil Code. art, 35.

In South Carolina it is expressed in the following language: "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and judged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." 2 Brevard's Digest, 229.

In Louisiana, "Slaves though moveable by their nature," says the civil code, "are considered as immoveable by the operation of the law." Art. 461. And by act of Assembly of June 7, 1806, "Slaves shall always be reputed and considered real estate; shall be, as such, subject to be mortgaged, according to the rules prescribed by law, and they shall be seized and sold as real estate." 1 Martin's Digest, 612. And in Kentucky, by the law of descents, they are considered real estate, 2 Litt. and Swi. Digest, 1155, and pass in consequence to heirs and not to executors. They are, however, liable as chattels to be sold by the master at his pleasure, and may be taken in execution in payment of his debts. Ibid. and see 1247.

RESTRICTIONS OF THE MASTER'S POWER.

So far as the law restricts the master's power at all, it only shows how shamefully and cruelly that power is abused—perhaps we should say used, for the very possession of it is an abuse. The very limitations leave the power of the master far beyond mercy. And so far as they go, they are but a mockery, by reason that the testimony of a colored man cannot be taken against a white one. In regard to the TIME OF LABOR, we find the following law in South Carolina :

"Whereas many owners of slaves, and others who have the care, management and overseeing of slaves, do confine them so closely to hard labor, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest: Be it therefore enacted, That if any owner of slaves, or other person who shall have the care, management, or overseeing of any slaves, shall work or put any such slave or slaves to labour more than fifteen hours in twentyfour hours, from the twenty-fifth day of March to the twenty-fifth day of September; or more than fourteen hours in twenty-four hours, from the twenty-fifth day of September to the twenty-fifth day of March, every such person shall forfeit any sum net exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five pounds, current money, for every time he, she or they shall offend herein, at the discretion of the justice before whom the complaint shall be made." 2 Brevard's Digest, 243.

"As for

In Louisiana, the subjoined act was passed, July 7, 1806. the hours of work and rest, which are to be assigned to slaves in summer and winter, the old usages of the territory shall be adhered to, to wit: The slaves shall be allowed half an hour for breakfast during the

SLAVE LAWS.

whole year; from the first day of May to the first day of November, they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and from the first day of November to the first day of May, one hour and a half for dinner: Provided, however, That the owners who will themselves take the trouble of causing to be prepared the meals of their slaves, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour per day, the time fixed for their rest.” 1 Martin's Digest, 610-12.

Judge Stroud quotes the statutes of five legislatures by which ten hours out of the twenty-four is the longest space for labor which can be demanded of convicted felons, sentenced to HARD LABOR.

Some of the states oblige the master to furnish his slaves a certain amount of PROVISIONS.

Thus in Louisiana, "Every owner shall be held to give to his slaves the quantity of provisions hereafter specified, to wit; one barrel of Indian corn, or the equivalent thereof in rice, beans or other grain, and a pint of salt, and to deliver the same to the said slaves in kind every month, and never in money, under a penalty of a fine of ten dollars for every offence." 1 Martin's Digest, 610, act of July 7, 1806. In North Carolina, a much less quantity of the same kind of food is deemed sufficient, as is implied from the following curious section of an act passed in 1753, and which is still in force. "In case any slave or slaves, who shall not appear to have been clothed and fed according to the intent and meaning of this act, that is to say, to have been sufficiently clothed, and to have constantly received for the preceding year an allowance not less than a quart of corn per day, shall be convicted of stealing any corn, cattle, &c. &c. from any person not the owner of such slave or slaves, such injured person shall and may maintain an action of trespass against the master, owner or possessor of such slave, &c. and shall recover his or her damages, &c." Haywood's Manual, 524-5.

The allowance of CLOTHING in Louisiana, seems to have been graduated by the same standard by which the quantity of food was determined in North Carolina. "The slave who shall not have on the property of their owners a lot of ground to cultivate on their own account, shall be entitled to receive from said owner one linen shirt and pantaloons (une chemise et une culotte de toile) for the summer, and a linen shirt and woollen great coat and pantaloons for the winter.” 1 Martin's Digest, 610.

The other states do not pretend to fix the kind and quantity of food and clothing which the slave shall receive, but some of them have enacted safeguards against the stinginess of the master which are not only perfectly nugatory, but seem to have been designed to be so. See Stroud, p, 32.

THE POWER TO PUNISH,

Is thus restricted by the law of North Carolina:

Section 3, of the act passed in 1798, runs thus: "Whereas by another act of the assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing of a glave however wanton, cruel and deliberate, is only punishable in the

first instance by imprisonment and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between the murder of a white person and one who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different complexion, is Disgraceful to humanity, and DEGRADING IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE TO THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF A FREE, CHRISTIAN AND ENLIGHTENED COUNTRY, Be it enacted, &c. That if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, such offender shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man; Provided always, this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of assembly of this state, or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner or master, OR TO ANY SLAVE DYING UNDER MODERATE CORRECTION." Haywood's Manual. 530; and see Laws of Tennessee, act of Oct. 23, 1799, with a like proviso.

The Constitution of Georgia has the following: Art. 4, § 12.

"Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave, and unless

SUCH DEATH SHOULD HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT IN GIVING SUCH SLAVE

MODERATE CORRECTION." Prince's Digest, 559.

Judge Stroud remarks, "that a proclamation of outlawry against a slave is authorized, whenever he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and, to sustain life, kills a hog, or some animal of the cattle kind!!" See Haywood's Manual, 521; act of 1741, ch. 24, § 45.

In South Carolina by the Act of 1740 the "wilful murder” of a slave was punished by a fine of "seven hundred pounds, current money" and inability to hold office, but another description of murder, more likely to occur, was punished as follows:

"If any person shall, on a sudden heat or passion, or by undue correction, kill his own slave, or the slave of any other person, he shall forfeit the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, current money." Brevard's Digest, 241.

By an act of 1821, the former provision was abolished but the latter was continued, diminishing the price to five hundred dollars, and authorizing an imprisonment of six months. James' Digest, 392.

The following protection for the limbs of the slave has been in force, in South Carolina from 1740 to the present time:

"In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch or small stick, or by pulting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money." 2 Brevard's Digest, 241.

But the legislatures do not occupy themselves altogether in protecting the slave and restraining the master. Louisiana imposes a heavier penalty for taking off irons than she does for the "cruel punishments,“ specified above, as appears from this:

"If any person or persons, &c. shall cut or break any iron chain or collar, which any master of slaves should have used in order to prevent the running away or escape of any such slave or slaves, such person or persons so offending shall, on conviction, &c. be fined not less than two hundred dollars, nor exceeding one thousand dollars; and suffer imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, nor less than six months." Act of Assembly, of March 6, 1819-pamphlet, page 64.

Now in the same state, the law before quoted from South Carolina is in force and the penalty is a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, nor less than two hundred!

In Missouri, the master is assisted in punishing as follows:—

"If any slave resist his or her master, mistress, overseer or employer, or refuse to obey his or her lawful commands, it shall be lawful for such master, &c. to commit such slave to the common gaol of the county, there to remain at the pleasure of the master, &c.; and the sheriff shall receive such slave, and keep him, &c. in confinement, at the expense of the person committing him or her." 1 Missouri Laws 309.

POWER OF THE MASTER EXERCISED BY OTHERS.

According to the universal practice of the slave states, the master may delegate his tremendous power to any other person whom he pleases. Louisiana has the following express law:

"The condition of a slave being merely a passive one, his subordination to his master, and to all who represent him, is not susceptible of any modification or restriction, (except in what can incite the clave to the commission of crime,) in such manner, that he owes to his master and to all his family a respect without bounds and an absolute obedience, and he is consequently to execute all the orders which he receives from him, his said master, or from them." 1 Martin's Digest, 616.

SLAVES CANNOT HOLD PROPERTY.

Thus in South Carolina: "It shall not be lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c. for any goods, &c. without a license from the owner, &c. nor shall any slave be permitted to keep any boat, periauger or canoe, or raise and breed, for the benefit of such slave, any horses, mares, cattle, sheep or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, &c. and all the boats, periaugers, or canoes, horses, mares, catde, sheep, or hogs. And it shall be lawful for any person whatsoever, to seize and take away from any slave, all such goods, &c. boats, &c. &c. and to deliver the same into the hands of any justice of the peace, nearest to the place, where the seizure shall be made, and such justice shall take the oath of the person making such seizure, concerning the manner thereof; and if the said justice shall be satisfied that sch seizure has

SLAVE LAWS.

been made according to law, he shall pronounce and declare the goods so seized, to be forfeited, and order the same to be sold at public outcry, one half of the moneys arising from such sale to go to the state, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same," James' Digest, 385-6. Act of 1740.

In Georgia, to prevent the master from permitting the slave to hire himself for his own benefit, there is a penalty of thirty dollars “for every weekly offence, on the part of the master, unless the labor be done on his own premises." Prince's Digest, 457. In Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri, there are similar laws.

As early as the year 1779, North Carolina interposed as follows: "All horses, cattle, hogs or sheep, that one month after the passing of this act, shall belong to any slave or be of any slave's mark, in this state, shall be seized and sold by the County Wardens, and by them applied, the one-half to the support of the poor of the county, and the other half to the informer," Haywood's Manual, 526.

In Mississippi, the master incurs a fine of fifty dollars by permitting the slave to cultivate cotton for his own use. Rev. Code, 379; also fifty dollars for permitting the slave to go at large and trade as a freeman Rev. Code, 374.

The civil code of Louisiana lays down the following principles:

"All that a slave possesses belongs to his master, he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or moveable estate, which his master chooses he should possess." Art. 175, and see 1 Martin's Digest, 616. "Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting property." Civil Code, art. 945.

SEPARATION OF FAMILIES.

In Louisiana there is a law against selling infirm parents apart from their children, without their consent, but there is none against selling the children apart from the parents, nor is there known to be in any of the other slave states, any legal restraints whatever, in regard to the separation of families by purchase and sale.

THE SLAVE, AS A MAN, IS NOT UNDER THE PROTECTION OF LAW.

He cannot bring a suit against his master or any other person for an injury. His master may bring an action against a third person for an injury of his property. But this is a poor protection of the slave, for, first, it weakens the motive of the master to protect the slave. If the injury were to come upon his own pocket he would be more careful to prevent it. Secondly, the master can recover nothing, unless the injury deteriorates the value-which it may not do, although in itselt very great. The Supreme Court of Maryland has decided: