der of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet, as in the case of a white offender, none except whites can give evidence, a conviction can seldom, if ever, take place.

Prop. IV. ALL THE POWER OF THE MASTER OVER THE SLAVE MAY BE EXERCISED, NOT BY HIMSELF ONLY IN PERSON, BUT BY ANY ONE WHOM HE MAY DEPUTE AS HIS AGENT.

"The condi

Louisiana is the only state in which an act of assembly has been passed on this topic. The language of the act may be cited, as an appalling definition of slavery itself. tion 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 slave 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.

In the other slave-holding states, the subjoined extract from Mr. Stephen's delineation of slavery in the West Indies, will, it is believed, accurately express the law and the practice.*

* A case is reported among the decisions in the supreme court of appeals in Virginia, which, while it confirms the text, proves how wantonly this power may be, and is abused. The statement prefixed to the opinion of the court is in these words: “May brought an action of trespass vi et armis, in the Petersburg district court, against the appellants, (Brown & Boisseau,) for breaking and entering his close, and beating several of his slaves, in the declaration named, so that he was deprived of their services for a long time, and throwing down his enclosures round his field, whereby his wheat, then and there growing, was trodden down and injured by a great number of cattle and horses, &c. &c. A bill of exceptions states, that on the trial the defendants offered, in mitigation of damages, the testimony of a witness, tending to prove that the plaintiff had given a general permission to Brown, one of the defendants, to VISIT his negro quarters, and to chastise any of his slaves who might be found acting improperly." This evidence was rejected, not that it was in itself improper, but on technical objections, one of which was, that it was offered, and according to the state of the pleadings, if received, would go to the defence of both Brown and Boisseau, whereas THE PERMISSION was granted to BROWN only; and the beating, as had been previously shown, had been inflicted solely by BOISSEAU-"to whom,” continues the report, "it was admitted no such permission had been given." See 1 Munford's Reports, 288, Brown & Boisseau vs. May. What more flagrant

"The slave is liable to be coerced or punished by the whip, and to be tormented by every species of personal ill-treatment, subject only to the exceptions already mentioned, (i. e. the deprivation of life or limb,) by the attorney, manager, overseer, driver, and every other person to whose government or control the owner may choose to subject him, as fully as by the owner himself. Nor is any special mandate or express general power necessary for this purpose; it is enough that the inflictor of the violence is set over the slave for the moment, by the owner, or by any of his delegates or sub-delegates, of whatever rank or character." Stephen's Slavery, page 46.

This power of deputation by the master is one of the degrading and distinguishing features of negro slavery. It was not. permitted by the law of villanage. "The villein might have an action against any man but his lord for beating him, except for just cause; and it was no legal defence in such action, to plead that it was done by the command of the lord." 9 Coke's, Reports, 76 A. and see Stephen's supra.

The most common delegate of the master is known by the appellation of "overseer." A description of this class of beings, is furnished by Mr. Wirt, in his life of Patrick Henry, page. 34. Coming from this source, there is no reason to suspect the character to be surcharged with cruelty, and the following extract is in the words of that author: "Last and lowest, (i. e. of the different classes of society in Virginia,) a feculum of beings called 'overseers'-the most abject, degraded, unprincipled race-always cap in hand to the dons who employed them, and furnishing materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of domination."

Prop. V. SLAVES HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IN THINGS REAL OR PERSONAL, AND, WHATEVER PROPERTY THEY MAY ACQUIRE, BELONGS, IN POINT OF LAW, TO THEIR MASTERS. abuse of the master's power of delegation could be practised than this-to grant a general permission to one not in the function of an overseer, or general deputy, to superintend the employment, &c. of the slaves, (for this character is plainly denied to Brown, inasmuch as he is charged with having broken the close of May, i. e. entered unlawfully, without his consent, upon his premises,) to visit his negro quarters, and to chastise any of his slaves who might be found acting improperly!!!

Of negro slavery only, can this harsh doctrine be affirmed. Among the Romans, the Grecians and the ancient Germans, slaves were permitted to acquire and enjoy property of considerable value, as their own. "The Polish slaves, even prior to any recent alleviations of their lot, were not only allowed to hold property but were endowed with it by their lords." Stephen's Slavery, &c. 59, citing Wraxall's Memoirs, 2 vol letter 21. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money and effects which a slave acquires by his labour at times set apart for his own use, or, by other honest means, are legally his own and cannot be seized by his master. Ibid 60. And even in the British West India Islands, where the condition of slavery on the whole, is not perhaps, less severe than it is in the slave-holding sections of the United States, and, where in truth, the unwritten law is as above stated in this proposition, yet, the feelings of the community there forbid its enforcement by the master. Since, however, to deprive the slave of any little articles of property which he might obtain, by the exercise of his industry and skill, in the few moments of leisure occasionally indulged to him, has been thought of sufficient importance to call for solemn acts of the general assemblies in our slave-holding states, there seems but little reason to believe, that humanity has opposed their execution and established a better practice there. I insert various acts of assembly, which will evidence, in what light this subject is viewed in the states, so often alluded to. 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

*

Periaugua as this word should be spelled, is thus defined, in the Encyclopædia, (first American edition, published by Mr. Dobson ;) "a sort of large canoe made use of in the Leeward Islands, South America and the Gulf of Mexico. It is composed of the trunks of two trees hollowed and united together; and thus differs from the canoe which is formed of one tree." In this country, the distinction here mentioned, between a canoe and periaugua, is not always observed-In "a series of letters from Timothy Flint, principal of the Seminary of Rapide, Louisiana, to the Rev. James Flint, of Salem, Mass. I find the periaugua, described, as "a vessel of from two to four tons burthen, hollowed, sometimes from one prodigious tree, or from the trunks of two trees united, and a plank rim fitted to the upper part."

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, cattle, 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 such seizure has 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 monies 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.

The act of the legislature of Georgia, is in nearly the same words. Prince's Digest, 453. And, lest perchance, the benevolence of the master, should sometimes permit the slave to hire himself, to another for his own benefit, Georgia has imposed a penalty of thirty dollars "for every weekly offence, on the part of the master, unless the labour be done on his own premises." Prince's Dig. 457. So, in Kentucky, with a slight modification, 2 Litt. & Swi. Digest, 1159-60. See Mississippi Rev. Code, 375, and Laws of Tennessee, Oct. 23, 1813, chap. 135.

And in Virginia, if the master shall permit his slave to hire himself out, it is made lawful for any person and the duty of the Sheriff, &c. to apprehend such slave, &c. and the master shall be fined not less than ten dollars, nor more than twenty, &c. 1 Rev. Code, 374-5. Similar, 2 Missouri Laws, 743, and see Haywood's Manual, 534.

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. See Missis

sippi Rev. Code, 378, and Kilty's Laws of Maryland, act of 1723, chap. 15, §6.

In Maryland, by act of April sessions, 1787, chap. 33, "any person who shall permit and authorize any slave belong ing to him or herself, &c. to go at large or hire himself or her self, within this state, shall incur the penalty of five pounds, (thirteen and one-third dollars,) current money per month, except ten days at harvest. This penalty was increased to twenty dollars, excepting however, an additional ten days in harvest. Act of December sessions, 1817, chap. 104, §1. By both acts, a slave being a pilot, is not included within the prohibition.

In Mississippi a slave is forbidden to cultivate cotton for his own use, and, should the master permit him to do so, he incurs a fine of fifty dollars. Miss. Rev. Code, 379.

And, "if any master, &c. of a slave license such slave to go at large and trade as a freeman, he shall forfeit the sum of fifty dollars for each and every offence. Mississippi Rev. Code, 374,-and see 2 Missouri Laws, 743. Also, Kilty's Laws of Maryland, act of April, 1787, chap. 33. An equal fine is imposed upon a master, convicted of permitting his slave to keep "stock of any description:" act of January 29, 1825, pamph. laws of Mississippi of 1825.

The civil code of Louisiana coincides with the text in the following manner: "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. "Slaves cannot dispose of or receive by donation inter vivos or mortis causa, unless they have been previously and expressly enfranchised conformably to law, or unless they are expressly enfranchised by the act, by which the donation is made to them." Art. 1462. "The earnings of slaves and the price of their service, belong to their owners, who have their action to recover the amount from those who have employed them." Louisiana Code of Practice,

art. 103.