established by the act of congress, may, with but little hazard of error, be received as the laws of the District of Columbia.

Such provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as might be fitly introduced into this sketch, have been added in an Appendix. Several acts of congress, will be found inserted there also. These, however, are not numerous, since from the peculiar relation which subsists between the Federal Government and the individual states, the former, except within the District of Columbia and the territories not yet incorporated into the union, as states, is restrained from the exercise of legislative functions on all subjects of a character exclusively municipal.

The value of a work like the present, must depend, mainly, upon the authenticity of its materials. On this point, but little, if any, exception can be justly taken. The most approved code, of each state, was sought for, and, in most instances, obtained. The laws of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri, have been cited, from publications made under the express sanction of the several legislatures of these states. The laws of South Carolina have been drawn principally from a source entitled to equal consideration. I mean the Digest by Judge Brevard. This, however, having been issued from the press in 1814, it became necessary to procure a work which would indicate the changes effected by the legislature since that period. The second edition of James' Digest, has been used for this purpose, and though the first edition of this work is stated, in Griffith's Law Register, to have been imperfectly executed and not to deserve much reliance, yet, a second one having been called for, it seems fair to presume that in this, the errors of the first have been corrected and its defects supplied.

For the laws of North Carolina, as well as for the larger portion of those of Tennessee, recourse has been had to "Haywood's Manual." Professedly, this work treats of the laws of North Carolina only, yet, as the territory which now composes Tennessee, was until April 2d, 1790, included within the bounds of the former state, and subject to its jurisdiction, it was judged expedient, when the separation took place, to provide that

the laws of North Carolina should continue to be observed by the citizens of Tennessee, until severally altered or repealed by competent legislative authority. By a copy, which I possess, of the laws, of this latter state, applicable to slaves, it does not appear that many such alterations or repeals have been made. I have, therefore, in general, omitted to mention specifically, that a particular law of North Carolina, is also in force in Tennessee, but have given the date of such law, if passed before April 2d, 1790, intending to apprize the reader, that in every citation of this kind, Tennessee should be classed with North Carolina, unless the contrary be distinctly mentioned. Legislative enactments emanating from the territorial government which succeeded the cession by North Carolina, and those also which have been made by the state of Tennessee, are referred to, under the name of Laws of Tennessee, stating the year in which they were enacted, and the chapter in which theymay be found.

In a treatise of no greater extent, than that which is here offered, it may be thought unnecessary to speak, in this place, of the plan which has been observed. I allude to the topic, chiefly, to avail myself of the opportunity which it affords, of acknowledging my obligation, in this respect, to JAMES STEPHEN, ESQ. of London, to whose comprehensive work, "The Slavery of the British West India Colonies Delineated," I am also largely indebted for much valuable information. The titles to the chapters and sections into which this sketch has been divided, will be found to correspond, in most instances, substantially, and in some, verbally, with those employed by him. The reason of this adoption, will be evident, when it is recollected that the prominent features of slavery in the British West Indies, and in our slave-holding states, closely resemble each other, and I could not hope to excel the model of so competent a master. I might also suggest as an additional reason, that MR. BARCLAY of Jamaica, in the work which he has published as a reply to MR. STEPHEN, has pursued the same arrangement. Fas est ab hoste doceri.

Having been under the necessity of bringing together, the laws of so large a number of independent states, it must be ob

vious that considerable difficulty existed in assigning to each part its proper place, and giving to each its due effect, and at the same time, preserving the appearance of symmetry in the whole. As the best method of meeting this difficulty, when the provisions of different codes on the same point, were in the same language, or, as was most commonly the case, the same in substance but not in language, I have in general, used a transcript frome one code, and having noted, in immediate connexion, the work from which it was taken, have added, successively, references to the other codes. The words "similar," and, "nearly similar," are sometimes interposed;-the purpose of which, needs no explanation. The titles of the different Digests being cited, seemed to me to render a perpetual repetition of the names of the States, unnecessary. In many occasions, therefore, these are omitted.

That the comments which I have offered on many of the laws, might the more readily be understood, and their propriety judged of, I have, in almost every quotation which has been made, given the exact words of the law, omitting such only, as were not essential to the perception of the legislative intent.

Of the actual condition of slaves, this sketch does not profress to treat. In representative republics, however, like those of these United States, where the popular voice so greatly influences all political concerns, where the members of the legislative departments are dependant for their places upon annual elections, the laws may be safely regarded as constituting a faithful exposition of the sentiments of the people, and as furnishing, therefore, strong evidence of the practical enjoyments and privations of those whom they are designed to govern. To the condition of the passive members of the community, such as slaves, this latter deduction is, emphatically, applicable. I speak of the case of slaves generally. Their condition will, no doubt, in a great degree, take its complexion from the peculiar disposition of their respective masters;-a consideration which operates as much against as in favour of the slave: for it cannot be denied, that there are many persons but little controlled by feelings of humanity, and less restrained by the precepts of religion, many who "feeling power, forget right."

The very existence of slavery is calculated to produce the worst effects on the temper and morals of the masters. On this point, and indeed, on the general treatment of slaves by their masters, the most decisive testimony is borne, by MR. JEFFERSON, in his Notes on Virginia. "The whole commerce between master and slave," says he, "is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions-the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. If a parent had no other motive, either in his own philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally, it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst passions, and thus nuURSED, EDUCATED, AND DAILY EXERCISED IN TYRANNY, CANNOT BUT BE STAMPED BY IT, WITH ODIOUS PECULIARITIES.”

Philadelphia, October 8th, 1827.

177

ADVERTISEMENT.

The laws of several of the states, being contained in Digests, in citing them, the names of the compilers have been generally given, and not the names of the states. Thus, the laws of Georgia are cited from "Prince's Digest," 1 vol.; the laws of South Carolina, some from "Brevard's Digest," 3 vols. and some, from "James' Digest," 1 vol.; the laws of North Carolina as well as a portion of those of Tennessee, (as explained in the preface of this sketch,) from "Haywood's Manual," 1 vol.; the laws of Kentucky, from "Littell & Swigert's Digest," 2 vols. ; the laws of Louisiana, to the year 1816, from "Martin's Digest," 3 vols.; the laws of Pennsylvania from "Purdon's Digest," 1 vol.; the laws of Alabama from "Toulmin's Digest," 1 vol. In Virginia and Mississippi, Revised Codes have been prepared, and are cited, "Virg. Rev. Code and Miss. Rev. Code," unless in some instances, where the name of the state is prefixed to the extract made, and Rev. Code only marks the citation. The Civil Code of Louisiana and the Code of Practice adopted in the same state, are cited by their respective titles, and the article and its number given, but not the page,―this being the usual and most convenient mode of reference, as to these codes.

With respect to the laws of the other states, no explanation is necessary, as the name of the state is used.

ERRATA.

Page 121-2. In describing the tribunal by which slaves are tried on criminal accusations, in Tennessee, I have stated, that this state was in the year 1793, a part of North Carolina, &c. This is erroneous, as will appear, by the preface to this sketch, in which the proper date of the separation is noted, and, of consequence, the remarks there made which rest upon that hypothesis, are inappropriate.

The date of the act of Tennessee, as stated in the text, is also erroneous. It should be November 8th, 1819, instead of October 23d, 1813. A corresponding alteration must be made in the reference.

Page 128, line 10th from the top, instead of the statement, that the ordinary tribunal for the trial of slaves in Tennessee, consists of but three justices and freeholders, it should be, of THREE justices and nine freeholders, or slave-holders, such an alteration having, by an act of November 9th, 1815, been made in the law previously in force. See Laws of Tennessee of 1819, chap. 138.