Slavery

An institution by which one man is made the property of another.'

1 Elliott V. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65 (1857); M'Almont v, Mc Clelland, 14 S. & R. 358 (1826). = Odgers, Lib. & SI. 305; Townshend, § 408. 3 Odgers, Lib. & SI. 302. ■I Mahoney v. Belford, 133 Mass. 394 (1882) oases. » Sec 23 Alb. Law J. 44 (1881), eases.

On special damages, see 17 Cent. Law J. 105 (1883). «3 Bl. Com. 124; Malachy v. Soper, 3 Bing. N. C. * 381 (1836); Paul! v. Halterty, 63 Pa. 46 (1889), cases. ' Kendall v. State, 1 Seld. 18 (1831), cases. 8 Halsey v. Brotherhood, L. E., 15 C. D. 514 (1880) [affirmed, 19 id. 386 (1881)], in which B. had stated his belief that H.s patent on a steam-engine infringed his patent; following Wren r. Weild, L. R., 4 Q. B. 730 (1869), which also concerned the infringement of a patent. Compare case of libel of lettere patent, Meyrose V. Adams, 12 Mo. Ap. 329 (1882), See generally The wish to use the hodily powers of another person as a, means of ministering to one's own ease or pleasure is doubtless the foundation of slavery, i In the United States, up to July 28, 1868 (as see below), a slave had no political rights, and only such civil rights as were given him by local law. The offspring followed the status of the mother. See Partus. The master owned whatever property his slave acquired; and the slave could be a witness only for or against another slave or one who had been a slave; and he could sue in court only for his freedom: in other cases the master sued for his own use. If the master neglected to provide proper support for his helpless or Impotent slave, a public officer made the provision at the owner's expense. In Louisiana, for cruel treatment, the slave coiildbe emancipated; in Alabama and Texas, sale to another master was part of the penalty. He could be the subject of unlawful homicide; and was' himself responsible for acts of crime. His owner could manumit him: the effect being to make him, not a citizen, but merely a freeman.'-^ The first governmental action toward abolishing the slave-trade was the provision that " The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited - by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." ^ In 1807, importing slaves was made to cease after January 1, 1808; and in 1818, a law passed increasing the penalties of the trade. In 1819, the vessels and effects of citizens engaged in the trade were made liable to seizure and confiscation. And by the act of March 3, 1820, all persons over whom our jurisdiction extends, whether found on domestic or foreign vessels, concerned in the slave-trade, or in kidnaping ne-, groes or mulattoes, were to be deemed pirates and to suffer death. In Great Britain the trade was declared unlawful in 1807, and in 1SS4 it was made piracy. Since then efforts have been made by that nation, by treaties and otherwise, to suppress the trade everywhere. As early as 1793, the State of G-eorgia prohibited the trade.* Slavery is a status unprotected by the law of nations, supported, where it exists, by local law. Hence persons seized to be sold as slaves in a territory where the importation of slaves is forbidden, commit no crime when they get possession of the vessel, and J Maine, Anc. Law, 158, 157-^1. 2 See 2 Kent, 248-58; Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pick. 206-35 (1836), Shaw, C. J.; "Wood v. Ward. 2 Flip. 342-43 (1879), cases; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 22 (1883); 70 Ala. 388. " Everywhere, always, by everybody, in statutes alike of Virginia and Soiith Carolina, in speeches, in letters, slavery in those days (1787) was spoken of as an evil." 2 Bancroft, Const, 129 (1884). " Every word in the Constitution bearing on the subject was chosen with the greatest caution." lb.

164.

See also ib. 141-44, 151-64. either slay the crew or compel them to sail for another country, * The maxim in international law is that "the air makes free." If then a cargo of slaves is stranded on the soil of a state which prohibits slavery, there is noprocess, excepting express treaty, by which they can be prevented from availing themselves of their freedom. 2 ' But the Constitution provided that " No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour maybe due," s In the Dred Scott Case it was decided: that a free negro, whose ancestors were brought here and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution. "When that instrument was adopted, Africans were not regarded in any State as " people or citizens; " the two clauses which refer to them treat them as persons whom it was lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. A citizen may take into '[Jnited States ten'itory any article of property recognized as such by the Constitution, and the Federal government is pledged to protect him in his lawful uses of it. Dred Scott acquired no title to freedom by being taken by his owner into Illinois from Missouri; the status of a person of African descent depending on the law of the State in which he resides.* - See Amendments XIIJ, XTV, XV, under Citizen j Chattel; Debt, Public; Migration; Villein; War.