« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
doctrines of the common law, and the statutes of their own State, will not solve. At all events, brief as they are, they are the substance of what has yet been arrived at by the tribunals.
II. Statutory Offences by and against Slaves.
§ 741. The discussion thus far in this chapter has related to the matter as it stands independently of particular statutory provisions. But, in all the States where slavery exists, there is special legislation, intended to protect the rights of master, of slave, and of the community in respect of this relation. And even where the harder doctrines before mentioned are entertained, as deductions from general principles of jurisprudence, the hand of legislation has extended, to the person of the slave, a protection more or less broad. The rules for interpreting the statutes on this subject differ not materially from the general rules laid down in the earlier part of this volume. Perhaps, on some points, the decisions of the States are not harmonious. Of this latter nature is the question, how far the general statutes of the State against crimes apply to slaves; some courts holding that they apply, others, that they do not apply.1
§742. Among the statutory offences against the persons of slaves, are murder and manslaughter,2 mayhem,3 assault,*
1 See, on this point, The State v. Wright, 4 McCord, 358; Eskridge v. The State, 25 Ala. 30; Worley v. The State, 11 Humph. 172; Commonwealth v. Carver, 5 Rand. 660; The State v. Tom, Busbee, 214; The State v. Whyte, 2 Nott & McCord, 174; Nix v. The State, 13 Texas, 575.
2 The State v. Fleming, 2 Strob. 464; The State v. Boon, 1 Taylor, 246; The State v. Cheatwood, 2 Hill, S. C. 459; The State v. Smith, 1 Nott & McCord, 13; The State v. Taylor, 2 McCord, 483; The State v. Raines, 3 McCord, 533.
The State v. Abram, 10 Ala. 928.
* Carpenter v. The State, 23 Ala. 84.
unlawful beating,1 the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment,2 and malicious stabbing. On the other hand, provisions against rape and other injuries,5 perpetrated by slaves on white people, abound in the slave codes.
§ 743. In our second volume will be found something concerning the slave-trade; 6 and concerning the stealing of slaves, and like offences against slave property. In some States, it is indictable to deny that owners have the right of property in slaves. There are also statutes against exciting rebellion and insurrection among this class of the population.9
§ 744. Another very important branch of the statutory law relates to the modes of the employment of slaves. We have therefore the offence of permitting them to go at large, or to hire their own time, committed either by the master or the slave; 10 the offences also of practising medicine; 11 of having property of their own; 12 of holding disorderly meetings; 13 of being employed in stamping cotton; 14 and of living isolated, to a degree specified, from the oversight of white men.15
1 The State v. Wilson, Cheves, 163; Commonwealth v. Howard, 11 Leigh, 631.
2 Turnipseed v. The State, 6 Ala. 664.
3 Commonwealth v. Chapple, 1 Va. Cas. 184.
* Wash v. The State, 14 Sm. & M. 120.
The State v. Nicholas, 2 Strob. 278.
Vol. II. § 1026.
Vol. II. § 1025.
Bacon v. Commonwealth, 7 Grat. 602; ante, § 136.
The State v. McDonald, 4 Port. 449; The State v. Tom, 2 Dev. 569. 10 The State v. Clemons, 3 Dev. 472; The State v. Clarissa, 5 Ired. 221 ; The State v. Woodman, 3 Hawks, 384; The State v. Nat, 13 Ired. 154; Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 6 J. J. Marshall, 185.
11 Macon v. The State, 4 Humph. 421; ante, § 146.
12 Clarke v. Blake, 3 McCord, 179; Richardson v. Broughton, 3 Strob. 1.
13 The State v. Boozer, 5 Strob. 21. And see The State v. Boyce, 10 Ired. 536.
14 Wragg v. The State, 14 Ala. 492.
15 The State v. Mazyck, 2 McCord, 473; The State v. Blythe, 3 McCord, 363.
Then there is the crime of trading with slaves, except under restrictions mentioned in the statutes.1
§ 745. The foregoing sections present specimens only of the legislation of the several States in which slavery exists. Any attempt at further elucidation of the legal questions growing out of this relation would lead us too far into the local jurisprudence of particular States. Thus is closed the discussion of the matters intended for the present volume. In the next volume, we shall examine the law of the specific offences; and so finish the work.
1 Barnett v. Powell, Litt. Sel. Cas. 409; The State v. Stroud, 1 Brev. 551; The State v. Chandler, 2 Strob. 266; James v. The State, 9 Humph. 308; The State v. Dawson, 2 Bay, 360; The State v. Coleman, Dudley, S. C. 32; The State v. Fife, 1 Bailey, 1; The State v. Isaacs, 1 Speers, 223; The State v. Anone, 2 Nott & McCord, 27; Worrell v. The State, 12 Ala. 732; Jolly v. The State, 8 Sm. & M. 145; The State v. Thornton, 2 Brev. 408; The State v. Meyer, 1 Speers, 305; The State v. Saunders, 9 Port. 326; The State v. Von Glon, 1 McMullan, 187; The State v. Hart, 4 Ired. 246; Hurt v. The State, 19 Ala. 19.
[ 750 ]
TO CASES CITED IN THIS VOLUME.
In the following Index, where the plaintiff is the King or Queen (Rex, Reg. or
Abrahams v. Commonwealth (1
Abrahat, Rex v. (2 Leach, 824;
Abram, State v. (4 Ala. 272) 93, 674