uttering any words tending to mutiny or insurrection, subjects a slave to the punishment of death, and immediate execution is ordered.* The attempt to commit, as well as the actual commission of crimes, is frequently punished with death by the insular statutes, but only when the offenders are slaves. In those parts of the United States be lawfully punished with ten lashes on the bare back, by order of the owner or overseer of such plantation.* These provisions have been copied verbatim by the legislatures of Missourit and Kentucky. Laws nearly similar in principle though differing in form, prevail in South Carolina and Georgia. In Virginia we find the following where slavery is extensively preva-provision: no negro or mulatto slave lent, the difference in the penal laws as applied to slaves and persons of colour, and as applied to whites, is very remarkable. The progress which any people have made in civilization is, perhaps, most correctly estimated by || the character of their laws, and particularly by the severity or mildness of their penal code. The progress of our sister republics of the south, estimated upon this principle, would appear very different according as the standard used was a black or a white one. By the existing laws of Virginia, any slave who shall go from the tenements of his master, without a pass or written document, expressive of the consent of his master or overseer, is liable to be taken up, by any person whatever, and carried before a justice of the peace, to be by him punished with stripes or not, at his discretion. And any slave presuming to come or be on the plantation of any other person whatever, without leave in writing from his owner or overseer, not being sent upon lawful business, may * Stephen, p. 304. It is asserted that in Jamaica a slave cannot be executed, except by authority of the governor's warrant, except in case of rebellion. Whether the same provision has been extended to any other island does not appear. whatever, shall keep or carry any gun, powder, shot, club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, but every gun, &c. found in the possession of any negro or mulatto, may be seized by any person, and upon due proof before a justice of the peace, shall be forfeited to the use of the seizer; and every such offender shall be punished, by order of the justice, with any number of lashes not exceeding thirty-nine, on the bare back, for every such offence. An exception is made in favour of slaves on frontier plantations, a licence being allowed them, from a justice of the peace, granted at the request of the master. § Free negroes and mulattoes are subjected to nearly similar restrictions in regard to the possession of weapons of offence, except that no corporal punishment is awarded, unless for a second offence. The Laws of Kentucky,|| North Carolina, Tennessee and Missouri,** contain provisions of nearly similar import. In the last of these states free negroes and mulattoes, keeping guns, * 1 Revised Code, p. 423. Laws of Missouri, p. 741. Littel and Swift, p. 1150. § 1 Revised Code, p. 423. Littel and Swift, p. 1150. Haywood, p. 521. ** Laws, p. 741. &c. without license, are punishable in the same manner as slaves. More than seven men slaves, without a white person with them, travelling or assembled together in any high road, may in some of the states, be apprehended by any person, and whipped, not exceeding twenty lashes each.* A slave travelling by himself from his master's land to any other place, unless by the most usual road, may be lawfully punished by the owner of the land where he shall be found, with forty lashes.† A like punishment is awarded for travelling in the night without a pass, or for being found in the negro quarters or kitchen of another. And every negro in whose company such vagrant slave shall be found, is liable to a punishment of twenty lashes. For hunting || with dogs, in the woods even of the master, the slave is punishable with thirty lashes.+ These instances compose a part, and only a part, of the punitory powers with which the laws of our slaveholding states have armed the white population, in addition to the comprehensive authority of the master over their poor crouching dependants. These offences we may observe, are all the creation of law, and such as involve no moral turpitude. None but slaves would be adjudged delinquents for similar actions. It is, doubtless, supposed by the legislatures of the slave-holding states, that such enactments are necessary for the preservation of the white population. Wanton and needless cruelty is not to be lightly charged upon * 2 Brev. Dig. p. 243. Prince's Dig. p. 454. Del. Laws, p. 104. Haywood, p. 518. + Ibid, p. 524. the authorities of our sister republics. But if such is the nature of slavery, that the system can be maintained by no milder means than these barbarous enactments, what more cogent argument against the system, can possibly be urged by the most strenuous abolitionist, than this direful necessity? If a system is liable to no other objection than the necessity it imposes to tolerate a course of legislation at which justice and humanity revolt; and which can only be maintained at the expense of all the finer feelings of the human heart, that necessity presents an imperious demand for a speedy change. A careful and dispassionate inquiry, whether even the system of slavery could not safely dispense with some of these revolting provisions, might probably furnish our southern brethren with a profitable employment for a portion of their time. Whatever difference of opinion may exist on other points, we must all agree that it is the duty of masters to allow to their sable dependants as large a share of the rights of humanity and of the enjoyments of life, as can be done consistently with their own safety. There is one species of offence, which, to a mind that has been nurtured in the lap of slavery, may appear sufficiently odious, but which, in the view of one that has always breathed the atmosphere of freedom, can hardly be identified with crime. The reader need hardly be told that I allude to elopement.* For this of *If the reader should infer from this passage, that the writer would encourage slaves to leave, in a clandestine manner, the service of their masters, he would be much deceived. He could heartily wish that elopements fence the punitory powers of the mas ter might be supposed amply sufficient. In North Carolina a slave may be outlawed for running away and lurking in swamps, &c. and any person may lawfully kill such outlawed slave. A similar law formerly prevailed in Viaginia, but in 1792, was expunged from their code.† In South Carolina, a slave endeavouring to entice another slave to run away and leave the state, if provisions, arms, ammunition, horse, boat, canoe, or other vessel have been prepared to aid such elopement, is, by law, punishable with death; and a slave who were much less frequent than they are, and that till the way shall open for the peaceful extinction of slavery, the load might be patiently borne: yet if freedom is the natural birthright of man, it is difficult to discover the criminality under ordinary circumstances of its simple resumption. *Haywood, p. 521-2. † Judge Tucker, an inhabitant, and I believe, a native of Virginia, remarks upon this law, "such are the cruelties to which a state of slavery gives birth, such the horrors to which the human mind is capable of being reconciled by its adoption." App. to Black. Com. The enactments on this subject exhibit a curious instance of the contest of policy and humanity. The first act of 1740, made the attempt to entice a slave to run away and leave the province, punishable with death. The legislature of 1751, after referring to this act, and pronouncing the punishment too great for the nature of the offence, declared, not that a punishment less severe should be inflicted, but that that part of the act should not take effect unless such slave shall have actually prepared provisions, &c. whereby the intention shall be manifested. Thus changing the evidence, but not the nature of the offence; unless we suppose it meant that the provisions must be stolen, which from the terms of the act, would not appear to be essential. shall aid and abet the slave so endeavouring to entice another slave to run away, is also able to a like punishment. In South Carolina and Georgia, a slave who shall harbour, conceal, or entertain another slave, being a runaway, is liable to corporal punishment to any extent not affecting life or limb. In Maryland the penalty for harbouring a runaway slave one hour, is thirty-nine lashes. A law of the state of Mississippi, found among those of the session of 1824, appears capable of being made the instrument of very unwarrantable cruelty. "When any slave or slaves shall be committed to any jail in this state, as a runaway or runaways, it shall be the duty of the jailer of said county to interrogate him, her, or them, as to his, her, or their owner or owners' name or names, and place of residence, and the accounts thus received, together with a description of the slave or slaves, the jailer shall forthwith transmit by mail, to the owner or owners named by the slave; and if the statement made by such slave or slaves shall prove to be false, it shall be the duty of the jailer, without delay, to give the said slave or each of them, twenty-five lashes, well laid on, and interrogate him, her, or them anew, and transmit the intelligence obtained, together with a description as aforesaid, to the owner or owners again named, and whip as before directed if a second false account is given; and and so on for the space of six months, it shall be the duty of the jailer alternately to interrogate and whip as aforesaid, whenever the slave or slaves 2 Brevard, p. 233, 244. t2 Brevard, p. 237. Prince, p. 452. + Maryland Laws, 1748. may give a false account of his, her, or their owner or owners' name and place of residence." more completely calculated to render man reckless of punishment and crime, than the repeated suffering of unjust and cruel chastisements. The law before us is designed, and in terms confined to fugitive slaves; but may not the inflictions authorised by it sometimes fall upon the strange and unknown free coloured person? In Georgia, if any free person of colour commits the offence of inveigling or enticing a slave to quit the service of his owner, or to leave the state, such offender is liable on conviction, to be sentenced to one year's confinement in the penitentiary at hard la It is obvious, that if the jailers, to whom this power is delegated without the aid of counsel, and without express responsibility, were usually selected from among the most humane and discerning of the citizens, there would be sufficient danger of abuse. The ignorance of the slaves, respecting many of the particulars of which they are required to give an account; the possibility that statements, if correctly given, may be misunderstood; the difficulty of transmission by post in a country recently and imper-bour, and at the expiration of the year, fectly settled; the impracticability of distinguishing between real and pretended ignorance, and between stupidity and perverseness, must impose on the jailer, however patient and sagacious, a task not easily executed with fidelity to his trust, and humanity to the slave. But the nature of the employment, and the qualities requisite for its performance are not likely ta enlist very generally those citizens who are distinguished || for the milder virtues, or to preserve unimpaired the finer feelings which they may at first possess. If such law should be often executed, the officer and the victim must unavoidably suffer a sad deterioration of the proper qualities of man. Cruelty frequently exercised, though with reluctance and pain, must blunt the sensibilities of our nature, and render its further infliction easy and natural. A Roman assembly could behold with delight || the murderous exhibitions of gladiators, a sight from which the eye unaccustomed to scenes of horror could not fail to turn with abhorrence. And probably there is nothing which is to be sold to the highest bidder, as a slave for life.* In South Carolina, a law of 1740, not expressly repealed sirce, subjects a free negro, mulatto, or mustee, who shall be convicted of harbouring, concealing, or entertaining a fugitive slave, to a penalty of £10 for the first day, and 20 shillings for each subsequent day to the use of the owner of such fugitive; and in case the offender shall not pay the forfeiture with the costs of prosecution, he is to be sold, and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of the forfeiture and costs, and the remainder, not to the use, or to provide towards a fund for the eventual redemption of the person soldbut to the public treasury.† By an act of 1821, a free person of colour, convicted of the above mentioned offence, before two justices of the peace and five freeholders, is subjected to such corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb, as the said justices and * Prince's Digest, p. 461, laws of 1816. † 2 Brevard's Digest, 237. *Act of 1821, sect. 20. A trial of much interest took place on Saturday last at the City Hall, before a court, composed of John Michel, Esq. justice of the Quorum, and two freeholders. The parties put upon their trial, were Hannah Elliott, a free black woman, together with her daughter Judy, and her sons Simon and Sam. They were severally indicted under the act of 1740, for harbouring, concealing, and entertaining two female children, slaves, aged about 6 and 9 years, the property of a lady of this city, the extraordinary concealment and discovery of which was mentioned a short time since. After a patient investigation of all the circumstances of the case, the prisoners having the aid of able counsel, the court found them all guilty, and sentenced them, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid act, as follows: Hannah Elliott, with having harboured these slaves, for the term of two years, and her children, with having harboured them respectively, for sixteen months each. The penalty under the act, is a forfeiture of ten pounds currency for the first day, and twenty shillings currency for every day after, to the use of the owner of any slave so harboured, concealed or entertained. The act also provides that in case the forfeiture cannot be levied on such free negro, together with the charges attending the prosecution, the parties must be sold, at public out-cry, and the money arising from such sale, be applied in the first place, towards the forfeiture due to the owner, &c. and the overplus, if any, be paid into the public treasury. Charles. Cour. By a subsequent article it appears these individuals were actually sold white person, committing this offence, is liable to a penalty, sufficiently severe to answer the purposes of justice, but essentially different from that of a coloured person. In illustration of the proposition as relates to the punishments awarded to acknowledged crimes, the provisions of a few of the states will be particularly noticed. The code of Virginia, having been recently revised, and that state being generally allowed to have furnished its full share of brilliant characters, the selection of this code cannot be reasonably considered as invidious. In that state, murder in the first degree, arson at common law, wilfully setting fire to a house in a town, or aiding, &c. herein, are severally punishable with death, whatever the colour or condition of the offender may be.* But a slave is punishable for, 1st, Murder in the second degree with death, and a free white man with imprisonment at hard labour, for not less than five, nor more than eighteen years. 2d, Being accessary to arson, with death; but the free white man with imprisonment for not less than ten, nor more than twenty-one years.§ 3d, Wilfully setting fire to a barn, a stable, corn house, or other house; to any stack of wheat, barley, oats or other grain, hay, straw, or fodder, or advising or assisting in the perpetration of either of these crimes, into slavery. And thus in the year 1827, a number of free persons were converted into slaves. The crime of which they were convicted is by this process caused to work corruption of blood of a more oppressive character, than any European attainder can effect. *1 Revised Code, pp. 616 and 587. |