belief that the murderer's design was the correction of the slave -that possibly (and possibilities are usually urged as sufficient justification for acquittals, where life is in jeopardy) the measure bestowed was moderate, and of course the death must have been accidental.

In South Carolina, (act of 1740,) the legislature having by some means made the discovery, as they set forth in the law, that "cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess themselves Christians, but is odious in the eyes of all men who have any sense of virtue or humanity-to restrain and prevent barbarity being exercised towards slaves," enacted, "That if any person whosoever, shall wilfully murder his own slave, or the slaves of any other person, every such person (i. e. the offender) shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of seven hundred pounds, current money, and shall be rendered for ever incapable of holding, exercising, &c. any office, &c. and in case any such person shall not be able to pay the penalty and forfeiture hereby inflicted and imposed, every such person shall be sent to any of the frontier garrisons of the province, or committed to the work-house in Charleston for the space of seven years, &c. &c. at hard labour." 2 Brev. Dig. 241. This pecuniary mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a slave in this state, from the year 1740 to the year 1821, a period of more than eighty years. But wilful murder, in the sense in which the epithet wilful is here used, it is not very likely would be often* perpetrated by the master. The species of murder, the cruelty of which can scarcely be exaggerated by

* Perhaps in this supposition I am mistaken. I find in the case of "The State vs. M'Gee, 1 Bay's Reports, 164, it is said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the state, "that the frequency of the offence (wilful murder of a slave) was owing to the nature of the punishment," &c. &c. Relatively, however, I have no doubt the latter species of this crime, i. e. murder by undue correction, &c. must have been much more common. A reflection naturally suggests itself from the remark of Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, which I have here transferred. This remark was made in 1791, when the above trial took place. It was made in a public place-a court-house-and by men of great personal respectability. There can be, therefore, no question as to its verity, and as little of its notoriety; nevertheless, thirty years elapsed before a change of the law was effected!!

any description, and which there is a strong probability, would be not unfrequently chargeable upon the master or his overseer, is delineated in another section of the same act, and guarded against, how adequately, the reader will judge for himself, from the following quotation: "If any person shall, on a sudden heat or passion, or by undue correction, kill his own slave, or the slave of any other person, he shall forfeit the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, current money." Ibid. 241.

The first named of these sections, I have already mentioned, has been repealed by an act of 1821, which punishes the wilful, malicious and deliberate murder of a slave, by death without benefit of clergy. The latter section, so far as relates to the killing of a slave on a sudden heat or passion, has been supplied by an enactment in the same year, which DIMINISHES the pecuniary penalty to five hundred dollars, but authorizes an imprisonment not exceeding six months. James' Digest, 392.

Where the life of the slave is thus feebly protected, his limbs, as might be expected, share no better fate. I quote again from the act of 1740, of South Carolina. "In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye,* castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money." 2 Brevard's Digest, 241. This section has, as far as I have been able to learn, been suffered to disgrace the statute book from the year 1740 to the present hour. Amidst all the mutations which Christianity has effected within the last century, she has not been able to conquer the spirit which dictated this abominable

To say nothing of the trifling penalty for mutilation, what idea of humanity must a people entertain, who, by direct legislation sanction the beating, without limit, of a fellow crea

* How different was the Mosaic law: "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.” "And if he smite out his man servant's tooth, or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Exodus, chap. 21, verses 26, 27.

ture, with a horsewhip or cowskin-and the infliction of any torture which the ingenuity and malignity of man may invent, in the application of irons to the human body, and the perpetual incarceration, if the master so will, of the unfortunate slave, in a "dungeon keep," however loathsome. Such, nevertheless, is the just interpretation of this law-a law too, which at the same time denominates these very acts WHICH IT AUTHORIZES, cruel punishments.

Louisiana has borrowed the last section of the South Carolina law, with the exception of what respects mutilation, and making the penalty not more than five hundred dollars, nor less than two hundred. See 1 Martin's Digest, 654. Whatever remarks, therefore, were made upon that law, will apply equally to this. Her new Civil Code effects no reformation of the old law, but is content with the enunciation of a general principle, which is regarded, no doubt, as the quintessence of humanity. "The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with unusual rigour, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death." Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 173. How far the power of the master is limited by the expression unusual* rigour, may be easily inferred, when it is recollected that the law of South Carolina last noticed, had been in full force in Louisiana for many years before, and was so at the time when the Civil Code was adopted.

The constitution of Mississippi bestows upon the general assembly power to make laws to oblige the owners of slaves to

So lately as 1819, the legislature of Louisiana recognized the practice of putting iron chains and collars upon slaves, to prevent them from running away. The act reads thus: "If any person or persons, &c. shall cut or break any iron chain or collar, which any master of slaves should have used in order to prevent the running away or escape of any such slave or slaves, such person or persons so offending shall, on conviction, &c. be fined not less than two hundred dollars, nor exceeding one thousand dollars; and suffer imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, nor less than six months." Act of Assembly, of March 6, 1819-pamphlet, page 64. It is worthy of special commemoration, that the legislature of the same state, by the law given above in the text, from 1 Martin's Digest, 654, imposes a much less penalty for the infliction of "cruel punishments," of the most atrocious description, upon the slave.

treat them with humanity-to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb; and, in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of the owner or owners. Const. Mississippi, Title Slaves, sect. 1; Rev. Code, 554. In the exercise of the power thus granted, in the first and second clauses, viz. "to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb," the general assembly have passed this act: "No cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted on any slave within this state. And any master or other person entitled to the service of any slave, who shall inflict such cruel or unusual punishment, or shall authorize or permit the same to be inflicted, shall, on conviction, &c. be fined according to the magnitude of the offence, at the discretion of the court, in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars," &c. Rev. Code, 379* (act of June 18th, 1822.) Without the testimony of the slave, I again remark, a law of this nature may be regarded as nugatory. But, abstractedly considered, what protection does it hold forth. "Cruel" and “unusual,” connected as they are by the disjunctive "or," mean precisely the same thing, and will be so construed by the And what horrible barbarities may be excused under the name of usual punishments, the reader will be enabled to judge by recurring to the laws of South Carolina and Louisiana, contained on the preceding pages.

court.

But what reason can be alleged for not putting in requisition at once, the important power, "to have slaves sold from their owners who neglect or refuse to comply with the directions of laws designed to secure humane treatment to such slaves." This point will be the subject of separate examination hereafter, and I forbear therefore enlarging upon it now.

The constitution of Missouri has gone beyond that of Mississippi, in relation to the protection of slaves from the inhumanity of their masters; for it not only empowers the legislature "to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to

*Alabama has a similar law, except as to the penalty, which is but one hundred dollars. Toulmin's Digest, 631.1

abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb," Art. 3, §26, last clause (1 Missouri Laws, 48) but it is made its DUTY to pass such laws as may be necessary for this purpose. If this injunction be regarded in its proper light, it will be incumbent on the legislature to remove the restriction which has been imposed on the reception of the testimony of all who are not whites. As yet, no law has been enacted on the authority of the article in the constitution; on the contrary, there is an act which confers upon the master a new mode of inflicting punishment on the slave, which may be perverted to subserve purposes most cruel. "If any slave resist his or her master, mistress, overseer or employer, or refuse to obey his or her lawful commands, it shall be lawful for such master, &c. to commit such slave to the common gaol of the county, there to remain at the pleasure of the master, &c.; and the sheriff shall receive such slave, and keep him, &c. in confinement, at the expense of the person committing him or her." 1 Missouri Laws, 309. While for the obvious reason, that the master, if cruel and vindictive, can gratify his disposition in a manner less expensive, and much less troublesome to him in its execution, and more severe towards his victim, I do not think it probable this power will be abused; yet, viewing man as he is, no law ought to justify and assist in the imposition of a punishment of this nature, to be prosecuted to any extent which a wicked heart may desire.

Upon a fair review of what has been written on the subject of this proposition, the result is found to be―That the master's power to inflict corporal punishment to any extent, short of life. and limb, is fully sanctioned by law, in all the slave-holdingstates-that the master, in at least two states, is expressly protected in using the horsewhip and cowskin, as instruments for beating his slave-that he may, with entire impunity, in the same states, load his slave with irons, or subject him to perpetual imprisonment whenever he may so choose-that for cruelly. scalding, wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out an eye, and for any other dismemberment, if proved, a fine of one hundred pounds currency only is incurred in South Carolina-that though in all the states the wilful, deliberate and malicious mur