four, and five days in succession. We have no Saturnalia here—unless we choose thus to designate a coffle of slaves, on the fourth of July, rattling their chains to the sound of a violin, and carrying the banner of freedom in hands loaded with irons.
In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on receiving information on oath of any infirm slave or slaves, being in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make particular inquiries into the situation of such slaves, and render such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a white man upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made? Not of the slave, nor of his companions,—for their evidence goes for nothing: and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior courts, if, from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable to prove that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this risk, for a starving slave?
Prop. 3.—Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold, pledged, &c.
The advertisements in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of evidence.[1] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the republic of the United States!
In Louisiana there is indeed a humane provision in this respect: "If at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through old age or other-
- ↑ A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not persons enough in the affair to constitute a riot, because the slaves were mere chattels in the eye of the law. It was however decided that when liable to the punishment of the law, they were persons.
