ity in the entire array, excepting the opinion of the Court in 1796, already referred to.
This "unanimous opinion of the Court," in 1796, which has been ſo often quoted to ſuſtain the reputation of Maſſachuſetts for early and conſiſtent zeal againſt ſlavery, will hardly ſuffice to carry the weight aſſigned to it. In the firſt place, the facts proved to the jury in the case itſelf were ſet at naught by the Court in the ſtatement of this opinion. We quote them, omitting the peculiar phraſeology by which they are diſguiſed in the report.
An action was brought by the inhabitants of Littleton, to recover the expenſe of maintaining a negro, againſt Tuttle, his former maſter. It was tried in Middleſex, October Term, 1796. The negro's name was Cato. His father, named Scipio, was a negro ſlave when Cato was born, the property of Nathan Chaſe, an inhabitant of Littleton. Cato's mother, named Violet, was a negro in the ſame condition, and the property of Joſeph Harwood. Scipio and Violet were lawfully married, and had iſſue, Cato, born in Littleton, January 18th, 1773, a ſlave, the property of the ſaid Harwood, as the owner of his mother. Maſs. Reports, iv., 128, note.
But whatever may be inferred from theſe facts taken in connection with the "opinion" of the Court, in 1796, we aſk the attention of the reader to another caſe a little later, before the ſame tribunal. In the caſe of Perkins, Town Treaſurer of Topsfield, vs. Emerson, tried in Eſſex, the Court held that a certain negro
caſes," it is to be regretted that Mr. Gray did not aſcertain from the files whether "the ſaid Amos" was a native of Maſſachuſetts!
