The Slave, being Property, may be hampered or confined to prevent his escape—may be pursued and reclaimed—must not be aided, or concealed from his Owner—and when too wild or refractory to be USED by his Owner, may be KILLED by him with impunity.

     THIS topic is closely connected with those of several of the preceding chapters, and is, in some of its aspects, a branch of them. The laws on this subject are too verbose and various to be transcribed at large, which would swell the volume and weary the reader. We shall present only an abstract of what is characteristic and most important, connected with the usages under them. One design of these laws and usages is to prevent escapes; another, to facilitate recaptures; another, to punish the fugitives and deter others; another, to punish slaves, free colored people, or whites who may entice or aid the fugitives.

     Prevention of escapes is sometimes sought by the use of iron collars, chains, handcuffs, locks, &c., as before mentioned, whenever the “owner” or his agent thinks proper; and the law, as has already

been seen, authorizes this, and punishes any one who may cut or break them.

     Another frequent precaution is the locking up of the slaves at eight, and this, too, is within the lawful power of the master, at his own discretion.

     In cities, corporate towns, &c., there are regulations forbidding the slaves or free people of color to be in the streets after a specified hour in the evening. At Wilmington, (N. C.,) we knew a case (1821) in which the holding of a Methodist meeting (under charge of white persons) a few minutes too late, occasioned the locking up of one half the worshipping assembly in the watch-house, men, women, and children, till eight or nine o’clock the next morning, church members and all, when the legal forms were gone through with, to effect their release; in which it appeared that a “class-leader” at the meeting had “taken up” five members of his own “class,” and all in obedience to “the law!”

     A general rule on plantations is, that slaves must not be absent from “quarters” in the evening, nor leave the plantation at any time without a written “pass.” In at least some of the States, there are laws strictly enforcing this rule. Then, there are “patrols” established in city and country, regulated by law, and clothed with ample powers to arrest whom they please, and see that the existing laws and usages are enforced.

     An Act of Maryland, (1715,) chap. 44, sect. 6, “for the better discovery of runaways, &c., requires that “any person or persons whatsoever,” travelling beyond

the limits of the county wherein they reside, shall have “a pass under the seal of said county;” otherwise, “if apprehended, not being sufficiently known, nor able to give a good account of themselves,” the magistrate, at his discretion, may deal with them as with runaways. (Stroud, p. 83.) This is particularly remarkable as being without distinction of color, and so applicable to the class of low whites. These, however, were to be released after six months, in distinction from “negroes and mulattoes.”

     To facilitate recaptures, sect. 7 of the same Act—“for the better encouragement of all persons to seize and take up all runaways travelling without pass, as aforesaid”—provides a bounty, in tobacco, (commuted for six dollars;) “to be paid by the owner” of said runaway; “and if such suspected runaways be not servants, and refuse to pay the same, he, she, or they shall MAKE SATISFACTION BY SERVITUDE OR OTHERWISE, &c.” In 1719, an additional provision authorized the sheriff, in case of nonpayment of costs, &c., by these wronged and innocent free negroes and mulattoes, to sell them to the highest bidder!!! This monstrous provision was afterwards expunged from the Code of Maryland, but not till after the cession of the Federal District, which therefore remains under the old law. And this furnishes the foundation of those laws of the Corporation of Washington City by which, at the present day, FREE NEGROES or MULATTOES arrested as fugitive slaves, and not being claimed by any one, are held liable for their jail fees, and, in default of payment, sold

into slavery. (Vide Jay’s Inquiry, p. 154; and Jay’s View, p. 33, &c., where it is shown that such cases frequently occur.)

     It is made the official duty of sheriffs and constables to arrest suspected fugitives, and of jailers to commit them to prison. By law of Maryland, (1723,) ch. 15, sect. 2, &c., it is made the duty of the constables to repair monthly to all suspected places, and whip every negro he finds there without a license!* Owners of plantations, by the same Act, are required to send home to their masters any “strange negroes” on their premises; they are authorized to whip them, &c.; and forbidden to harbor or encourage them, on penalty of fine, &c. Same law in Federal District. (Snethen’s Dist. Col., p. 13.)

     “In Georgia, any person may inflict twenty lashes on the bare back of a slave found without license on the plantation, or without the limits of the town to which he belongs. So also in Mississippi, Virginia, and Kentucky, at the discretion of the justice.” (Jay’s Inquiry, p. 134.)

     “In South Carolina and Georgia, any person finding more than seven slaves together in the highway without a white person, may give each one twenty

lashes.” (Ib.) Similar in Delaware: “more than six slaves.” (Delaware Laws, 104. Stroud, p. 102.)

     This law has also been introduced into Florida, since its cession to the United States, contrary to the milder code of Spanish slavery. Many of the Indian slaves in East Florida, with most of the free people of color near St. Augustine, transported themselves to Havanna, as soon as they heard of the approach of the American authorities. (Stroud, p. 101.)

     “In Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri, a slave, for keeping a gun, powder, shot, a club, or other weapon whatever, offensive or defensive, may be whipped thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice.” (Ib.)

     “In North Carolina and Tennessee, a slave travelling without a pass, or being found in another person’s negro quarters or kitchen, may be whipped forty lashes, and every slave in whose company the visitor is found, twenty lashes!” (Ib.) The visits of parents and children, husbands and wives, may be thus punished.

     “In Louisiana, a slave, for being on horseback, without the written permission of his master, incurs twenty-five lashes; for keeping a dog, a like punishment.” (Ib.) Horses and dogs, as well as weapons, might assist their escape.

     “By the law of Maryland, for ‘rambling, riding, or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the daytime without leave, a slave may be whipt, cropped, or branded on the cheek with the letter R, or otherwise punished, not extending to life, or so as to unfit him for labor.”(Ib.)

     In Georgia and South Carolina, “If any slave shall be out of the house, &c., or off the plantation, &c., of his master, &c., and shall refuse to submit to an examination by any white person, &c., such white person may apprehend and moderately correct him; and if he shall assault or strike such white person, he may be lawfully killed.” (2 Brevard’s Digest, 231. Prince’s Digest, 447. Sect. 5 of Act of 1770, and page 348, No. 43; title, Penal Laws. Stroud’s Sketch, p. 101.) The reader will recollect here that “moderate correction,” as legally defined, is such as may cause death! And the slave not submitting quietly to this may be lawfully killed!”

     “If any slave shall presume to come upon the plantation without leave in writing from his master, employer, &c., not being sent on lawful business, the owner of the plantation may inflict ten lashes for every such offense.” (1 Virg. Rev. Code of 1819, 422-3. Mississippi Rev. Code, 371. 2 Littel and Suigert’s Digest, 1150. 2 Missouri Laws, 741, sect. 3. Maryland Laws, Act of 1723, chap. 15, sects. 1 and 5.)

     North Carolina.—“Any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in swamps,” &c. (Act of 1741. Haywood’s Manual, 521-2. Stroud, 103.) Similar in Tennessee.

     In Maryland and District of Columbia, “If any negro or other slaves, absenting themselves from their master’s service, running out into the woods and there remaining, killing and destroying hogs

and cattle belonging to the people of this province, shall refuse to surrender themselves, and make resistance against such persons as pursue to apprehend and take them up, being thereunto legally empowered, it shall be lawful for such pursuers, when such resistance is made, to shoot, kill, and destroy such negroes or other slaves.” (Laws of Maryland, 1723, chap. 15, sect. 7. Snethen’s Dist. Col.)

     In North Carolina, (as cited in the chapter previous,) a proclamation of outlawry against a slave is authorized whenever he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and, to sustain life, “kills a hog, or some animal of the cattle kind.” (See Haywood’s Manual, 521. Act of 1741, chap. 24, sect. 45. Stroud, p. 38.) The same or similar in Tennessee:

     In Virginia, “in 1705, two justices of the peace were authorized, by proclamation, to outlaw runaways, who might thereafter be killed and destroyed by any person whatsoever, by such ways and means as he may think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for so doing.” (Stroud’s Sketch, p. 103.) This Act was, however, repealed in 1792. (Ib.)

     From an article in the Norfolk (Va.) Herald of Feb., 1837, it however appears that a case of slave hunting and shooting had just occurred “near New Point Comfort.” “It was not until a musket was fired at them, [the slaves,] and one of them slightly wounded, that they surrendered.” (Weld’s “Slavery as it is,” p. 160.)

     The customary usages of the South in general, on this subject, are such as to supersede the necessity of any formal proclamation of outlawry by the magistrates. The more general laws, as in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and District of Columbia, just now cited, sufficiently answer the same purpose.

     In South Carolina, “a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions, &c., be prepared, for the purpose of aiding such running away, shall be punished with DEATH.” (2 Brevard’s Dig., 233, 244.) “And a slave who shall aid and abet the slave so endeavoring to entice another slave to run away shall also suffer DEATH.” (Ibid.) An equivocal and unimportant modification of this Act was afterwards made. (Stroud, p. 104.) The “owner” of slaves sentenced to death is probably remunerated out of the public treasury. This is the law of Maryland. (Laws of Maryland of 1737, chap. 2, and of 1751, chap. 14. Vide Snethen’s Dist. Col., p. 16.)

     “If a slave harbor, conceal, or entertain another slave, being a runaway, in South Carolina and Georgia, he is subjected to corporal punishment to any extent, not affecting life and limb.” (2 Brevard’s Digest, 237. Prince’s Digest, 452.) In Maryland, thirty-nine stripes is the penalty for harboring one hour. (Act of 1748, chap. 19, sect. 4.)

     In South Carolina, “if a FREE negro harbor, conceal, or entertain a runaway slave,” he is fined ten pounds for the first day, and twenty shillings for every succeeding day; and if unable to pay the fines and charges, he may be SOLD at public outcry, and

the overplus, if any, paid into the hands of the public Treasurer.” (2 Brevard’s Dig., Act of 1740.)

     In August, 1827, the Charleston Court passed sentence, according to this law, against Hannah Elliott, a free black woman, her daughter Judy, and her sons Simon and Sam, and they were sold into slavery. (Stroud’s Sketch; p. 17.) Yet Judge Stroud is of opinion that that section of the Act of 1740 had been repealed. (Ib.) The law of 1821 provides “corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb.” (Ib.)

     White as well as colored persons are forbidden, under heavy penalties, to entice, transport, or secretly carry away slaves. (Laws of Maryland of 1715, chap. 19, sect. 4. Snethen’s Dist. Col., p. 12.) Also, forbidden to entertain slaves unlawfully absent. (Laws of Maryland, 1748, chap. 19, sect. 2, &c. Snethen, p. 17.) Also, masters of vessels to conceal slaves on board. (Laws of Maryland, 1753, chap. 9, sect. 3. Snethen, p. 19.)

     “By Aiken’s Alabama Digest, p. 109, it is declared that ‘any person or persons, being convicted of harboring or concealing any negro or negroes belonging to any other person or persons whatsoever, or suffering the same to be done with his consent or knowledge, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding seven hundred dollars, and shall be imprisoned not less than one calendar month, nor exceeding six calendar months; and shall be liable in damages to the party injured, to be recovered by action on the case before any tribunal having competent jurisdiction.’ And

similar enactments are to be found in the statute books of the other States.” (Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, note, pp. 264-5.)

     Giving passes to slaves is prohibited in Maryland by Act of 1796, chap. 67, sect. 20. (Snethen, p. 29.) And “free negroes or mulattoes” who may sell or give away their “certificates of freedom,” may be fined $300, which, if not paid, may be raised by the sale of such free persons into slavery! (Laws of Maryland, 1796, chap. 67, sect. 18. Snethen, pp. 28-9.)

     By Act of Congress of 1852, heavy penalties are imposed upon all persons who knowingly entertain or aid fugitive slaves; and it is made the duty of United States Commissioners, Marshals, and “all good citizens,” to assist in returning them.

     In our examination “of the laws concerning the murder and killing of slaves,” (Chap. XIV.,) we had occasion to cite some cases from Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, by which it would appear that the Courts are quite familiar with such occurrences as the shooting and killing of fugitive slaves, since the owners often bring suits against the “hunters” for damages in killing them! And these suits are as coolly argued and disposed of as if it were a question of the shooting of a mad bull. Sometimes, where the shooting appeared to have been needless, “rash, and incautious,” the plaintiff recovered damages. Other cases conclude with “judgment for the defendant.”

     The subject of “Runaway or fugitive slaves” occupies a distinct division or chapter, of above a dozen

pages, in Mr. Wheeler’s Compilation of Reported Cases. The decisions of the Courts are in harmony with the statutes already cited, and show that they are not a dead letter. We refer to a few cases. The first case introduces us to Slave Law as expounded in the State of New-York:

     Glen vs. Hodges, Jan. T., 1812; John’s New-York Reports, 67. Trespass for taking the plaintiff’s slave. The fugitive had been seized by his master in Vermont. The defendant, who had a claim on the negro for debt, pursued him, and, with a writ of attachment, took him from the plaintiff’s possession, and imprisoned him for debt. It was decided that the contract with a slave was void, and therefore the defendant had no right to take him. (Wheeler, pp. 266-7.)

     Hutchins vs. Lee, Dec. T., 1827; Walker’s Miss. Reports, 293. In this case it was decided that in the sale of a fugitive slave by a sheriff, “if the slave sell for less money because of any neglect in the sheriff to perform his duty, the remedy is by an action against the sheriff for damages.” (Ib., p. 270.)

     Labranche vs. Watkins, June T., 1816; 4 Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 391. This was a litigation between a slave owner and the sheriff, who had had him in custody as a runaway. The sheriff sold the slave, then bought him back of the purchaser. The Court decided the act of the sheriff to be fraudulent, and that “a runaway slave cannot be sold by the sheriff till he had been advertised two years.” (Wheeler, pp. 275-6.)

     Under the head of “harboring slaves,” in Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, a number of cases are put down, e. g.:

     Scidmore vs. Smith. The Court decided that “the penalty for harboring slaves is cumulative, and does not destroy the common law remedy.” (p. 442.) That is, the penalty for the criminal act is in addition to the damages that may be claimed by the master in a civil suit.

     We need occupy little space with proofs that the part of the Slave Code contained in this chapter, frightful as it is, is not a dead letter! Slave hunts, with muskets and bloodhounds, are too horribly frequent, by the testimony of the Southern journals, to admit of any doubt on this subject. And so are advertisements of runaway slaves by their owners, with offers of reward for them, “dead or alive”! or “for killing them,” or for “evidence of their being killed!” Of such slave hunts the inquirer may find ample details in Weld’s “Slavery as it is,” pp. 21, 97, 102, 108, 155, 160. Specimens of such advertisements may be found on page 156 of that book, together with a proclamation of outlawry, and an announcement of the consequent “killing” of a negro.

     The following advertisement is from the Ouachita Register, a newspaper dated “Monroe, La., Tuesday evening, June 1, 1852”:

     “The undersigned would respectfully inform the citizens of Ouachita and adjacent parishes, that he

has located about 2½ miles east of John White’s, on the road leading from Monroe to Bastrop, and that he has a fine pack of Dogs for catching negroes. Persons wishing negroes caught will do well to give him a call. He can always be found at his stand when not engaged in hunting, and even then information of his whereabouts can always be had of some one on the premises.

     Terms.—Five dollars per day and found, when there is no track pointed out. When the track is shown, twenty-five dollars will be charged for catching the negro.

     Monroe, Feb. 17, 1852. M. C. GOFF.”

     With a full knowledge of these laws and of these facts, nay, under the hardening effects of familiarity with them, our leading statesmen and religious teachers will affect to believe that the slaves are contented and happy in their present condition. In almost the same breath they will exhort us to the patriotic and Christian duty of enforcing the infamous Fugitive Slave Bill; quote the Bible and the Constitution to sustain their exhortations; and then complain of being slandered, if accounted pro-slavery!

     “No people were ever yet found who were better than their [recognized and living] laws, though many have been known to be worse.”

     Judge Tucker, Professor of Law in the University of William and Mary, Virginia, speaking of this law of “outlawry” of runaways, and others of a similar nature, said: “Such are the cruelties to which SLAVERY gives birth; such the horrors to which the

human mind is capable of being reconciled by its adoption.” (Stroud, p. 103.)

     The tree is known by its fruit. The laws on this subject, State and national, are but the natural progeny, as they are also the indispensable defenses of “the innocent legal relation.” Repeal them, and slave “property” takes to itself legs, and runs away. To recognize the right of “property” is to recognize the right of reclaiming it, and the duty of its restoration. But it is likewise to reverse the divine law: “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.)