1849.-An act to authorize the establishment of separate schools for the education of colored children, and for other purposes. 47 O. L. p. 17. Curwen, c. 893. Sec. 5. "The term colored, as used in this act, shall be construed as being of the same signification as the term 'black or mulatto,' as used in former acts." 6. Repeals an act on the same subject, of 1848 [Curwen, ch. 849], the act of 1804, and the amending acts, "and all parts of other acts so far as they enforce any special disabilities or confer special privileges on account of color," except certain acts relating to juries and to the relief of the poor.

1851. A new Constitution. Art. I. sec: 6. "There shall be no slavery in this State, nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime." Art. V. sec. 1, restricts the elective franchise to whites. Art. IX. sec. 1. Militia service imposed on whites only.

1857.-An act to prohibit the confinement of fugitives from slavery in the jails of Ohio. 54 O. L. p. 170; repealed 1858, see 55 O. L. p. 10, and an act of 1859, Oh. L. vol. 54, p. 158, requires State jailers to receive all persons committed by the authority of the United States.

-.

—. An act to prevent slaveholding and kidnapping in Ohio. 54 O.L. 186. Enacts that a person bringing another into the State with the intent " to hold or control, or who shall hold or control, or shall assist in holding or controlling, directly or indirectly, within this State, any other person as a slave," shall be deemed guilty of false imprisonment, and be punishable by fine and imprisonment," and every person coming within this State, otherwise than as a person held to service in another State, under the laws thereof, and escaping into this State, shall be deemed and held in all courts as absolutely free. 2. Penalty for seizing such person as a fugitive slave. 3. Penalty for kidnapping. 4. "Nothing in the preceding sections of this act shall apply to any act done by any person under the authority of the Con

That all persons nearer white than black are "white," has been decided in Jeffries v. Ankeny; Thacker v. Hawk, 11 Ohio R. 372, 376; Lane v. Baker, 12 Ohio R. 237; Williams v. School District, Wright's R. 578, where Gray v. Ohio, 4 Oh., 354, is cited.

Anderson v. Millikin, 9 Critchfield's Oh., 568:-That persons having a preponderance of white over negro blood are not excluded from voting.

stitution of the United States, or of any law of the United States made in pursuance thereof." Repealed in 1858; see 55 Oh. L. p. 19.

An act to prevent kidnapping. 54 O. L. 221. Sec. 1. Against kidnapping free blacks. 2. "That no person shall kidnap or forcibly or fraudulently carry off or decoy out of this State any black or mulatto person or persons within this State, claimed as fugitives from service or labor, or shall attempt to kidnap or forcibly or fraudulently carry off or decoy out of this State any such black or mulatto person or persons, without first taking such black or mulatto person or persons before the court judge or commissioner of the proper circuit, district, or county having jurisdiction according to the laws of the United States, in cases of persons held to service or labor in any State escaping into this State, and there, according to the laws of the United States, establishing by proof his or their property in such person." 3. Punishment for offending against the above by imprisonment at hard labor. 4. Repeals the act of 1831.'

1859. An act, Oh. L. vol. 56, p. 120. Judges of elections required to reject the offered vote of a person "who has a distinct and visible admixture of African blood."

In Richardson v. Beebe, 3 Western Law Journal (Sept. 1846), p. 563, the plaintiff had been arrested under the act of 1831 for carrying away one Berry, a black man, without taking him "before any judge or justice of the peace in said county, and without establishing his right of property in him agreeably to the laws of the United States, before any justice in said county." Wood, C. J., and Burchard, J., in the Supreme Court of Ohio, held that the warrant showed that the person had been seized and removed as a slave, and not as a freeman; that, on Prigg's case, the State law was void in interfering with such an arrest, and held that the warrant committing the plaintiff was void on the face.

2 This is reported to have been held unconstitutional, so far at least as it might affect persons having more than one half white blood, in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas, in the case of one Watson.

No law expressly authorizing the executive to surrender fugitives from justice, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, seems ever to have been passed in Ohio. An act of Feb. 22, 1811, To secure the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, 29 Oh. L. 164 (Swan's St. of 1854, c. 54), sec. 9, declared that citizens should not be sent out of the State, but with proviso that persons charged with having committed treason, felony, or misdemeanor in any other part of the United States might be sent to the State having jurisdiction. But this appears to have been repealed in 1856, being omitted in the re-enactment of that year and of 1858. See Correspondence, Mar., 1860, between the Governors of Ohio and Kentucky, in cases of Merriam and Brown,

$560. LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.

On the separate organization, in 1800, of that portion of the Northwest Territory which afterwards became the State of Ohio,' the remainder was designated the Indiana Territory, in which the laws of the former Northwest Territory continued with the guarantees in the ordinance of 1787.

1803, Sep. 22. A law of this date-a law concerning serv ants-is referred to in the act next cited."

1806, 2d. Sess. 1st Assembly, c. 10, concerning executions. Sec. 7. "And whereas doubts have arisen whether the time of service of negroes and mulattoes, bound to service in this Territory, may be sold on execution against the master, Be it therefore enacted that the time of service of such negroes or mulattoes may be sold on execution against the master, in the same manner as personal estate, immediately from which sale the said negroes or mulattoes shall serve the purchaser or purchasers for the residue of their time of service; and the said purchasers and negroes and mulattoes shall have the same remedies against each other as by the laws of the Territory are mutually given them in the several cases therein mentioned, and the purchasers shall be obliged to fulfill to the said servants the contracts they made with the masters as expressed in the indenture or agreement of servitude, and shall, for want of such contract, be obliged to give him or them their freedom due at the end of the time of service, as expressed in the second section of a law of the Territory, entitled 'Law concerning servants,' adopted the twenty-second day of September, eighteen hundred and three. This act shall commence and be in force from and after the first day of February next." c. 19. An act concerning servants and slaves enacts that servants and

1 See act of Congress of May 7, 1800, ante, p. 116 n. 3. Sec. 4. Provides for a general assembly, as by the act for the government of the Northwest Territory, whenever it shall be "the wish of a majority of the freeholders." The elective franchise is not fixed.

* Cornelius v. Cohen, Breese, 92. An indenture signed, in 1804, by the negro alone, that is, not before the clerk of the county court, held void.

Jan. 11, 1805. An act to divide the Indiana Territory into two separate governments. II. Ú. S. Stat. 309, 3 B. & D., 632:—Separates the Indiana Territory from the Michigan Territory by the present boundary between the States bearing

those names.

slaves shall have passes, shall not wander about, and forbids harboring them, under penalty.

1807, Sep. 17. An act for the introduction of negroes and mulattoes into this Territory.' Terr. laws 1807-8, 423. Sec. 1. Provides "That it shall and may be lawful for any person being the owner or possessor of any negroes or mulattoes of and above the age of fifteen years and owing service and labor as slaves in any of the States or Territories of the United States or for any citizens of the said States or Territories purchasing the same to bring the said negroes and mulattoes into this Territory." 2. "The owners or possessors of any negroes or mulattoes as aforesaid, and bringing the same into this Territory, shall within thirty days after such removal go with the same before the clerk of court of common pleas of proper county, and in presence of said clerk the said owner or possessor shall determine and agree to and with his or her negro or mulatto upon the term of years which the said negro or mulatto will and shall serve his or her said owner or possessor," and the clerk shall make a record. 3. "If any negro or mulatto removed into this Territory as aforesaid, shall refuse to serve his or her owner as aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful for such person within sixty days thereafter to remove the said negro or mulatto to any place [to] which, by the laws of the United States or Territory from whence such owner or possessor may [have come] or shall be authorized to remove the same." (As quoted in Phoebe v. Jay, Breese Ill. R. 208.) 4. An owner failing to act as required in the preceding sections should forfeit all claim and right to the service of such negro or

The territorial government from time to time memorialized Congress for the purpose of modifying the ordinance of 1787, so as to allow the temporary introduction of slaves born within the United States. A committee of the House of Representatives, John Randolph, Chairman, reported, March 2, 1803, adversely. 1 Am. State Papers, Public Lands, p. 146. A committee of the same body, Feb. 17, 1804, reported a resolution favoring the petition with certain limitations. 1 Am. State Papers Misc. 387. A similar report made Feb. 14, 1806. Ibid. 450. To another resolve of the territorial legislature, Ib. 467, a committee of the House, 12 Feb., 1807, reported favorably. Ib. 477. To a similar resolve a committee of the Senate, Nov. 13, 1807, reported adversely. Ib. 484.

2 In Rankin v. Lydia (1820), 2 A. K. Marshall, 469, held that if brought back to Kentucky the slave is there entitled to freedom.

mulatto. 5. "Declares that any person removing into this Territory and being the owner or possessor of any negro or mulatto as aforesaid, under the age of fifteen years; or if any person shall hereafter acquire a property in any negro or mulatto under the age aforesaid and who shall bring them into this Territory, it shall and may be lawful for such person, owner or possessor to hold the said negro to service or labor, the males until they arrive at the age of thirty-five, and females until they arrive at the age of thirty-two years." Sec. 6. Provides that any person removing any negro or mulatto into this Territory under the authority of the preceding sections, it shall be incumbent on such person within thirty days thereafter to register the name and age of such negro or mulatto with the clerk of the court of common pleas for the proper county. 8. Requires new registry on removal to another county. 8, 9. Penalties by fine for breach of this act. 10. Clerk to take security that negro be not chargeable when his term expires. 12. Fees. 13. That "the children born in said Territory of a parent of color owing service or labor, by indenture according to law, should serve the master or mistress of such parent, the males until the age of thirty and the females until the age of twentyeight years." (As quoted in Boon v. Juliet, 1836, 1 Scammon, 258.) 14. That an act respecting apprentices misused by their master or mistress should apply to such children.' (See the

Phoebe v. Jay (1828), Breese Ill. R. 208. Opinion of the court, Lockwood, J. :"If the only question to be decided was whether this law of the Territory of Illinois conflicted with the Ordinance, I should have no hesitation in saying that it did. Nothing can be conceived farther from the truth, than the idea that there could be a voluntary contract between the negro and his master. The law authorizes the master to bring his slave here and take him before the clerk, and if the negro will not agree to the terms proposed by the master, he is authorized to remove him to his original place of servitude. I conceive that it would be an insult to common sense to contend that the negro under the circumstances in which he was placed had any free agency. The only choice given him, was a choice of evils. On either hand, servitude was to be his lot. The terms proposed were, slavery for a period of years, generally extending beyond the probable duration of his life, or a return to perpetual slavery in the place from whence he was brought. The indenturing was, in effect, an involuntary servitude for a period of years, and was void, being in violation of the Ordinance, and had the plaintiff asserted her right to freedom, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of this State, she would, in my opinion, have been entitled to it." This case recognized and approved in Boon v. Juliet, 1 Scammon, 258; and Sarah v. Borders, 4 ib. 345.