about thirty similar ones in Weld's "Slavery as it is,” pp. 161–166:

From the Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 20, 1838.

"$50 REWARD.-Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man Pauladore, commonly called Paul. I understand Gen. R. Y. HAYNE* has purchased his wife and children from H. L. PINCKNEY, Esq.,† and has them now on his plantation at Goose-creek, where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently lurking. "T. DAVIS."

"$25 REWARD.-Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman named Matilda. It is thought she may be somewhere up James River, as she was claimed as a wife by some boatman in Goochland. "J. ALVIS."

"$10 REWARD for a negro woman named Sally, 40 years old. We have reason to believe said negro to be lurking on the James River Canal, or the Green Spring neighborhood, where, we are informed, her husband resides. POLLY C. SHIELDS.

"Mount Elba, Feb. 19, 1838."

From the Savannah Georgian, July 8, 1837.

"Ran away from the subscriber, his man Joe. He visits the city occasionally, where he has been har bored by his mother and sister. I will give one hundred dollars for proof sufficient to convict his harborers. "R. P. T. MONGIN."

* Ex-Governor of South Carolina, and U. S. Senator.

Member of Congress from South Carolina.

We add another, on page 156:

From the Wilmington (N. C.) Advertiser of July 13, 1838. "Ran away, my negro man RICHARD. A reward of $25 will be paid for his apprehension, DEAD or ALIVE. Satisfactory proof only will be required of his being KILLED. He has with him, in all probability, HIS WIFE ELIZA, who ran away from Col. Thompson, now a resident of Alabama, about the time he commenced his journey to that State. "DURANT H. RHODES."

We have some reason to believe that this Rhodes was originally from New-England. When he visits the North he will probably tell his friends that he has never known any cruel treatment of slaves. Should he dine with the parish pastor, the result would perhaps be a sermon on "the innocent legal relation !"

The hair-splitters in logic will nevertheless persist in admonishing us to distinguish between the "relation" and its "abuse." But what, we demand, must be the nature of a "relation" that is constantly producing such fruits?

Undoubtedly there are slaveholders who would not thus advertise slaves. But if, in refraining, they are governed by any moral principle, it must be a principle at variance with the "legal relation" of slave-ownership which authorizes such acts and interposes no check or disapprobation of them. The very idea of slave-ownership naturally suggests the right of doing such things. And when slave-owner

ship is held to be legalized, and is dignified with the name of a "legal relation"-and when these results (which some call "abuses") are neither forbidden nor discountenanced by the authorities that establish the said "legal relation," it is sheer sophistry to attempt discriminating between them so as to approve the one and condemn the other.

CHAPTER IX.

UNLIMITED POWER OF SLAVEHOLDERS.

The Power of the Master or "Owner" is virtually unlimited-The submission required of the Slave is unbounded-The Slave being "Property" can have no protection against the Master, and has no remedy or redress for injuries inflicted by him.

THIS proposition is substantially involved in the legal definition of slavery, as presented in our first chapter. The proof and illustration of it has been gradually evolving as we have proceeded thus far. It will continue to accumulate as we shall in future chapters examine the topics of slave labor, slave sustenance and clothing, slave punishments, and the intellectual and religious condition of slaves. every step, the slave will have been found wholly subject to his master, dependent upon him, and defenseless. In this chapter we shall aim only to present, in a condensed form, the precise doctrine of the Slave Code on this subject.

At

If the slave be the absolute property of his master -" entirely subject to his will "—" incapable of being injured"—"chattels personal, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever"-"not ranked

among sentient beings, but among things"-the subjects of absolute purchase and sale of seizure for debt of inheritance and distribution-incapable of possessing property-" not entitled to the conditions of matrimony"—" not capable of constituting families" (and all this has been shown)-then the master is indeed absolute, and the slave defenseless, of course. And any attempt by the Legislature or by the Courts to afford him protection, would be, in effect, an attempt to subvert "the legal relation of master and slave," and overturn the tenure of slaveownership entirely.

The question before us is, whether any such attempts have been made, and if so, how much, in a way of limitation and protection, has been accomplished.

We repeat, here, a quotation before made from Judge Stroud: "It is plain that the dominion of the master is as unlimited as that which is tolerated by the laws of any civilized country in relation to brute animals-to quadrupeds, to use the words of the civil law." (Stroud's Sketch, p. 24.)

We quote further and still more specific statements of the law, from the same writer:

"The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of labor to which the slave shall be subjected.

"The master may supply the slave with such food and clothing only, both as to quantity and quality, as he may think proper or find convenient.

"The master may, at his discretion, inflict any punishment upon the person of his slave.