right of protection from assaults by them. "The slave, to REMAIN a slave," said Judge Ruffin, "must be sensible that there is NO APPEAL from his master." Allow slaves to testify, and the hitherto unimagined secrets of the Bastile would explode like an earthquake. Universal humanity would unite in one general crusade, and break down the whole fabric.

CHAPTER IV.

SUBJECTION TO ALL WHITE PERSONS.

"Submission is required of the Slave, not to the will of the Master only, but to the will of all other White Persons." (Stroud's Sketch, pp. 96-7.)

IN Georgia it is enacted, that "If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the Justice or Justices, according to the directions of this Act, shall, for the first offense, suffer such punishment as the said Justice or Justices shall, in his or their discretion, think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offense, suffer DEATH." "Provided always, that such striking, &c., be not done by the command and in the defense of the OWNER or OTHER PERSON having the care and government of such slave, in which case the slave shall be wholly excused, and the owner or other person, &c., shall be answerable, as if the act had been committed by himself." (Prince's Digest, 450.)

South Carolina has an Act in the same words, except that death is the penalty of the third offense, instead of the second. (2 Brevard's Digest, 235.)

In Maryland, for this offense, the offender's ears may be cropped, though he be a free black. (Act of 1723, chap. 15, sect. 4.)

In Kentucky there is the same prohibition; and, as in Maryland, free colored persons are included. Penalty, "thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on." (Littell and Swigert's Digest, 1153.)

In Virginia, the same as in Kentucky, from 1680 till 1792, when the following exception was added: "Except in those cases where it shall appear to said Justice that such negro or mulatto was wantonly assaulted, and lifted his or her hand in his or her selfdefense." (1 Rev. Code, 426-7.)

In Maryland, "If any slave shall happen to be slain for refusing to surrender him or herself, contrary to law, or in unlawful resisting any officer, or other person, who shall endeavor to apprehend such slave or slaves, &c., such officer or other person so killing such slave, as aforesaid, making resistance, shall be and is by this Act indemnified from any prosecution for such killing aforesaid," &c. (Maryland Laws, Act of 1751, chap. 14, sect. 9.) This is cited by Judge Stroud as a specimen of the laws of several States, (pp. 98-9.)

South Carolina.-Act of 1740: "If any slave who shall be out of the house or plantation where such slave shall live or shall be usually employed, or without some white person in company with such slave, shall refuse to submit to undergo the examination of any white person, it shall be lawful for any such white person to pursue, apprehend, and mode

rately correct such slave; and if such slave shall assault and strike such white person, such slave may be lawfully killed"!!! (2 Brevard's Digest, 231.)

It does not appear that any of these laws recognize or contemplate any self-defense by the slave, male or female, from the most villanous assaults of any white person, except the Act of Virginia. And as the 'negro or mulatto," whether bond or free, cannot lodge a complaint, or even testify, it is not easy to see how the exception can be made available for his or her benefit. Such laws illustrate the general position already laid down, that the Government cannot secure to the master his assumed right of slave ownership, and yet extend to the slave civil protection. If the negro be a chattel, he must needs be restrained from straying; he must be held subject, like other domestic animals, to the superior race holding dominion over him. It would be preposterous for the Legislature to attempt doing this by a process which should at the same time provide for his protection as a man! It would be abusive to demand this at their hands, if the "relation" of human chattelhood is to be held legal and innocent!

Yet the existence of such laws renders more than probable, and even certain, the common prevalence of the worst outrages that could be imagined. The best laws cannot fully protect the weaker portion of a community against the stronger. The weak must be left utterly defenseless when all protecting laws are only repealed. But the climax is reached when, by express statute, each member of the weaker class

is placed under the absolute control of any one of the dominant class; when resistance is forbidden on penalty of stripes and cropping by the public authorities, with the liability of being "lawfully killed" by the assailant! If civil government were designed for human demoralization and torture, it is to see how its ends could be more effectually

not easy reached.