"entailed" slaveholding, like other "inherited" and "entailed" transgressions, incur guilt when they are voluntarily adopted and cherished. In the case of any other "inherited" sin, they would readily make the requisite explanation.

This feature of the "legal relation," deemed so "innocent," so capable of white-washing with the supererogation of its meritorious innocency the crimes of successive generations and whole nations of slave-breeders and slave-venders, with their approving Senates and Synods, will be found, on a close scrutiny, to embody one of the most foul and damning features of the whole system—the feature of self-perpetuity-of self-transmission to the future; the quality of seducing and cursing posterity—securing the sin and the shame, the wretchedness and the hopelessness of the unborn. It is an "innocent relation," forsooth! because it embodies, and because (as is claimed) it even necessitates these results.

No feature of the slave system is more terrific to the poor slave than this. The hazards of a voluntary sale, by his master, he and his loved ones may escape. The dreaded mortgage, and creditor, and sheriff, may pass them by untouched. But there is a mortgage hanging over them, that all the gold of California cannot lift. There is a creditor whose debt against the master must be cancelled, but seldom without touching some of them. There is a sheriff, whose warrant is already out, who may seize at any day, and will soon seize, but probably not without touching them, if alive! The death of the master is

the close of their respite. They are liable to be "distributed," like other "property," among the "heirs," whoever and wherever they may be, "for goods they are, and as goods they are esteemed,"—" chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, THEIR EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS AND ASSIGNS, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever." This is the very definition of an American slave, and there is no escape from the condition it describes, but by the "fanaticism of abolition." This is the "legal relation" too innocent to be questioned, claiming relationship with Abraham and Moses, the sanction of Jesus and Paul!

From the Georgia Journal.

"TO BE SOLD.-One negro girl, about eighteen months old, belonging to the estate of William Chambers, deceased. Sold for the purpose of distribution.

Here, again, the practice corresponds with the theory, and the people are in harmony with their laws.

How the distribution of slave property among heirs and legatees is effected under the Code Noir, or where slaves are held as real estate, as in Louisiana, we are not minutely informed. If the soil and the slaves must remain together, a distribution would seem to require the whole to be sold, and to one purchaser. We doubt whether such a restriction obtains, at present, in that State. Under the old

feudal system, the estate, consisting of soil and serfs, was kept together by the law of primogeniture, entailing it to the eldest son, in perpetuity. The repeal of that law has been justly regarded as a step in the march of human progress; but if the "peculiar institution" of slavery is to remain, humanity might, perhaps, invoke its re-enactment, as it might prevent the separation of slave families, or rather, permit their existence.

CHAPTER V.

USES OF SLAVE PROPERTY.

Slaves, as Property, may be used, absolutely by their owners at will, for their own profit or pleasure.

PROPERTY is that which may be used by the owner. "The slave is one who is in the power of a master, to whom he belongs." "Goods they are, and as goods they are esteemed." This is the law of the relation. "As goods," therefore, they may be used, while, like other goods, they "perish with the using." 'Have I not a right to do what I will with mine own?' is a question affirming a prerogative universally claimed. Admit the validity of the ownership, and the right of use follows of course. If the "legal relation" be an innocent one, the right of use and the exercise of that right are innocent likewise, provided the use be a legitimate one. We shall see what uses are deemed legitimate by those who have shaped, defined, and administered "the relation."

It is true that the use of property by the owner is limited by the rights of other persons. But slaves are not persons in the view of the law, for any nur

poses of benefit to them; as will hereafter be more fully shown. The rights of a slave are not recog nized, and no limitation of the master's use of him can come from that quarter. "The slave" (says

the law) "is entirely subject to the will of his master." Nothing, therefore, can prevent the master from putting him to any use he pleases.

It is also true, that the use of property by the owner is limited by the nature of that property. Thus, a living horse, or other domestic animal, may not lawfully be hacked and hewed to pieces, as a block of wood may be. The barbarity may be punished. The most that can be claimed for the Slave Code, on this point, is, that by placing slaves upon a level with other live cattle, it entitles them to the same kind and degree of protection. Beyond this, the Slave Code, so far as we know, never attempts or pretends to protect them. It knows them only as mere animals. Their rational and moral natures, not being recognized by the laws, can claim no legal protection. Sufficient evidence of this has already been adduced, but it will accumulate as we proceed. And it will be seen that as a mere animal, the slave has not equal protection, in some respects, with other animals.

We will specify some of the uses of slave property.

1. A prominent use of slave property is unrequited slave labor. The hired laborer is employed. The slave laborer is used as a horse or an ox is used. His labor is held to be the property of his owner. At this point he is degraded to the level of a brute,