Such, in brief, were the circumstances under which this great question of human freedom was to be decided, to serve as a precedent, for all coming time, to Massachusetts. And such were the men who took part in its decision.

It was not, as already stated, determined so much by any positive language or enactment in the Constitution, as by that all pervading sense of the community, that the time had come when that slavery, against which they had been so long struggling, was incompatible with their character as a free and independent State, and ought to be suppressed.

The strongest expression in the Constitution, perhaps, is the opening declaration of the Bill of Rights, that "all men are born free and equal," &c. Nor can too much credit be ascribed to the Hon. John Lowell in procuring the insertion of this clause, since it took from the Legislature the power of ever legalizing slavery without a radical amendment, by the people, of the organic law of the Commonwealth. But it will be perceived that the advocate for the slave, in this case, rested his claim upon the incompatibility of slavery with our condition as a people, quite as much as upon any new right declared or sustained by the Constitution. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly abrogates, or even recognizes slavery as an exist ing political institution.

The counsel for the master rested his rights, among other things, upon the following points :

In the first place, that the negro was a servant by his own consent, and therefore the defendant was liable for enticing him away.

But to this it was answered, that if such were the case, there must be some evidence of that consent, either express or implied, and the terms of it must be understood.

Besides, some term of time must be agreed upon; for if he consented to be the plaintiff's servant, and no time were agreed upon, it would be only during his own will, which he may put an end to whenever he pleases.

But that, in fact, there was no evidence of consent in the

case.

In the next place the plaintiff insisted he was his servant

by virtue of a bill of sale by which he became the property of Caldwell, from whom he passed to the plaintiff as husband of his owner, and such a bill of sale was produced on the trial.

And the general right of holding property in slaves was sustained upon several grounds.

1st. It is declared in Exodus, of a man's servant, that "he is his money."

But, said the defendant's counsel, "It is indeed said in Exodus that a man's servant is his money, and from this the counsel on the other side argues in favor of slavery." "But are you to try cases by the old Jewish law?"

This was an indulgence to that nation, and they could only make slaves of the heathen around them. But even by their severe laws, which required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, men were not allowed to make a slave of a brother. They might not make a slave of him, though they might hire him.

In the present case, Quork was their brother; they all had a common origin, were descended from a common parent, were clothed with the same kind of flesh, breathed the same breath of life, and had a common Saviour.

It was contended that the custom and usage of the country considered slavery as right.

But, it was replied, the objection to this is, that customs and usages which are against reason and right, are void.

So far as this question depends upon the laws of the State, any laws against the laws of nature are void. And that laws upholding slavery are against the laws of nature, he cited 1 Blackstone, 91, 131, 423.

If

"But is he a slave by the laws of the country?" there are laws of the State which derogate from the rights recognized by the common law, they are to be strictly construed. And such a law is contrary to the Constitution, as well as to the laws of nature. "The air of America is too pure for a slave to breathe in.”

The counsel on the other side insist that slavery is a respectable affair in this country. But the question to be decided, was not whether it was respectable or not.

Has the defendant enticed away the plaintiff's servant, as is claimed in his writ?

When a fellow-subject is restrained of his liberty, it is an attack upon every other subject, and every one has a right to aid him in regaining his liberty.

What, in this respect, are to be the consequences of your verdict? Will it not be tidings of great joy to this community? It is virtually opening the prison doors, and letting the oppressed go free!

Could they expect to triumph in their struggle with Great Britain and become free themselves, until they let those go free who were under them? Were they not act ing like Pharaoh and the Egyptians, if they refused to set these free?

But the plaintiff insists that it is not true, as stated in the Constitution, that all men are born free; for children are born and placed under the power and control of their parents.

This may be. But they are not born as slaves; they are under the power of their parents, to be nursed and nurtured and educated for their good.

And the black child is born as much a free child in this sense, as if it were white.

Then, again, it is contended that the Constitution only determines that those that have been born since its adoption are equal and free. And they admit that since that time, every body is born free. And they say that by a different construction, people will lose their property.

This is begging the question. Is he property? If so, why not treat him as you do an article of stock-an ox or a horse?

It is again said that it is for the jury to inquire whether the custom of slavery is a good or a bad custom.

But if tried by that test, is it not a bad custom?

What are its consequences? How does slavery originate? Kidnapping and man-stealing in the negro's country, while its consequences here are, that the infant may be wrested from its mother's breast and sold or given away like a pig or a puppy, never more to be seen by the mother.

Is not this contrary to nature? Does not Heaven say so in the strongest manner? Is not one's own child as dear to the black subject as to the white one? Can a mother

forget her sucking child? Do not even the beasts and the birds nurture and bring up their offspring, while acting from their instincts?

But under such a law as this, the master has a right to separate the husband and wife. Is this consistent with the law of nature? Is it consistent with the law of nature to separate what God has joined together, and declared that no man should put asunder?

The opposite counsel, however, urge that by the laws of England a person may, for a crime, be sent into other parts of the world, away from parents, sisters and brothers, never more to return.

In the present case a subject of this free Commonwealth may be taken, without crime, from his friends, his father and mother, and sisters and brothers, and shipped off with spavined horses, as an article of merchandize, to the West Indies.

They say that in the early history of the country, slaves were needed to cultivate the earth. But instead of that, now, the employing of them does an actual injury to the poorer classes of people, by being in the way of their finding employment.

Is he a slave by the custom of the country? A custom must be general, to be binding as such. This is not a general custom. It has ever been against the principles of some to make slaves, and some have freed them.

It must, moreover, be undisputed, in order to be binding. But this has always been disputed-in the General Court, in the Courts of Justice, and elsewhere.

It must, besides, not be against reason.

In making out that negroes are the property of their masters, the counsel for the plaintiff speak of lineage, and contend that the children of slaves must be slaves in the same way that, because our first parents fell, we all fell with them.

But are not all mankind born in the same way? Are not their bodies clothed with the same kind of flesh? Was not the same breath of life breathed into all? We are under the same gospel dispensation, have one common Saviour, inhabit the same globe, die in the same manner, and though the white man may have his body wrapped in

fine linen, and his attire may be a little more decorated, there all distinction of man's making, ends. We all sleep on the same level in the dust. We shall all be raised by the sound of one common trump, calling unto all that are in their graves, without distinction, to arise,-shall be arraigned at one common bar, shall have one common judge, and be tried by one common jury, and condemned or acquitted by one common law-by the Gospel — the perfect law of liberty.

This cause will then be tried again, and your verdict will there be tried. Therefore, gentlemen of the jury, let me conjure you to give such a verdict now, as will stand this test, and be approved by your own minds in the last moments of your existence, and by your Judge at the last day.

It will then be tried by the laws of reason and revelation.

Is it not a law of nature, that all men are equal and free?

Is not the law of nature the law of God?

Is not the law of God then against slavery?

If there is no law of man establishing it, there is no difficulty. If there is, then the great difficulty is to determine which law you ought to obey, and if you shall have the same ideas as I have of present and future things, you will obey the former.

The worst that can happen to you for disobeying the former, is the destruction of the body; for the last, that of your souls.

Though this sketch must, from the nature of the case, be little more than a meagre outline of the respective grounds taken by the counsel in this case, enough is seen to justify the remark that the case turned and was decided upon the strong, prevailing sentiment that pervaded the community, rather than the positive provisions of the Constitution.

Ι

These, indeed, were sufficient to sustain the court and jury in the conclusions to which they came; yet I apprehend it was accomplished more by relieving the courts from the overshadowing influence of the crown, by a final