SLAVE. One over whose life, liberty, and property another has unlimited control. The jag vitce et necis is included in pure or abso lute slavery. Such a power has no founda tion in natural law; and hence the Justinian Code declared it contra naturant esse. Inst.
1. 4. 2.
2. Every limitation ,placed by law upon this absolute control modifies and to that extent changes the condition of the elnve. In every slaveholding state of the United Statee the life end limbs uf a slave were protected from violence inflicted by the master or third persons.
Among the Romans the slave was classed among things (ree). He was homo eed non pereomr. Heineecius, Elem. Jur. 1. 1, 75. He was considered pro nullo et mortuo, quia nee statu familim nee eivitatis nee libertatis gaudet. Id. 77. See, alao, 4 Dev. No. C. 340; 9 Ga. 582. In the United States, as a person, he was capable of committing crimes, of receiving his freedom, of being the subject of homicide, aud of modifying by his voli tion very moterially the rules applicable to other species of property. His existence as a person being recognized by the law, that existence was protected by the law. 1 Hawks, No. C. 217; 2 id. 454; 1 Ala. 8; 1 Miss. 83; 11 id. 518; 2 Va. Cas. 394; 5 Rand. Va. 678; 1 Yerg. Tenn. 156; 11 Humphr. Tenn. 172.
3. In the slaveholding states the relations df husband and wife and parent and ohild were recognized by statutes io relation to public ealee, and by the courts in all eases where such relationa were material to elucidate the motives of their acta. A slave has no political rights, the government being the judge who shall be its citizens. His civil rights, though necessarily more restricted than the freeman's, are based upon the same founda tion,—the law of the land. He has none but such as are by that law and the law of nature given to him. The rule "partue eegititur ventrem" was adopted in all the elaveholding states, the status of the mother at the time of birth de ciding the status of the issue. 1 Hen. dc M. Va. 134; 2 Rand. Va. 246; 4 id. 600; l'Hayw. No. C. 234; 1 Cooke, Tenn.381; 2 Bibb, Ky. 298; 2 Dan. Ky. 432; 5 id. 207; 2 Mo. 71 ; 3 id. 540; 8 Pet. 220; 14 Berg. Is R. Penn. 446; 15 id. 18 ; 2 Brev. No. C. 307; 3 Harr. & M'H. Md. 139 ; 20 Johns. N. Y. 1 ; 12 Wheat. 568; 2 How. 265, 496. In South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Virginia, Louisiana, and perhaps Maryland, this rule wae adopted by statute.
4. Tbe slave cannot acquire property : his acqui sitions belong to his master. 5 Cow. N. Y. 397 ; 1 Bail. So. C. 633 ; 2 Hill, Ch. Se; C. 397 ; 2 Rieh. So. C. 424; 6 Humphr. Tenn. 299; 2 Ala. 320; 5 B. Monr. Ky. 18fi. The peentium of the llomnn slave was ex gratia, and not of right. Institutes, 2. 9. 3 ; Heineccius, Elem. Jur. lib. ii. tit. xviii. In like manner, negro slaves in the United States were, as a matter of fact, sotnetimes permitted by their masters, ex gratis:, to obtain and retain property. The same was true of ancient villeins in England. The slave could not be a witness,
except for and against slaves or free negroes. Tbia was, perhaps, the rule of the common law. None but a freeman was othemoorth. The privi lege of being Sworn was one of the characteristios of a " liber et legalie homo." To lose this privilege, amittere liberant legem, was a severe punishment. 3 Blacketooe, Comm. 340 ; Forteseue, e. xvi. ; Coke, Litt. 6 1), With thia the civil law agreed. Huberus, Pradect 1. xxv. tit. v. 2. In the United States the rule of exclusion which we have mentioned was enforced in all easee where the evidence was offered for or against free white persons. 6 Leigh, Va. 74. In most of the states this exclusion is hy express statutes, while in others it 'exists by custom and the decision of the courts. 10 Ga. 519. In the slaveholding states, and in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, end Iowa, by statute, the rule has been extended to include free persons of color or emancipated slaves. 14 Ohio, 199; 3 Harr. 16 J. Md. 97. The slave could be a suitor in court only for his freedom. For all other wronga he appeared through his master, for whose bene6t the recovery was had. 9 Gill 85 J. Md. 19 ; 1 Litt. Ky, 326; 1 Mo. 608; 4 Yerg. Tenn. 303; 3 Brev. No. C. 11; 4 Gill, Md. 249; 9 La. 156 ; 4 T. B. Monr. Ky. 169. The euit for freedom is favored. 1 Hen. do M. Va. 143; 8 Pet. 44; 2 A. K. Marsh. Ky. 467; 2 Call, Va. 350; 4 Rand. Va. 134. Lopse of time worked no forfeiture by reason of his dependent condition, 3 Dan. Ky. 382; 8 B. Monr. Ky. 631 • 1 Hen. ds M. Va. 141; and such was the civil 'law. Code, 7. 22. 2. 3. The minter was bound to maintain, support, and defend his slave, however helpless or impotent. If he failed to do so, public: officers were provided to supply his fleficieney at his expense. In Tennessee the master in such a case was responsible for all that he stole.
5. Cruel treatment was a penal offence of a high grade. Emimeipation of the alave was the conse quence of conviction in Louisiana; and the sale of the slave to another master was a part of the pen alty in Alabama and Texas. In some of the an cient German states, and also by the " Code noir," another and more effectual penalty was a total dis qualification of the master forever to hold slaves.
Among the ancient Lombards, if a master de bauched his slave's wife, the slave and his wife were thereby emancipated. Among the Romans, double damages were given fur the corruption of a slave. The enfranchisement of a slave is called manumission. The word is expressive of the idea. Thus, Littleton, 204, " man umittere giu)d idem eet, good extra mamma, vel poteetatem alte. rine ponere." ,Manumission being merely the with drawal of the dominion of the master, the right to manumit exista everywhere, unless forbidden by law. No one but the owner ean manumit, 4 J. J. Marsh. Ky. 103; 10 Pet. 583 ; and the effect is aimply to make a freeman, not a citizen. The state must decide who shall be citizens. See MANUMIS