UNCLE TOM'S CABIN

" , T
slavery
.
L.
72 KEY TO UNCLE TOM S CABIN.
of the most brutal nature, cases sometimes brief statement of the case,
as presented in
arise for trialwhere the consistent exposition
Wheeler, p. 239.
of the law involvesresults so loathsome It was an action for assault and battery
and frightful, that the judgeprefers to be committed by Dale on one Cornfute's slave.
illogical, rather than inhuman. Like a spring It was contended by Cornfute's counsel that
outgushing the desert, some noble man. it was not necessary to prove comfute".
now and then, from the fulness of his own loss of service, in order that the Aprfi
"""?"
tion for the battery of his villein,
That the slave-code is designedonlyfor the Chief Justice Raymond had decided that
securityof the master, and not with regard
to the welfareof the slave.
unless accompanied with specialdamage
a
This is impliedin the whole current of of the animal,which would impair his valuelaw-making
and law-administration, and is Chief Justice Chase decided that no redress
often asserted in distinctform,with a
precision
could be obtained in the case, because
and clearness of legal accuracy which, the value of the slave had not
hi a literary point of view,are quite admirable.
and without injuryor wrong to the master
Thus,JudgeRuffin,after stating that no action could be sustained ; and as--
considerations restricting the power of the signedthis among
other reasons for it țhat
master had often been drawn from a comparison
there was no reciprocity in the case, as the
of slavery with the relation of parent master was not liablefor assault and battery
and child, master and apprentice, tutor and committed by hisslave,neither could he gain
pupil,says distinctly :
redress for one committed upon his slave.
Let any reader noAv imagine what an
The court does not recognize their application. amount of wanton cruelty and indignity may
There is no likeness between the cases. They are
be
in opposition to each other, and there is heapedupon an impassable
a slave man or woman or
child without
gulfbetween them.
# # # #
actually impairing their power
In the one [case], the end in view isthe happinessto do serviceto the master, and he willhave
of the youth, born to equal rights with that governor,
a full sense of the cruelty of this decision.
on whom the duty devolves of training the In the same spirit it has been held in
young to usefulness, in a stationwhich he is afterwards
North Carolina that
* * * *
to assume among freemen. With
patrols(nightwatchmen)
it is far otherwise. The end
are not liableto the master
Tate v 0'Neai,
Wheeler's Law
""
j7
.. c ., . ",.
of ts t'ie
Slavery,page profitof the master, Ins secu- for inflicting punishmenton the i Hawks, 4ia!
"
246.
rity and the ol
S. Die; Ṣup.
publicsafety. slave,unless their conduct clear- 2, P. 797," 121.
lydemonstrates malice agains the master.
Not only is this principle distinctly asserted
The cool-bloodedness of some of these legal
in so
many words,but itis more distinctly
discussions is forcibly shown by two decisions
implied in multitudes of the arguings in Wheeler's Law of Slavery, p.
and reasonings which are given grounds
243,
as On the question whether the criminal offence
of legal decisions. Even such provisions as
of assault and battery can be committed on
seem to be for the benefit of the slave we
a slavețhere are two decisions of the two
often findcarefully interpreted so as to show
Statesof South and North Carolina ; and it
that it is only on account of his propertyis value to his master that he isthus protected,
difficulto say
which of these
State v. Maner,
decisions has the
and not from any consideration of humanityforcool legalinhumanity Ṭhat Law of slavery,
towards himself. Thus it has been decided
page
of South Carolina reads thus.
243"
that a master can bringno actionfor assault
JudgeO'Neill says
wheeier' s Law
an(lbattery on his :
slave,unless
of y' p'
S1-"39^ie inJury oe such as to The criminal offence of assault and batterycan
produce
a loss of service.
not, at common law, be committed upon the person
The spirit in which this question is discussed
of a slave. For notwithstanding (for some
is worthy of remark. We purposes)
give a slave is regardedby law as a person,
a yetgenerally he is a mere chattel personal, and his
iJi^JVi-
better nature, throws out a legaldecision, action should be sustained;that l nar. " Johns.
generously inconsistentwith every principle an action might be supported for Kep' *"
and precedent of slave jurisprudence, and beatingplaintiff's horse; and
we bless God for it. All we wish is that that the lord might have an ac- ner's A'br- 45i
there were more of them,for then should
which is
we hope that the day of redemption was founded on thisprinciple, that, as the villein
drawingnigh.
could not support the actionțhe injury
The reader is now preparedto enter would be without redress,unless the lord
with us on the proof of this proposition : could. On the other sideit was saidthat Lord
an assault on a horse was no cause of action,'
been impaired,