Satanic Slaveholding

Wlieo Satan öbtninèd power over Job ' to nfilirt hfm, the Upright thnn was committed fully iuto hisfnnd, snving tlml Satan was forbidden to lake the lile of hisj victi ii. Huw niucti a man can be malo ' to iu'Fer, and yet live, Job had occasion to reali.e. The insiitittion of slavery, I which is Satanic and hell-begoiten, givcsj equril power to the slaveholders. The! apologists of the infernal systcm have ofton proclaimed tht the slaves were secured by law from any thing more ihnn moderate correction. The falsiiy of this has been provod in tiie case of t hal boy in NewOrleans whose horrible conjition we ciled from the N. Y. Courier and Jinquirer. The boy had hoen whipped by order of his master, lint tl his back was a complete masss of corruption. He was token to the hospital, and was unable to ! to leave his roomit theexpiration of iour weeks. There was a strong excüement on the subject, and the Attorney General was con3ulted in reference to the punishmei.t of the master and the prison agent vho caused the stripes to be infiicted. - The result is t!ius announced iu the New Orleans Tropicof June 10: ;The Attorney General hasgiven it as lis opinión that there is no law by which ! lie owner of the slave Augusto, or the ailor ander whose charge the brutal punslirnent was inílicted upon him. can be reached. This is the case of the HttTo mulntto boy who was sent to the pólice jnil of ihe First Munici'pality, and there chastised, day after dny, until bis bock was onei mass of raw, trembling, and part putrid llesh." The master hasconimenced a suít against the Editor of the N. O. Picayune for a libel, growingout of the remarks of thal pnper. But the slave is also plr.ced in the absolute power of the hircr as well as the owner, who bas powers of beating the slave to an equal extent. In proof of this, we will adduce an extract from a decisión of the Supremo Court of North Carolina in 1829. It is well worlh reading, as it shows the horrible nature of this institution as developed n the cool and philosophical language of a jadge. The State vs. Mann.-Dec. T. 1829. 2 Devereux's North Carolina Bep. 263. The defendant was indicted foc an assault and battery upon Lydia, the slave of one Elisabeth Jones. On the trial it ! nppeared, that the defendant had hired the i slave for a year; thnt during the tenn the slave had committed some small offence, for which the defendant undertook to chastise her; that while in the act oí' so doing, the slave run off; whereupon the j defendant called upon her to stop, which being reiused, he shot at and woimded her. The judge in the court below cl)arged 5he jury, t lint if iliey believcd the punishment inflicted by the defendant was cruel and unwarraniable, and disproportionate to the oflence committed by the slave, ihat in law the defendant was gnilty, as he had only a special property in the slave. A verdict was returned for the state, and the defendant nppealed. In givihg the opinión of. the Court, Judge RutTiu said: "The inquiry here is, whether a cruel and unreasonable battery on a slave, by liie hiror, is indictable. The judge below instructed the jury, that it iá. Heseems to have put it on the ground, that the defendant had but a specisl property. Our laws uniformly treat ihe master or other porson havingthe possession andcommand of the slave, as entitled to the snrae extent óf aüthorïty. The object is the same, the service of the slave; and the same powers must be con fided. Id n criminal pro! ceeding, and indeed in reference to all othcr persons but the general owner, the hirer and possc?sor of the slaye in relaion lo both righis and dut es, is, for the lime being, the owner. This opinión i would, perhaps, dispose of this particular case; because the indictment, which charges a batlery upon the slave of Elizabelh Jones, ia not supported by proof uf a batlery npon defendant's own slave; since diflereni justifications may be applicable io the two crises. But upon the general question, whether the owner isanaerable crnninaiiier, for a butlery upon his own slave, or olher exercise of authori'.y or furce, not farbidden by stuiute, the cojiri leutertains bui liltle doubt. That he is so ! liaiK% hns uever been decided; nor, as fa'r.j usisknown been iiiilierto coDtcndeJ. - . There have been no prosecutions oC the sort. The cstabljshed habita and unïlorm I practice .of the country ín íhia respect, is the best ovidence of the portion ot power deemed by the whole connnunity requïsite to the preservation of the master's dominion. Jf we thought diiferently, we could not set our notions in array against the judgment of every body elsí, nnd that ibis, or that authority, may be sat'dy lopp. edoft'. This haslrjdecd bceQ assimüaied at the bar to tho othor domestic relations?' and arguroentèdrawn from thewoll-estab'.■;.ec' .rui :"[.;??, whtóh confer imátrain the authority of the parent over the child, tutor over ihe pupil, the masfer over th apprentice, have been pressed on ua. The court does not recognize ihcir application. There is no likeness between the cases. Thcv nre in oppobition to each other, and ihere is an. impasaable gulf between thom. The difference is, thai which crisis hel ween freedvm and sïavery - and a gr coJ er cannot ie imagined. ín the one, the end in view is the happiriess of the youth, born to equal right.s with that governor, on wliom the duty devolves of training the young to use&lnese, in a slat ion which he h afterwards to assume among freemen. To such an end, and wilh sucii a subject, moral and intclkctua.1 nstruction seem tho nrtural means; and for the most part', they are found to sufïïcc. Moderate forcéis superadded, only to mnke the others effectual. ff thnt fail, it is beüer to leave the porfy to hisown headstrong passions, and the ultímate correction ot' the law, than to allow it to be immoderately inflicted by a private person. With slavery it is far oiherwise. The end the profit of the tnaster. his security nnd the public safeiy; the snhject, one doomed: in bis own person, and without thecapacity to make any thing !iis o-.vn, and fo toil that anotiier niay reop the fruits. Wliat moral considerations shall be addressed to such a being, to convince bimwhat, it ia impos-sible but tliat the most stupid must feel and know can never be true;. that he is thus to labor upon a principie of natural duty, or lor the sake of his own personal happiness. Such servicescan onir be expeoted from one wlio has no will of his own; who surrenders his will in itmplicit obedience to thal of another. Such obcdiencc is the consequence onTy oj imconlrollcd auhorily orer the body. There is noüáng else whick enn opérale o produce (he effect. The power of the meister must hc absolute, lo rendtr Ihe siibmission of the si ave perfect. I most freely confess my sense of th&hnrshnessof thïs pronosition. 1 fee] it as deeply as any man can. And as a principie of moral right, every person in his reiirement must re! pudiato it. Rut m t!)e actual condition of things, it must be so. There is no remedy. This disci)]ne belongs to the state of slavery. Thoy ciinnot be disurvited, without abrogal ing at once the rights of the master, nnd absolving the slave from bis subjection. It constitutes the curse of slavery io-bo!h the bond and the free portions- of our prpulation. BiU it ia inherent in the relation of master and slave. Thai there may be particular instances of cruelty and delibérate bnrbarify, here in conseience the law might properly inIer l'er e, is most probable. The difficulty is to determine, where a court nny properly bogin. Merely in the nbstract it may well bc asked, whrch power of the'mnster accords with the right. The answer will probablv sweep r.way all ofthem. But we cannot look upon the matter in that lighr. The trulh is, that xce areforliddcn lo enter upan a (rain of general reasoning on the subject. We cannot allow the right of the musier (o be broughl int o discussion in the courta ofjuj' tuce. The slave to reimiin a slave, vuist be made sensible thul there is no appcal from his masler; thal his person is, in no instante itsïtrped; but is conferred by the laws of man, at leasf, if not by the laws of God." Judginent was given for ihe defendant.