contract, there must be a consideration upon
which that contract is based. Two parties,
free to contract, willing to contract, and a
consideration proven from the complainant
who sues for the benefit of the contract.
Who denies that? Let some gentleman get
up here and say that is not law, and let his
name go upon the record as denying it.
Now, as between the master and slave,
where is the freedom of the slave to contract?
Where is his willingness to contract? And
answer me, even if he was free to contract
and willing to contract, if you have not by
your law stripped him of all ability and power
to contract by denying him altogether any
legal status whatsoever ?
You talk about slavery being a moral
thing! I hold up this code, and I say that
this night, under the stars of heaven, it is of
all things the most fearful enormity. Yon
have legislated year in and year out, for
hundreds of years, about this class of people,
and you have not put into this code one
word that acknowledges the mere humanity
of the negro: not one word. Under your
law as it stands there, he is incapable even
of making a marriage contract, as slavery ex-
ists in Maryland to-day.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Do I un-
derstand my friend to say, that under the
laws of Maryland, it is not the privilege of a
master to have his negroes married ?
Mr. SANDS. I say no such marriage is a
legal one.
Mr. CLARKE. Does it require statute law
to legalize marriage? or do not the rights
and validity of marriage exist by natural
law independent of statute law ?
Mr. SANDS. I will read to you legal gen-
tlemen, who know its weight and authority,
from so well known a book as Parsons on
Contracts, page 340:
"The disability of the slave to contract
seems to extend even to the contract of mar-
riage. It has been distinctly held that the
marriage usual in slave States, which is only
cohabitation with consent of the master, ii not a
legal marriage."
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, He is
speaking of the civil contract, is he not?
Mr. SANDS. No, sir; he gives his reasons,
and I will give them to you in his language :
"Chancellor Kent quotes from a case in
which this is decided, words which state
this, and so refer it to the want of legal for-
malities, as to suggest the inference that it is
this want which makes the marriage void."
It is the case of State vs. Samuel, 2 Dev.
and Batt. 177, 181. I went up to the library
to pet the report this morning, but some
gentleman was ahead of me.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Not on
our side of the subject.
Mr. SANDS. Parsons goes on to say ;
"But. in another part of this case, it is
put quite as much on the ground of their |
inability to contract. There are statutes which
speak of their marriage, but not in such a
way as to declare such marriage a legal one,
carrying all the incidents of marriage. These
incidents seem to us so inconsistent with the
condition of slavery, that we da not see how
any ceremonies, civil or religious, could make
such marriage legal."
Now that is plain language.
"There may be usages or statutory pro-
visions regulating this matter, which we have
not found."
And you may look for them, but you will
not find them.
" But so far as we can learn the law on this
subject, we think that a slave cannot be
guilty of adultery, when this crime can only
be committed by a married person; nor of
polygamy; nor be held liable on a wife's
contracts, or for necessaries supplied to her ;
nor made incompetent as a witness on the
ground of the relation of marriage. How far
all this may be modified by the consent of
the owner, may he doubtful; but we do not
see that even such consent could make the
marriage altogether a legal marriage, and in-
vest it with all the rights duties and relations
of marraige, unless it was such consent and
under such circumstances as made it operate
as a manumission, as in the case of a devise to
a slave"
Now I hold up your code that professes to
be the pink of morality and religion, and I
tell you, sirs, that that thing which has
grown for hundreds of years, has not one
word in it that acknowledges the mere hu-
manity of the negro. And I will bring it
home to you. Going along the street is your
mule team and your negro driver with it.
Will you tell me the difference between the
legal status of the negro, and that of the
mule? If you can, pray do. Can the negro
own the hat on his head, any more than the
mule owns the halter on his? Can the negro
own the leathern shoes on his feet, any more
than the mule the iron shoes on his? Nay,
more and more horrible. Can the negro
own his wife that sleeps in his bosom, any
more than the mule can own his mate in the
stall? Can the negro own his children, born
of this so-called marriage, any more than the
swine owns her farrow? And that is the
moral and Christian institution of slavery !
These are the concomitants that aid in making
up—and I speak it in no offensive sense—the
slave aristocracy so-called. By taking one
slave for a bad debt, I once got into that
class; but I got out of it just as quick as I
could.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's Will the
gentleman inform us how he disposed of him ?
Mr. SANDS. I told him to go, and not
bother me any more; [laughter] and he
went; [continued laughter] and I never got
any compensation for him. [Loud laughter.]
Now, gentlemen, I do not want you |
