The Slave, as a Chattel, is fed or famished, covered or uncovered, sheltered or unsheltered, at the discretion or convenience of his Owner, like other working Animals.

     LOUISIANA.—“Every owner shall be held to give his slaves the quantity of provisions hereinafter specified, to wit, one barrel of Indian corn,* or, the equivalent thereof in rice, beans, or other grain, and a pint of salt, and to deliver the same to the slaves, in kind, every month, and never in money, under penalty of a fine of ten dollars for every offense.” (1 Martin's Digest, p. 610. Act of July 7, 1806.)

     “The slave who shall not have, on the property of his owner, a lot of ground to cultivate on his own account, shall be entitled to receive from said owner one linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and woollen greatcoat and pantaloons for the winter.” (1 Martin's Digest, 610.) Neither the quantity nor the quality of the “lot of

ground” is specified, nor the amount of time to be allowed for tilling it.

     NORTH CAROLINA.—“In case any slave or slaves, who shall not appear to have been fed and clothed according to the intent and meaning of this Act, that is to say, to have been sufficiently clothed, and to have constantly received for the preceding year an allowance of not less than a quart of corn* per day, shall be convicted of stealing any corn, cattle, &c., &c., from any person not the owner of said slave or slaves, such injured person shall and may maintain an action of trespass against the master, owner, or possessor of such slave, &c., and shall recover his or her damages.” (Hayward's Manual, 524-5.)

     GEORGIA.—The Act of 1817 (as quoted in the last previous Chapter on Labor) provides for the punishment of “owners” of slaves who “by excessive whipping, by withholding proper food and sustenance, by requiring greater labor,” &c., shall “cruelly treat” such slaves, “whereby the health of such slave, &c., may be injured or impaired.”

     Another Act, of Dec. 12, 1815, is as follows:

     “Sect. 1. From and after the passing of this Act, it shall be the duty of the inferior courts of the several counties in this State, on receiving information, on oath, of any infirm slave or slaves in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners of said slave or slaves, to make particular inquiries into

the situation of such slave or slaves, and render such relief as they in their discretion shall think proper.

     “Sect. 2. The said courts may and are hereby authorized to sue for and recover from the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, the amount that may be appropriated for the relief of such slave or slaves, in any court having jurisdiction of the same; any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Prince's Digest, 460.)

     SOUTH CAROLINA.—“In case any person, &c., who shall be owner, or who shall have the care, government, or charge of any slave or slaves, shall deny, neglect, or refuse to allow such slave or slaves, under his or her charge, sufficient clothing, covering, or food, it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, on behalf of said slave or slaves, to make complaint to the next neighboring justice in the parish where such slave or slaves live, or are usually employed, and the said justice shall summon the party against whom such complaint shall be made, and shall inquire of, hear, and determine the same; and if the said justice shall find the said complaint to be true, or that such person will not exculpate or clear himself from the charge by his or her own oath, which such person shall be at liberty to do, in all cases where positive proof is not given of the offense, such justice shall and may make such orders upon the same, for the relief of such slave or slaves, as he in his discretion shall think fit; and shall and may set and impose a fine or penalty on any person who may offend in the premises, in any sum not exceeding

twenty pounds, current money, for each offense, to be levied by warrant of distress and sale of the offender's goods,” &c. &c. (2 Brevard's Digest, p. 241. Similar in Louisiana, 1 Martin's Digest, 638-40.)

     On these enactments we remark:

     1. They embrace the legislation of only four States. The other slaveholding States, so far as we are informed, have never pretended to prescribe to the slave owner the kind or amount of food he must furnish his slaves. He can starve them if he pleases to do so, and there is no law to prevent it.

     2. Considering that the slave can bring no suit against his master; that he is unprovided with a protector, and that neither the slave nor any other colored person can testify against a white man; and that, in case of any interference in his behalf, whether successful or otherwise, the slave still remains “entirely subject to the will of a master to whom he belongs,” and who can avenge himself upon him with impunity in secret, the very next day, it is quite certain that such enactments can avail little or nothing for his benefit, while he remains a slave.

     3. Aside from all this, the law of North Carolina was evidently designed for the benefit, not of the slave, but of the “persons” from whom a hungry, slave might “steal” a subsistence. It prescribes no relief to the slave, and no punishment to his master, but only subjects him to the payment of “damages” for the food his slave has eaten! Just as in the case of an unruly horse or ox that should break into a neighbor's crib! It does not even provide for the

hungry slave's exemption from punishment by his master or by the magistrate, for his “stealing” to appease hunger. There is no humanity in this law. It is a monument of the barbarity of its framers and of the slaveholders.

     4. The Georgia Act of 1817, strictly construed, imposes no punishment on a master who shall “cruelly treat” his slave by “excessive whipping,” or by withholding proper food, or by “requiring greater labor,” &c. All these acts of “cruelty” must be combined in each instance, or the statute fails to apply to the case. Even then, it is not reached, unless “the health” of the slave be “injured or impaired.” There may be “cruelty” by “excessive whipping,” by hunger, and by excessive labor, but if the subject of all this “cruelty” retains his “health,” the “cruelty” is not to be punished.

     5. The Georgia Act of 1815 applies only to the case of “infirm slaves.” Other slaves “in a suffering condition from the neglect of the owner” are not provided for. It requires “information on oath,” (which no colored person can give,) before a legal inquiry can be commenced! The facts must be first proved before the process can begin, and proved, too, without the testimony of the sufferer! It shall be “the duty” of the courts to render such relief as they think proper. From whence the supply is to be obtained, unless from the pockets of the judges, does not appear. (We have copied the entire act.) They are not authorized to order an execution against the delinquent “owner” on their judgment.

Instead of this, the judges are authorized (not directed) to become SUITORS themselves, as a “court,” in ANOTHER court, to collect of the owner the amount of the appropriation, if they can; and if not, put up with the loss as they can, costs and all! Where shall we find a parallel to this farce?

     6. The South Carolina Act must also be useless for the want of “positive proof,” (as the slave cannot testify,) in the absence of which the defendant is cleared by his own oath.

     7. We conclude, therefore, that these laws, on the whole, are no better than none. We should not anticipate, from their operation, any better provision for the clothing and sustenance of slaves, in these four States, than in the other slave States, where no laws exist. We are not aware that there is any perceptible difference in fact. And we may extend the remark to the laws of the four States mentioned in the previous chapter, on the subject of slave labor. The principle of slave-ownership, viz., human chattelhood, is not impaired or infringed by them. The master has the power in his own hands. He may do what he wills with his own. Such, at every point, is “THE LEGAL RELATION OF MASTER AND SLAVE.”

     From the law, we now turn to the prevailing practice. From the former we may anticipate the latter. In the work to which we have so often referred (Weld's “Slavery as it is”) may be found a great amount of authentic testimony of highly respectable witnesses, of former and later times, for

which we cannot spare room, but the substance is as follows:

     HUNGER.—Slaves in Virginia (1820) are “ill fed.” They are “doomed to scarcity and hunger.” (Alex. Smythe, M. C.) In 1739, they “had not sufficient food to eat; they were scarcely permitted to pick up the crumbs that fell from their masters' tables.” (Rev. Geo. Whitefield.)—They are “deprived of needful subsistence.” (Rev. Geo. Bourne.)—In 1791 “they were supplied with barely enough to keep them from starving.” (Dr. Jonathan Edwards, of Connecticut.)—In Georgia “their allowance is often not adequate to the support of a laboring man.” (Thomas Clay, Esq., a slaveholder.)—In Tennessee “thousands are pressed with the gnawings of hunger.” (Rev. John Rankin.)—In North Carolina, 1826, “the greater part of them go half starved, much of the time.” (Moses and Wm. Swain.)—In Louisiana, 1835, “there is a good deal of suffering from hunger”—“utter famishment, during a great portion of the year.” (A. A. Stone.)—In Mississippi, “half starved.” (Tobias Boudinot.)

     KINDS OF FOOD.—The general testimony is, that slaves are allowed meat only as an occasional “indulgence or favor”—“at Christmas,” &c. &c. Experiments have been made with cotton seed, as a substitute in part for corn. Gen. Wade Hampton is said to have tried the experiment, till, as he himself declared with an oath, his slaves “died like rotten sheep.” This statement was furnished by “a lady of high respectability and great moral worth,” to “a clergyman in the West, extensively known both as

a preacher and a writer. His name is with the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.” (Weld's “American Slavery, as it is,” p. 29.)

     QUANTITY.—“The quantity allowed by custom is a peck of corn a week.” (Thos. Clay, Esq., Georgia, 1833.) Same testimony by W. C. Gildersleeve, now of Wilkesbarre, Pa.; and Rev. Horace Moulton, of Marlboro, Mass.—both once resident in Georgia.

     Maryland: Same quantity, 1788. (Baltimore Advertiser.)—Florida: A quart of corn a day, to a full task hand, with a modicum of salt. Kind masters allowed a peck of corn a week. Some masters allowed no salt.” (Wm. Ladd, once a Florida slaveholder, since of Minot, Me.)—North Carolina: Seven quarts of meal; or eight quarts of small rice, for one week.' (Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Ct.; resident in North Carolina eleven winters.)—Virginia: A pint of corn meal and a salt herring is the allowance, (for one meal,) or, in lieu of the herring, a ‘dab' of fat meat of about the same value. I have known the sour milk and clauber to be served out to the hands, when there was an abundance of milk on the plantation. This is a luxury, not often afforded.” (Rev. C. S. Renshaw, a native Virginian.)

     John Woolman, in his Journal, (1757,) makes the general statement, that “they have in common little else allowed but one peck of Indian corn and some salt, for one week, with a few potatoes; the potatoes they commonly raise by their labor on the first day of the week.” (Life of Woolman, p. 74.)

     QUALITY OF FOOD.—“There is often a defect here.”

(Thos. Clay, Esq., Georgia.)—“The feed of slaves is generally, of the poorest kind.” (Rev. Horace Moulton.)—In Kentucky, “They live on a coarse, crude, unwholesome diet.” (Western Medical Reformer.)—”Large numbers of badly fed negroes were swept off by a prevailing epidemic.”—“The best remedy for that horrid malady, ‘Cachexia Africana,' is to feed the negroes with nutritious food.” (Prof. A. G. Smith, of New-York Medical College, once physician in Louisville, Ky.)

     NUMBER AND TIMES OF MEALS, EACH DAY.—“The slaves eat twice during the day.” (Dr. Jonathan Edwards, Connecticut, 1791.)

     Florida: “The slaves go to the field in the morning; they carry with them meal, wet with water, and at noon build a fire on the ground, and bake it in the ashes. After the labors of the day are over, they take their second meal of ashcake. (Philemon Bliss, Esq., Elyria, Ohio; resident in Florida, 1834-5.)

     Mississippi, 1837: “The slaves received two meals during the day. Breakfast about 11 o'clock; the other meal after night.” (Eleazer Powell, now of Chippewa, Pa.)

     North Carolina: “The breakfast of the slaves was generally about 10 or 11 o'clock A. M.” (Nehemiah Caulkins.)

     Virginia: “Two meals a day. Breakfast from 10 to 11 o'clock A. M. Supper from 6 to 9 or 10 at night, as the season and crops may be.” (Rev. C. S. Renshaw.)—“Meals generally taken without knife, dish, or spoon.” (Wm. Leftwitch, a Virginian.)

     Georgia: “The corn is ground in a hand mill, by the slave, after his task is done. Generally there is but one mill on a plantation, and as but one can grind at a time, the mill is going sometimes very late at night.” (W. C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native Georgian.) Similar testimony from other States.

     South Carolina: “Only two meals a day are allowed to the house slaves; the first at 12 o'clock. If they eat before this time it is by stealth, and I am sure there must be a good deal of suffering among them from hunger, particularly by children. Besides this, they are often kept from their meals by way of punishment. No table is provided for them to eat from. They know nothing of the comfort and pleasure of gathering round the social board; each takes his plate or tin pan, and holds it in the hand or on the lap. I never saw slaves seated round a table, to partake of any meal.” (Angelina Grimke Weld.)

     “Stealing food is a crime, punished by flogging. A woman was punished for stealing four potatoes.” (P. Bliss, Esq.)

     “Cooks, waiters, chambermaids, &c., generally get some meat every day—the remaining bits and bones of their masters' tables.” (Weld, p. 31.)

     The law of Louisiana of 1806, (Chap. X.,) prescribing the time allotted to meals, by its mention of breakfast and dinner, seems to indicate a third meal, though it is not directly mentioned.

     The fare of slaves is doubtless better in the slave-growing than in the slave-consuming States. And

there are exceptions to the general picture we have presented.

     CLOTHING.—Mr. Weld has shown by abundant and unimpeachable testimony, that “the clothing of slaves by day, and their covering by night, is not adequate either for comfort or decency.” (p. 40, &c.)

     Virginia: Hon. T. T. Bouldin, a slaveholder, in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835, said: “He knew that many negroes had died from exposure to weather,” and added, “They are clad in a flimsy fabric that will turn neither wind nor water.”

     Maryland: “The slaves, naked and starved, often fall victims to the inclemencies of the weather.” (Geo. Buchanan, M. D., of Baltimore, 1791.)

     Georgia, &c.: “We rode through many rice swamps, where the blacks were very numerous”—“working up to the middle in water, men and women nearly naked.” (Wm. Savery, of Philadelphia, Minister Friends' Soc., 1791.)

     Tennessee, &c.: “In every slaveholding State many slaves suffer extremely, both while they labor and when they sleep, for want of clothing to keep them warm.” (Rev. John Rankin.)

     The South generally: “Men and women have many times scarce clothes enough to hide their nakedness, and boys and girls, ten and twelve years old, are often quite naked among their masters' children.” (John Woolman, 1757. Journal, &c., p. 150.)

     “Both male and female go without clothing at the age of 8 or 10 years.” (John Parrish, Minister Soc.

Friends, 1804.) Same testimony from many others more recently.

     Alabama, 1819: “Hardly a rag of clothing on them.”—“Generally the only bedding was a blanket.” (S. E. Maltby.)

     Virginia: “Two old blankets.” (Wm. Leftwich.) Advertisements of fugitives every year often describe them as “ragged” or “nearly naked.”

     Florida: “They were allowed two suits of clothes a year; viz: one pair of trowsers with a shirt or frock of osnaburgh, for summer; and for winter, one pair of trowsers and a jacket of negro-cloth, with a baize shirt and a pair of shoes. Some allowed hats, and some did not; and they were generally, I believe, allowed one blanket in two years. Garments of similar materials were allowed the women.” (Wm. Ladd, late of Minot, Me.)

     “The slaves are generally without beds or bedsteads.”—“I have seen men and women at work in the fields, more than half naked.” (Testimony furnished by Rev. C. S. Renshaw, from his friend.)

     “In Lower Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana, clothing made of cotton bagging”—“no shoes.” (G. W. Westgate.)

     “WILL” of the celebrated JOHN RANDOLPH of Roanoke, Va., distinguished as a “kind master” “To my old and faithful servants Essex and his wife Hetty, I give and bequeath a pair of strong shoes, a suit of clothes, and a blanket each, to be paid them annually; also an annual hat to Essex.” No socks, stockings, bonnets, cloaks, handkerchiefs,

or towels—no change either of outside or inner garments! And a solemn “Last Will and Testament” was deemed necessary to secure to them even the articles specified!

     Family servants, waiters, &c., and hotel attendants, must needs appear decently clad. And kept mistresses of gentlemen are often arrayed extravagantly. Superficial observers and shallow thinkers, seeing this, report the happy, condition of slaves in general, having never seen the “negro quarters” on the plantations.

     DWELLINGS.—These “generally contain but one apartment, and that without a floor;”—“no partition to separate the sexes;”—nothing that a Northern laborer “would call a bed”;—sometimes “built by themselves of stakes and poles, and thatched with palmetto leaf; sometimes of clay”—“no window glass or sashes;”—“not sufficient to keep off the inclemency of the weather;—sometimes built of logs; on old plantations sometimes of frame and clapboards, size, 8 feet by 10, or 10 by 12, and but 8 feet high;”—“without any chimney—a hole at top to let the smoke out;”—“generally put up (in Georgia) without a nail;”—“ill ventilated;”—“surrounded with filth;”—“with neither chairs, table, nor bedstead;”—“on the cold ground they must lie without covering, and shiver while they slumber.” Such is the picture attested by competent witnesses. (Weld's “Slavery as it is,” p. 43, &c.)

     TREATMENT OF THE SICK, THE INFIRM, AND THE AGED.—On this topic we have not room here to enter.

In Mr. Weld's work, pp. 44, 45, may be found statements from the late Rev. Dr. Channing, of Boston, once resident in Virginia, (extracted from his work on Slavery;) from Miss Sarah M. Grimke, formerly of Charleston, S. C.; from Geo. A. Avery, merchant, Rochester, N. Y., once living in Virginia; from Rev. Wm. T. Allan, once of Alabama; the late Rev. Elias Cornelius, (p.161;)* and several others, all showing that great barbarity characterizes the slaveholders, generally, in their ill treatment or neglect of these unfortunate beings, held dependent upon them, and defenceless, as slaves.

     Into all the particulars which go to make up the dreadful condition of the slave, the plan and limits of the present treatise do not permit us to go. We select mainly such facts as illustrate the slave laws, and the consequent “legal relation” of master and slave. At every step we find it a relation identified with wretchedness and wrong.

     From Wheeler's “Law of Slavery” it would seem that slaveholders are in the habit of refusing to pay physicians for medical attendance on their slaves, and that suits at law are the consequence, which are variously decided, the decisions of a lower court being sometimes reversed by a higher. The following points are put down by Mr. Wheeler in his marginal titles:

     Dunbar vs. Williams. 10 John's New-York Rep. 249: “No action lies by a physician against the

master for attendance upon his slave without his knowledge, unless it be a case of extreme necessity.” (Wheeler, p. 225.)

     Wells vs. Kennerly, 4 McCord's S. C. Rep. 123: The owner is not liable for medical attendance upon a hired slave, given at the request of the hirer.” (Ib., p. 226.)

     It is hardly to be expected that the temporary hirer of a slave would be forward to incur the expense of much medical attendance.

     In the case of Johnson et al. vs. Barrett, Judge Johnson, South Carolina, said: “If a slave be in peril in the absence of his master, the interest of the owner is most effectually subserved by rendering assistance to the slave, and in good conscience the owner is bound to make satisfaction.” (Ib.)

     The legal rule then is, to give medical aid when the interest of the owner demands it!