Читать книгу The Historical Records of Fugitive Slaves (1619-1865) - Marion Gleason McDougall - Страница 8

§ 11. International cases.—Thus far only those cases have been noticed which arose within and between colonies of the same nation. Let us now consider a very early case of disagreement between colonies of different nations, which occurred in 1646. The commissioners of the United Colonies made complaint to the Governor of New Netherlands that his Dutch agent at Hartford was harboring one of their Indian slaves. Soon after, Governor Stuyvesant was refused the return of some of his runaway servants from New Haven. Thereupon the angry Lords of the West India Company issued a proclamation commanding that there should be no rendition of fugitive slaves to New Haven. This provision continued in effect until Governor Elton sent back some of the fugitives to New Netherlands. It was then annulled, and a mutual agreement to return the runaways was entered into by the United Colonies and the Dutch.³⁶ Governor John Winthrop, in his History of New England, refers to the case, and says that Massachusetts Bay endeavored to bring about a reconciliation, and wrote to the Governor of New Netherlands intimating to him that "at their request he might send back the fugitives without prejudice to their right or reputation."³⁷

Maryland also found difficulty, from the readiness with which her servants could flee north to New Netherlands. In the State Archives may be found a letter sent by the authorities to the Governor of New Netherlands, as follows:—

"Sir—Some servants being lately fledd out of this colony, into yours, as is supposed, we could not promise ourselves from you that justice & faire correspondence betweene the two governments so neerly bordering & which are shortly like to be nearer neighbors in delaware bay, as to hope that vpon the receiving of these Outres & the demand of the parties interessted you will remand to us all such apprentice servants as are or shall run out of this government into yours; and will compell such other persons, as shall flie to you without a passe, being indebted or otherwise obnoxious to the justice of this place, to make such satisfaction to the parties endamaged by their unlawful departure, upon their complaints and proofe thereof, as you shall find justice to require. And you may promise yourself the like helpe and concurrence from this governm't in that or any other thing as shalbe in the power of it: And so we bid you heartilly farewell & rest.

"To the hon'ble the Governor of the New Netherlands."³⁸

In 1659 the Dutch had occasion to ask the same favor of Maryland. Whether there had been trouble between the colonies since the earlier letter we do not know, but the spirit of the communication was quite different. Instead of assurances of good will, and expressions of a belief in the certainty of peaceful return, the Dutch threatened, if their servants were not secured to them, "to publish free liberty, access and recess to all planters, servants, negroes, fugitives, and runaways which may go into New Netherland."³⁹

Trouble was also constantly arising between the French and English, or French and Dutch, in regard to the many runaways who fled from the Eastern colonies northward to Canada. In 1750 there was a dispute about a certain negro belonging to the English, but at that time in possession of the Sieur de la Corne St. Luc; and, in a letter to a friend, one of the officers of the colony makes the following explanation concerning them: "In regard to the negro in possession of Sieur de la Corne St. Luc I thought proper not to send him back every negro being a slave wherever he be. Besides, I am only doing what the English did in 1747. Ensign de Malbronne on board Le Screux had a negro servant who was at first taken from him; I took pains to reclaim him, but the English refused to surrender him on ground as above."⁴⁰

§ 12. Relations with the mother country.—With only one country across the sea was any question of fugitives likely to arise. In England white slavery had long since died out, except as a punishment for crime; villeinage ceased about the time the colonies were settled. But the status of black slaves who were taken from the colonies to England was in practice unchanged.

The principle thus apparently established by custom was overthrown by a succession of legal decisions, culminating in the famous Somersett Case. It was first decided by Thomas Grahame, judge in the Admiralty Court, Glasgow, that a certain negro who had been brought into Great Britain must be liberated, on the ground that a guiltless human being taken into that country must be free.⁴¹ In 1762 occurred another similar case. A bill had been filed in equity by an administrator to recover money given by his intestate to a negro brought to England as a slave. The suit was dismissed by Lord Northington, who said that as soon as a man set foot on English ground he was free.⁴²

The Somersett case came ten years later. The circumstances were as follows. A Mr. Stewart, accompanied by his slave Somersett, left Boston on the 1st of October, 1769, and went to London, where he kept his slave until October 1, 1771. Then Somersett ran away, but his owner soon secured him and had him placed on board a vessel bound for Jamaica, probably with the intention of selling him as a slave. A writ of habeas corpus was then served upon the captain of the ship, and on the hearing Lord Mansfield decided that Somersett must be discharged. In England, he said, slavery could exist only by positive law; and in default of such law there was no legal machinery for depriving a man of his liberty on the ground that he was a slave. The importance of the case for the colonies lay not in the assertion of the principle that slavery depended on positive law, for the American statute-books were full of positive law on slavery; the precedent thus established determined the future course of England against the delivery of fugitives, whether from her colonies or from other countries.⁴³

§ 13. International regulations under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1788).—When, on March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect, the only action taken by the United States on the subject of fugitives had been the negotiation of a treaty with the Delaware Indians, August 7, 1778, by which the parties bound themselves not "to protect in their respective States criminal fugitives, servants, or slaves, but the same to apprehend, secure, and deliver."⁴⁴ In seven of the eight other treaties negotiated with Indian tribes from 1784 to 1786, clauses were introduced for the return of black prisoners, or of "negroes and other property."⁴⁵ The States affected were chiefly Southern; but the article on the same subject in the Treaty of Peace in 1782 and 1783, was intended as much to protect the slaveholders of New York as those of Virginia. It was distinctly agreed that the British should not carry away "any negroes or other property."⁴⁶ The failure to abide by this agreement led to reclamation by the American government, but no indemnity was ever secured.⁴⁷