HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0422 and id is 1 raw text is: cannot divest the captor of a right which he has acquired by the detention of a
ship so denuded of all protection from the licence under which she is claimed.
Where the parties have been acting under honest but erroneous impres-[263]-sions,
one may feel a repugnance to follow up their mistakes with consequences so detri-
mental to them, as the confiscation of their property. But though they may have
been intentionally, still they may not have been legally, innocent. The only
question which the Court has to decide is, whether this ship, belonging to an enemy,
is protected by the licence which she had on board, and I am of opinion that she
is not. The licence is to Dublin, North-about, and the ship was going to Leith, a
place not named in the licence, or connected with that which is named, and to be
reached by a course totally different from that indicated. I feel myself therefore
under the necessity of pronouncing a sentence of condemnation.
DEMARARA, and its Dependencies. May 12, 1813.-Where there is no positive
regulation to the contrary, slaves are deemed personal property, and pass to
the captors under the words of the Prize Act, Goods or Merchandise.
This was a question respecting certain slaves, which were taken at Demarara,
on the 21st of September 1803, when that colony and its dependencies, with the
arsenals, forts, and batteries, surrendered to His Majesty's land and sea forces,
under the command of General Grinfield and Commodore Hood. The ordinance,
arms, artillery, and stores, -were long since condemned as prize. The captors now
prayed condemnation of three hundred and ninety-nine slaves, one hundred and
ninety-nine of whom were employed in the public works of the colony, and the
other two hundred attached to the Louisberg estate, which had formerly been the
property of the Prince of Orange, but was afterwards confiscated by the Dutch
Government.
[264] Judgment-Sir W. Scott : In this case the Court is called upon to decide
respecting certain slaves taken at the Dutch settlement of Demarara. The slaves are
in number three hundred and ninety-nine, of whom two hundred are no longer the
subject of contest, but are now admitted to have belonged to the estate on which
they were employed as glebwc ascriptitii: they were attached to the soil as part and
parcel of the realty, and upon that account, the question, with respect to them,
has very properly been given up by the captors.
The attention of the Court has however been called to the case of the one hundred
and ninety-nine slaves, who were employed by the Dutch Government upon the
public works in the military arsenals of the settlement.
The first question is, whether slaves are at all given to the captors by the Prize
Act (45 G. III, c. 72, s. 3), i.e. whether they pass by the words stores of war, goods,
merchandise, or treasure, which, by the third section of the statute, are to be
deemed prize, and to be apportioned by His Majesty between the army and navy,
when acting in conjunction. Now the fact is, that slaves have generally been
considered as personal property. The word mancipia, as it has been well observed,
signifies quca manu capiuntur. This is unquestionably the meaning of the word
according to the civil law. In our West India colonies, where slavery is continued,
and is likely to continue longer than in any of the countries of Europe, slaves have
been for some purposes considered as real property ; but I apprehend that, where
the contrary is not shewn, the general character and description of them is, that
they are personal property, and I see no [265] reason in the present case for saying
that they are not within the general rule, and consequently that they are not to be
considered as goods or merchandise. They are liable to be transferred by
purchase and sale, and although the owner may choose to employ them on his own
works instead of transferring them for a valuable consideration, they are not, I
apprehend, the less goods and merchandises on that account. The very same
observation applies to all other cases of personal property, for all such property, if
saleable, is merchandise, although the person in possesssion may not be a merchant
or mean to dispose of it by sale.
In what light are these particular slaves, employed in the military arsenals of the
colony, to be viewed ? Are they to be considered as glebw ascriptitii attached
indissolubly to the public works, or were they liable to be sold separate and distinct,
whenever the Dutch Government might have thought fit so to dispose of them ?
Upon this subject the Court is left pretty much in the dark; but, as I before observed,
1305
1 DODS. 289.
DEMARARA](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0422&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)