Appendix B: Transcription from Howell v. Netherland (1770)

• Author: Arthur Rizer
• Profession: Director of Justice Policy and a senior fellow at the R Street Institute
• Pages: 199-205

199

APPENDIX B

Transcription from Howell

v. Netherland (1770)

Five years before the Declaration of Independence, Jeerson wrote a hyper-

technical memorandum of law for the court, maintaining that because there

was no positive law dictating his client’s status as a slave, there was no legal

means to continue his slavery. Jeerson’s pro bono advocacy for this slave gave

him an early reputation at the court for the strength and clarity of his persua-

sive writing in a cause for which he, as a slave owner, could easily have been

biased against.

On behalf of the plainti it was insisted, 1st, that if he could be detained in

servitude by his rst master, he could not be aliened. But 2nd, that he could

not be detained in servitude.

1. It was observed that the purpose of the act was to punish and deter

women from that confusion of species, which the legislature seems to have

considered as an evil, and not to oppress their innocent ospring. at

accordingly it had made cautious provision for the welfare of the child, by

leaving it to the discretion of the church wardens to choose out a proper

master; and by directing, that that master should provide for it sucient food,

clothing, and lodging, and should not give immoderate correction. For these

purposes the master enters into covenants with the church wardens; and to

admit he had a power after this to sell his ward, would be to admit him a

power of discharging himself of his covenants. Nor is this objection answered

by saying that the covenants of the rst master are transferred to the alienee,

because he may be insolvent of the damages which should be recovered

against him, and indeed they might be of such a nature as could not be atoned