Page:Notes on the History of Slavery - Moore - 1866.djvu/27

 jutifies at leat the doubt whether the privileges of ervants belonged to laves at all.

The law mut be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous facts of hiftory. At the time it was made (1641), what had its authors to provide for?

1. Indian laves—their captives taken in war.

2. Negro laves—their own importations of "trangers” obtained by purchae or exchange.

3- Criminals—condemned to lavery as a punihment for offences.

In this light, and only in this light, is their legilation intelligible and conitent. It is very true that the code of which this law is a part "exhibits throughout the hand of the practied lawyer, familiar with the principles and ecurities of Englih Liberty;" but who had ever heard, at that time, of the "common-law rights" of Indians and negroes, or anybody ele but Englihmen?

Thus tood the tatute through the whole colonial period, and it was never exprely repealed. Baed on the Moaic code, it is an abolute recognition of lavery as a legitimate tatus, and of the right of one man to ell himelf as well as that of another man to buy him. It anctions the lave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their children and their children's children, and entitles Maachuetts to precedence over any and all the other colonies