Page:Notes on the History of Slavery - Moore - 1866.djvu/30

 Chief Jutice Parker, in 1816, cautiouly confirmed this view of the ubject by his predeceor. Andover vs. Canton, 13 ''Mas. Reports,'' 551–552.

"The practice was … to confider uch iue as laves, and the property of the mater of the parents, liable to be old and transferred like other chattels, and as aets in the hands of executors and adminiftrators.” He adds, “we think there is no doubt that, at any period of our hiftory, the iue of a lave huband and a free wife would have been declared free."

"His children, if the iue of a marriage with a lave, would, immediately on their birth, become the property of his mater, or of the mater of the female lave."

Notwithftanding all this, in Mr. Sumner's famous peech in the Senate, June 28, 1854, he boldly aerted that "in all her annals, no peron was ever born a lave on the oil of Maachuetts," and "if, in point of fact, the iue of laves was ometimes held in bondage, it was never by anction of any tatute-law of Colony or Commonwealth."

And recent writers of hitory in Maachuetts have aumed a imilar lofty and poitive tone on this ubject. Mr. Palfrey ays: "In fact, no peron was ever born into legal flavery in Maachuetts." ''Hit. N. E.,, 30, note.'' Neither Mr. Sumner nor Mr. Palfrey give any authorities for their tatements