All justices, and sheriffs, were charged to prevent and supe press, meetings of slaves.

Penalties for dealing with slaves, were by this act increased. No negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall at any time lift his hand, in opposition to any white person, subject to receive thirty lashes by order of a justice, supported by the oath of the person complaining.

Owners of slaves are forbid, to permit them to trade as freemen; subject to a fine of ten pounds for every offence: to be recovered in any court of record; of course, in the county court. Nor were slaves to be permitted to hire themselves, subject to the imprisonment of the offending slave, till the next court; and then by order of the court, sold, at the succeeding county court. Twenty-five per cent, on the amount of every such sale was reserved, to be applied to the lessening of the county levy; and five per cent, for the use of the sheriff: the balance to be paid the late owner.

Justices of the court of quarter sessions, being also justices of the peace, were to be justices of the court of oyer and terminer, for trying any slave charged with a capital offence; and they were to empannel a jury of twelve men from the bystanders, for ascertaining the matters of fact. And in case the sentence should be for death, a respite of thirty days was to take place. These were considered, as ameliorations.

The court might take for evidence, the confession of the party or the oath, of one or more credible witnesses-or such testimony of negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, with pregnant circumstances, as to them should seem convincing. If the offence was within the benefit of clergy, it was to be extended to the convict; who was only to be burnt in the hand.

Caution was enjoined on the court, to impress a due sense of the obligation of telling the truth, on such negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, not being christians, as should be offered as witnesses; none such were to be sworn, but if the court detected any one of them in falsehood, they were immediately to receive thirty-nine lashes, on his, or her, bare back: of which they were to be notified before they gave testimony.

1

Masters, of slaves, respectively, might appear for their slave on trial, and avoiding objections to form, make any just defence they could. And by a liberal construction of the law, it is believed that the employment of counsel was allowed.

If the slave was convicted, and executed, the owner was to be paid his, or her assessed value; out of the public treasury. These details regard an unfortunate, and degraded class of the human race; whose condition will ever be a matter of curiosity, or of interest, to the American politician; and whose legal history, in the character of which they have no share, will be attended to, as an important part of the history of the country. It is believed, that, so long as Kentucky shall permit slavery on her territory, she will have no cause for desiring to withhold from her sister states, or the world, a knowledge of the treatment they receive; even in her legal code, whose apparent rigour is much relaxed in the execution.

There is one trait in the law just analyzed, which will obtain a brief review. It makes a discrimination between such negro, mulatto, and Indian, witnesses, as may be, or supposed, "not christians," and those who are; to the evident disadvantage of the former; without regard to their religion-although the description of negro, mulatto, or Indian, may include "freemen," of fine intellect, liberal information, and a rational religion; who, nevertheless, if they be "not christians," may, without indictment by a grand jury, and without, a veniry, on the ipse dixit of the court, be convicted of an infamous crime, and sentenced to an ignominious punishment: the bill of rights, contained in the twelfth article of the constitution, third and fourth paragraphs, notwithstanding. And again, as to trials, in criminal cases, see the tenth and eleventh paragraphs, of the same article.

To shew the incaution, with which that section of the act has been passed, it is not necessary to comment on the expression: "That all men have a natural and indefeisible right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own con sciences," &c.-Or on this other: "That the civil rights, privileges or capacities of any citizen, shall in nowise be diminished,

or enlarged, on account of his religion." Should it be remarked, that no black man, mulatto, or Indian, could be a citizen; it will only be replied, that they might be freemen--that they, being in the commonwealth, and free, were entitled to bear arms--that it is not said, such shall not be citizenswhile it is implied that they might be-At least, it may be supposed, that they were men; and the constitution is, that "all men" have a natural right, &c.; and again, "that no person shall for an indictable offence, be proceeded against criminally, by information," &c.

Nelson county was divided, and Hardin county made; to take place from and after the 20th day of February, 1793: "beginning on Green river, opposite the mouth of Little Barren river; thence a straight line such a course as will strike a point on the dividing ridge between Lynn Camp, and Brush creek, a west course from Skegg's station on Brush creek; thence a straight line to the southwest corner of Washington county, on the head of Salt Lick creek; then down the same to the Rolling fork of Salt river; thence down the same, and down Salt river to the Ohio; then down the Ohio to the mouth of Green river; thence up Green river to the beginning."

The navigable waters of the state attracted the attention of this legislature. Hitherto they had been much neglected; and were in many places obstructed in a manner unauthorized by law. The leading object of the act, appears to be to suppress, and prevent, obstructions in rivers, and creeks navigable for boats; and hence to facilitate the passage of both fish, and boats. Persons offending against the act, were given up to be prosecuted, and to pay a fine of two dollars, for every twenty-four hours that each obstruction should be permitted to stand. The recovery to be effected, by motion before any justice of the peace, or court of record, as the case might be, upon thirty days' notice, to the use of the informer-in 'the words of the law, with a saving of mill-dams "erected according to law."

But this law was not exempt, more than others, from the restless spirit of the government. In 1794, an act passed for

opening the navigation of main Licking. And all mill-dams, and other obstructions, without exception, were ordered to be removed before the first day of the ensuing May; under the penalty of thirty pounds; to be recovered by action of debt, without any saving of existing rights.

In 1797, a third act passed, to reduce all former acts on the subject, into one act. When among a variety of other things, prescribing the mode by which mill-dams might be thrown across water courses, the act required locks or slopes, on navigable streams.

Hitherto, as a part of the Virginia system, lands had not been subject to execution. An act of this session, made them so; by the terms, "lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in possession, reversion, or remainder." Particular directions for the procedure were given: among which, a valuation was to be made; and unless the land would sell for three-fourths of the assessed estimate, for ready money, the defendant might replevy the debt for three months, by giving bond and security to pay it at the expiration of that time.

And although all postponing of debts, by replevy laws, passed since the adoption of the constitution of the United States, are undoubtedly contrary thereto; which would render such laws null on that point, and the replevies, void; where they acted upon funds subject to pay the debts under laws existing at the date of the contract-yet it is thought, that in a case like the one described, where a fund not before subject to the debt, was by the law made so; that the law could place that subjection, on terms; consistently with the constitution; and without impairing the obligation of the contract, although previously made. Because, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, and they left the plaintiff, or creditor, in a better condition, under the law, than he was without it: besides, the legislature were under no obligation to pass the law for creditors, before, or after the contract; and if it could subject the whole land, so it could have subjected the half-if to be sold for ready money, then on three months' credit, or on failure of a sale, authorized giving bond and

security, to pay the debt at the time prescribed. For it was only where there was not other property, that land could be taken by execution. And the constitution did not require that the situation of the creditor should be made better: it only forbade its being made worse, by law making.

It appears, however, that the general assembly of the next year, were affected by scruples, of doing injustice, by subjecting the lands of debtors to the payment of debts contracted before the passage of the act of 1792; and inserted a section in the execution law passed that year, to repeal so much of the act "subjecting lands to the payment of debts," as subjected lands to execution on judgments, founded on contracts entered into before the passage of the law. This certainly freed the subject from every difficulty, of a constitutional nature; and left the parties to pre-existing contracts, to stand on the same legal grounds, as to funds, which they occupied at the time of contracting.

Which was, perhaps, carrying the matter to an unnecessary degree of exactitude; as in plain truth, and real honesty, all bona fide debts, should be paid; and if it was sound policy to subject lands to the payment of debts,-in other words, to execution, there is no good reason perceived, for the discrimination: nor any reason whatever, for not extending it, to prior torts, as well as to prior, contracts.

So much, however, are mankind, and even legislators, the creatures of whim, caprice, or habit, that the same act of 1793, which limits the act of the preceding year to contracts made after its passage, does allow of three months' replevy upon contracts previously made. But, it is really the same spirit which is detected in both instances-it is not the spirit of justice, but that of favouring debtors. This latter act also permitted debtors taken on a ca. sa. to release their persons, by surrendering land, to pay the debt. But an act of the next year, declared that a surrender of land, should not release the body, although the sheriff might proceed to sell the land. This at least, has the appearance of rigour; and supposes abuses of the former law, to justify its infliction. This act of 1792, was also