The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus
Chapter 180 : "Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested.They attempt

"Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested.

They attempted to escape, and being pursued, ran for the river, in the vain hope of being able to swim across the Mississippi, a distance of a mile, with a current of four knots. One soon gave out, and made for a boat which had been despatched for their recovery, and was saved; the other being a better swimmer, continued on until much exhausted, then also made for the boat--it was too late; he sank before the boat could reach him, and was drowned. They claimed to be freemen.

"On Sunday last I was called to the prison of the Munic.i.p.ality in which I reside, to serve on an inquest on the body of a drowned man.

There I saw one other free man confined, by the name of Henry Tier, a yellow man, born in New York, and formerly in my employ. He had been confined as a supposed runaway, near six months, without a particle of testimony; although from his color, the laws of Louisiana presume him to be free. I applied immediately for his release, which was promptly granted. At first, expenses similar to those exacted in the third Munic.i.p.ality were required; but on my demonstrating to the recorder that the law imposed no such burden on free men, he was released without any charge whatever. How free men can obtain satisfaction for having been thus wrongfully imprisoned, and made to work in chains on the highway, is not for me to decide. I apprehend no satisfaction can be had without more active friends, willing to espouse their cause, than can be found in this quarter. Therefore I repeat, that no person of color should come here without a certificate of freedom from the governor of the state to which he belongs.

"Very respectfully, your a.s.sured friend, Jacob Barker."

"N.B.--Since writing the preceding, I have procured the release of another free man from the prison of the third Munic.i.p.ality, on the payment of $39.65, as per bill, copy herewith. His name is William Lockman--he was born in New Jersey, of free parents, and resides at Philadelphia. A greater sum was required which was reduced by the allowance of his maintenance (written _labor_,) while at work on the road, which the law requires the Munic.i.p.ality to pay; but it had not before been so expounded in the third Munic.i.p.ality. I hope to get it back in the case of the other three. The allowance for labor, in addition to their maintenance, is twenty-five cents per day; but they require those illiterate men to advance the whole before they can leave the prison, and then to take a certificate for their labor, and go for it to another department--to collect which, is ten times more trouble than the money when received is worth. While these free men, without having committed any fault, were compelled to work in chains, on the roads, in the burning sun, for 25 cents per day, and pay in advance 18 3-4 cents per day for maintenance, doctor's, and other bills, and not able to work half their time, I paid others, working on s.h.i.+p-board, in sight, two dollars per day. J.B."

The preceding letter of Mr. Barker, furnishes grounds for the belief, that _hundreds_, if not _thousands_ of free colored persons, from the different states of this Union, both slave and free from the West Indies, South America, Mexico, and the British possessions in North America, and from other parts of the world, are reduced to slavery _every year_ in our slave states. If a single individual, in the course of a few days, _accidentally_ discovered _six_ colored free men, working in irons, and soon to be sold as slaves, in a _single_ southern city, is it not fair to infer, that in all the slave states, there must be _mult.i.tudes_ of such persons, now in slavery, and that this number is rapidly increasing, by ceaseless accessions?

The letter of Mr. Barker is valuable, also, as a graphic delineation of the 'public opinion' of the south. The great difficulty with which the release of these free men was procured, notwithstanding the personal efforts of Mr. Jacob Barker, who is a gentleman of influence, and has, we believe, been an alderman of New Orleans, reveals a 'public opinion,' insensible as adamant to the liberty of colored men.

It would be easy to fill scores of pages with details similar to the preceding. We have furnished enough, however, to show, that, in all probability, _each_ United States' census of the _slave_ population, is increased by the addition to it of _thousands_ of free colored persons, kidnapped and sold as slaves.

5th. To argue that the rapid multiplication of any cla.s.s in the community, is proof that such a cla.s.s is well-clothed, well-housed, abundantly fed, and very _comfortable_, is as absurd as to argue that those who have _few children_, must of course, be ill-clothed, ill-housed, badly lodged, overworked, ill-fed, &c. &c. True, privations and inflictions may be carried to such an extent as to occasion a fearful diminishment of population. That was the case generally with the slave population in the West Indies, and, as has been shown, is true of certain portions of the southern states. But the fact that such an effect is _not_ produced, does not prove that the slaves do not experience great privations and severe inflictions.

They may suffer much hards.h.i.+p, and great cruelties, without experiencing so great a derangement of the vital functions as to prevent child-bearing. The Israelites multiplied with astonis.h.i.+ng rapidity, under the task-masters and burdens of Egypt. Does this falsify the declarations of Scripture, that 'they sighed by reason of their bondage,' and that the Egyptians 'made them serve _with rigor_,'

and made 'their lives bitter with _hard bondage_.' 'I have seen,' said G.o.d, 'their _afflictions_. I have beard their _groanings_,' &c. The history of the human race shows, that great _privations and much suffering_ may be experienced, without materially checking the rapid increase of population.

Besides, if we should give to the objection all it claims, it would merely prove, that the female slaves, or rather a portion of them, are in a comfortable condition; and that, so far as the absolute necessities of life are concerned, the females of _child-bearing_ age, in Delaware, Maryland, northern, western, and middle Virginia, the upper parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and among the mountains of east Tennessee and western North Carolina, are in general tolerably well supplied. The same remark, with some qualifications, may be made of the slaves generally, in those parts of the country where the people are slaveholders, mainly, that they may enjoy the privilege and profit of being _slave-breeders_.

OBJECTION VIII.--'PUBLIC OPINION IS A PROTECTION TO THE SLAVE.'

ANSWER. It was public opinion that _made him a slave_. In a republican government the people make the laws, and those laws are merely public opinion _in legal forms_. We repeat it,--public opinion made them slaves, and keeps them slaves; in other words, it sunk them from men to chattels, and now, forsooth, this same public opinion will see to it, that these _chattels_ are treated like _men!_

By looking a little into this matter, and finding out how this 'public opinion' (law) protects the slaves in some particulars, we can judge of the amount of its protection in others. 1. It protects the slaves from _robbery_, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may rob them and their children. "All negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their offspring, are hereby declared to be, and shall remain, forever, hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother."--Law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard's Digest, 229. Others of the slave states have similar laws.

2. It protects their _persons_, by giving their master a right to flog, wound, and beat them when he pleases. See Devereaux's North Carolina Reports, 263.--Case of the State vs. Mann, 1829; in which the Supreme Court decided, that a master who _shot_ at a female slave and wounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her, and started to run from him, had violated _no law_, AND COULD NOT BE INDICTED. It has been decided by the highest courts of the slave states generally, that a.s.sault and battery upon a slave is not indictable as a criminal offence.

The following decision on this point was made by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the case of the State vs. Cheetwood, 2 Hill's Reports, 459.

_Protection of slaves_.--"The criminal offence of a.s.sault and battery _cannot, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave_. For, notwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a person, yet generally he is a mere chattel personal, and his right of personal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action of trespa.s.s for the battery of his slave.

"There can be therefore no offence against the state for a mere beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circ.u.mstances of cruelty, or an attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and _is not in that character ent.i.tled to her protection_."

This 'public opinion' protects the _persons_ of the slaves by depriving them of Jury trial;[28] their _consciences_, by forbidding them to a.s.semble for wors.h.i.+p, unless their oppressors are present;[29]

their _characters_, by branding them as liars, in denying them their oath in law;[30] their _modesty_, by leaving their master to clothe, or let them go naked, as he pleases;[31] and their _health_, by leaving him to feed or starve them, to work them, wet or dry, with or without sleep, to lodge them, with or without covering, as the whim takes him;[32] and their _liberty_, marriage relations, parental authority, and filial obligations, by _annihilating_ the whole.[33]

This is the protection which 'PUBLIC OPINION,' in the form of _law_, affords to the slaves; this is the chivalrous knight, always in stirrups, with lance in rest, to champion the cause of the slaves.

[Footnote 28: Law of South Carolina. James' Digest, 392-3. Law of Louisiana. Martin's Digest, 42. Law of Virginia. Rev. Code, 429.]

[Footnote 29: Miss. Rev. Code, 390. Similar laws exist in the slave states generally.]

[Footnote 30: "A slave cannot be a witness against a white person, either in a civil or criminal cause." Stroud's Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, 65.]

[Footnote 31: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, 132.]

[Footnote 32: Stroud's Sketch, 26-32.]

[Footnote 33: Stroud's Sketch, 22-24.]

Public opinion, protection to the slave! Brazen effrontery, hypocrisy, and falsehood! We have, in the laws cited and referred to above, the formal testimony of the Legislatures of the slave states, that, 'public opinion' does pertinaciously _refuse_ to protect the slaves; not only so, but that it does itself persecute and plunder them all: that it originally planned, and now presides over, sanctions, executes and perpetuates the whole system of robbery, torture, and outrage under which they groan.

In all the slave states, this 'public opinion' has taken away from the slave his _liberty_; it has robbed him of his right to his own body, of his right to improve his mind, of his right to read the Bible, of his right to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d according to his conscience, of his right to receive and enjoy what he earns, of his right to live with his wife and children, of his right to better his condition, of his right to eat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when be needs it, and to cover his nakedness with clothing: this 'public opinion' makes the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except when his jailor pleases to let him out with a 'pa.s.s,' or sells him, and transfers him in irons to another jail-yard: this 'public opinion'

traverses the country, buying up men, women, children--chaining them in coffles, and driving them forever from their nearest friends; it sets them on the auction table, to be handled, scrutinized, knocked off to the highest bidder; it proclaims that they shall not have their liberty; and, if their masters give it them, 'public opinion' seizes and throws them back into slavery. This same 'public opinion' has formally attached the following legal penalties to the following acts of slaves.

If more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a white person, _twenty lashes a piece_; for visiting a plantation without a written pa.s.s, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from where it is made fast, _thirty-nine lashes for the first offence_; and for the second, '_shall have cut off from his head one ear_;' for keeping or carrying a _club, thirty-nine lashes_; for having any article for sale, without a ticket from his master, _ten lashes_; for traveling in any other than 'the most usual and accustomed road,' when going alone to any place, _forty lashes_; for traveling in the night, without a pa.s.s, _forty lashes_; for being found in another person's negro-quarters, _forty lashes_; for hunting with dogs in the woods, _thirty lashes_; for being on _horseback_ without the written permission of his master, _twenty-five lashes_; for riding or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the day time, without leave, a slave may be whipped, _cropped_, or _branded in the cheek_ with the letter R, or otherwise punished, _not extending to life_, or so as to render him _unfit for labor_. The laws referred to may be found by consulting 2 Brevard's Digest, 228, 213, 216; Haywood's Manual, 78, chap. 13, pp. 518, 529; 1 Virginia Revised Code, 722-3; Prince's Digest, 454; 2 Missouri Laws, 741; Mississippi Revised Code, 571. Laws similar to these exist throughout the southern slave code. Extracts enough to fill a volume might be made from these laws, showing that the protection which 'public opinion' grants to the slaves, is hunger, nakedness, terror, bereavements, robbery, imprisonment, the stocks, iron collars, hunting and worrying them with dogs and guns, mutilating their bodies, and murdering them.

A few specimens of the laws and the judicial decisions on them, will show what is the state of 'public opinion' among slaveholders towards their slaves. Let the following suffice.--'Any person may lawfully kill a slave, who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in swamps, &c.'--Law of North Carolina; Judge Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, 103; Haywood's Manual, 524. 'A slave _endeavoring_ to entice another slave to runaway, if provisions, &c. be prepared for the purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with DEATH. And a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, shall also suffer DEATH.'--Law of South Carolina; Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, 103-4; 2 Brevard's Digest, 233, 244. Another law of South Carolina provides that if a slave shall, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by '_any white_ person,' (no matter how crazy or drunk,) 'such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall _strike_ such white person, such slave may be lawfully killed.'--2 Brevard's Digest, 231.

The following is a law of Georgia.--'If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave shall, upon trial and conviction before the justice or justices, suffer such punishment for the first offence as they shall think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, DEATH.'--Prince's Digest, 450. The same law exists in South Carolina, with this difference, that death is made the punishment for the _third_ offence. In both states, the law contains this remarkable proviso: 'Provided always, that such striking be not done by the command and in the defence of the person or property of the owner, or other person having the government of such slave, in which case the slave shall be wholly excused!' According to this law, if a slave, by the direction of his OVERSEER, strike a white man who is beating said overseer's _dog_, 'the slave shall be wholly excused;'

but if the white man has rushed upon the slave himself, instead of the _dog_, and is furiously beating him, if the slave strike back but a single blow, the legal penalty is 'ANY _punishment_ not extending to life or limb;' and if the tortured slave has a second onset made upon him, and, after suffering all but death, again strike back in self-defence, the law KILLS him for it. So, if a female slave, in obedience to her mistress, and in defence of 'her property,' strike a white man who is kicking her mistress' pet kitten, she 'shall be wholly excused,' saith the considerate law: but if the unprotected girl, when beaten and kicked _herself_, raise her hand against her brutal a.s.sailant, the law condemns her to 'any punishment, not extending to life or limb; and if a wretch a.s.sail her again, and attempt to violate her chast.i.ty, and the trembling girl, in her anguish and terror, instinctively raise her hand against him in self-defence, she shall, saith the law, 'suffer DEATH.'

Reader, this diabolical law is the 'public opinion' of Georgia and South Carolina toward the slaves. This is the vaunted 'protection'

afforded them by their 'high-souled chivalry.' To show that the 'public opinion' of the slave states far more effectually protects the _property_ of the master than the _person_ of the slave, the reader is referred to two laws of Louisiana, pa.s.sed in 1819. The one attaches a penalty 'not exceeding one thousand dollars,' and 'imprisonment not exceeding two years,' to the crime of 'cutting or breaking any iron chain or collar,' which any master of slaves has used to prevent their running away; the other, a penalty 'not exceeding five hundred dollars,' to 'wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, _cruelly_ burning, or depriving any slave of _any limb_.' Look at it--the most horrible dismemberment conceivable cannot be punished by a fine of _more_ than five hundred dollars. The law expressly fixes that, as the utmost limit, and it _may_ not be half that sum; not a single moment's imprisonment stays the wretch in his career, and the next hour he may cut out another slave's tongue, or burn his hand off.

But let the same man break a chain put upon a slave, to keep him from running away, and, besides paying double the penalty that could be exacted from him for cutting off a slave's leg, the law imprisons him not exceeding two years!

This law reveals the _heart_ of slaveholders towards their slaves, their diabolical indifference to the most excruciating and protracted torments inflicted on them by '_any_ person;' it reveals, too, the _relative_ protection afforded by 'public opinion' to the _person_ of the slave, in appalling contrast with the vastly surer protection which it affords to the master's _property_ in the slave. The wretch who cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or burns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, _cannot_ legally be fined more than five hundred dollars; but if he should in pity loose a chain from his galled neck, placed there by the master to keep him from escaping, and thus put his property in some jeopardy, he may be fined _one thousand dollars_, and thrust into a dungeon for two years!

and this, be it remembered, not for _stealing_ the slave from the master, nor for _enticing_, or even advising him to run away, or giving him any information how he can effect his escape; but merely, because, touched with sympathy for the bleeding victim, as he sees the rough iron chafe the torn flesh at every turn, he removes it;--and, as escape without this inc.u.mbrance would be easier than with it, the master's property in the slave is put at some risk. For having caused this slight risk, the law provides a punishment--fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding _two years_. We say 'slight risk,' because the slave may not be disposed to encounter the dangers, and hunger, and other sufferings of the woods, and the certainty of terrible inflictions if caught; and if he should attempt it, the risk of losing him is small. An advertis.e.m.e.nt of five lines will set the whole community howling on his track; and the trembling and famished fugitive is soon scented out in his retreat, and dragged back and delivered over to his tormentors.

The preceding law is another ill.u.s.tration of the 'protection' afforded to the limbs and members of slaves, by 'public opinion' among slaveholders.

Here follow two other ill.u.s.trations of the brutal indifference of 'public opinion' to the _torments_ of the slave, while it is full of zeal to compensate the master, if any one disables his slave so as to lessen his market value. The first is a law of South Carolina. It provides, that if a slave, engaged in his owner's service, be attacked by a person 'not having sufficient cause for so doing,' and if the slave shall be '_maimed or disabled_' by him, so that the owner suffers a loss from his inability to labor, the person maiming him shall pay for his 'lost time,' and 'also the charges for the cure of the slave!' This Vandal law does not deign to take the least notice of the anguish of the '_maimed' slave_, made, perhaps, a groaning cripple for life; the horrible wrong and injury done to _him_, is pa.s.sed over in utter silence. It is thus declared to be _not a criminal act_. But the pecuniary interests of the master are not to be thus neglected by 'public opinion'. Oh no! its tender bowels run over with sympathy at the master's injury in the 'lost _time_' of his slave, and it carefully provides that he shall have pay for the whole of it.--See 2 _Brevard's Digest_, 231, 2.

A law similar to the above has been pa.s.sed in Louisiana, which contains an additional provision for the benefit of the _master_--ordaining, that 'if the slave' (thus _maimed and disabled_,) 'be forever rendered unable to work,' the person maiming, shall pay the master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and shall, in addition, _take_ the slave, and maintain him during life.'

Thus 'public opinion' transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of his master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services, might possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole power of the wretch who has disabled him for life--protecting the victim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands!

What but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circ.u.mstances, be expected from a man brutal enough at first to 'maim' and 'disable'

him, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the master, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his maintenance. Since writing the above, we have seen the following judicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs. Patton--5 Martin's Louisiana Reports, 615. A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of his _only eye_, and thus rendered _useless_, on which account the court adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full value. The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court. Judge Mathews, in his decision said, that 'when the defendant had paid the sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,'--adding, that 'the judgment making full compensation to the owner _operates a change of property_. He adds, 'The principle of humanity which would lead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION!' The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of the services of the slave, is worthy of all 'consideration,' even to the uttermost farthing; 'public opinion' is omnipotent for _her_ protection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging, medicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of her poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the question--ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the representative of 'public opinion,' 'CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.' Protection of slaves by 'public opinion' among slaveholders!!

The foregoing ill.u.s.trations of southern 'public opinion,' from the laws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far from being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their deadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.

But here we shall probably be met by the legal lore of some 'Justice Shallow,' instructing us that the life of the slave is fully protected by law, however unprotected he may be in other respects. This a.s.sertion we meet with a point blank denial. The law does not, in reality, protect the life of the slave. But even if the letter of the law would fully protect the life of the slave, 'public opinion' in the slave states would make it a dead letter. The letter of the law would have been all-sufficient for the protection of the lives of the miserable gamblers in Vicksburg, and other places in Mississippi, from the rage of those whose money they had won; but 'gentlemen of property and standing 'laughed the law to scorn, rushed to the gamblers' house, put ropes round their necks, dragged them through the streets, hanged them in the public square, and thus saved the sum they had not yet paid. Thousands witnessed this wholesale murder, yet of the scores of legal officers present, not a soul raised a finger to prevent it, the whole city consented to it, and thus aided and abetted it. How many hundreds of them helped to commit the murders, _with their own hands_, does not appear, but not one of them has been indicted for it, and no one made the least effort to bring them to trial. Thus, up to the present hour, the blood of those murdered men rests on that whole city, and it will continue to be a CITY OF MURDERERS, so long as its citizens, agree together to s.h.i.+eld those felons from punishment; and they do thus agree together so long as they encourage each other in refusing to bring them to justice. Now, the _laws_ of Mississippi were not in fault that those men were murdered; nor are they now in fault, that their murderers are not punished; the laws demand it, but the people of Mississippi, the legal officers, the grand juries and legislature of the state, with one consent agree, that the law _shall be a dead letter_, and thus the whole state a.s.sumes the guilt of those murders, and in bravado, flourishes her reeking hands in the face of the world.[34]

[Footnote 34: We have just learned from Mississippi papers, that the citizens of Vicksburg are erecting a public monument in honor of Dr.

H.S. Bodley, who was the ring-leader of the Lynchers in their attack upon the miserable victims. To give the crime the cold encouragement of impunity alone, or such slight tokens of favor as a home and a sanctuary, is beneath the chivalry and hospitality of Mississippians; so they tender it incense, an altar, and a crown of glory. Let the marble rise till it be seen from afar, a beacon marking the spot where law lies lifeless by the hand of felons; and murderers, with chaplets on their heads, dance and shout upon its grave, while 'all the people say, amen.']

The letter of the law on the statute book is one thing, the practice of the community under that law often a totally different thing. Each of the slave states has laws providing that the life of no _white_ man shall be taken without his having first been indicted by a grand jury, allowed an impartial trial by a pet.i.t jury, with the right of counsel, cross-examination of witnesses, &c.; but who does not know that if ARTHUR TAPPAN were pointed out in the streets of New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Natchez, or St. Louis, he would be torn in pieces by the citizens with one accord, and that if any one should attempt to bring his murderers to punishment, he would be torn in pieces also. The editors of southern newspapers openly vaunt, that every abolitionist who sets foot in their soil, shall, if he be discovered, be hung at once, without judge or jury. What mockery to quote the _letter of the law_ in those states, to show that abolitionists would have secured to them the legal protection of an impartial trial!

Before the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave is protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the law_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public sentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their true spirit. Any thing short of this will be set down as mere prating by every man of common sense. It has been already abundantly shown in the preceding pages, that the public sentiment of the slaveholding states toward the slaves is diabolical. Now, if there were laws in those states, the _words_ of which granted to the life of the slave the same protection granted to that of the master, what would they avail? ACTS const.i.tute protection; and is that public sentiment which makes the slave 'property,' and perpetrates hourly robbery and batteries upon him, so penetrated with a sense of the sacredness of his right to life, that it will protect it at all hazards, and drag to the gallows his OWNER, if he take the life of his own _property_? If it be asked, why the penalty for killing a slave is not a mere _fine_ then, if his life is not really regarded as sacred by public sentiment--we answer, that formerly in most, if not in all the slave states, the murder of a slave _was_ punished by a mere fine. This was the case in South Carolina till a few years since. Yes, as late as 1821, in the state of South Carolina, which boasts of its chivalry and honor, at least as loudly as any state in the Union, a slaveholder might butcher his slave in the most deliberate manner--with the most barbarous and protracted torments, and yet not be subjected to a single hour's imprisonment--pay his fine, stride out of the court and kill another--pay his fine again and butcher another, and so long as he paid to the state, cash down, its own a.s.sessment of damages, without putting it to the trouble of prosecuting for it, he might strut 'a gentleman.'--See 2 _Brevard's Digest_, 241.