juſtifies at leaſt the doubt whether the privileges of ſervants belonged to ſlaves at all.
The law muſt 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 ſlaves—their captives taken in war.
2. Negro ſlaves—their own importations of "ſtrangers” obtained by purchaſe or exchange.
3- Criminals—condemned to ſlavery as a puniſhment for offences.
In this light, and only in this light, is their legiſlation intelligible and conſiſtent. It is very true that the code of which this law is a part "exhibits throughout the hand of the practiſed lawyer, familiar with the principles and ſecurities of Engliſh Liberty;" but who had ever heard, at that time, of the "common-law rights" of Indians and negroes, or anybody elſe but Engliſhmen?
Thus ſtood the ſtatute through the whole colonial period, and it was never expreſſly repealed. Baſed on the Moſaic code, it is an abſolute recognition of ſlavery as a legitimate ſtatus, and of the right of one man to ſell himſelf as well as that of another man to buy him. It ſanctions the ſlave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their children and their children's children, and entitles Maſſachuſetts to precedence over any and all the other colonies
{[ls}}undry were ſent hither, we have been deſirous (as we could) to make their yoke eaſy. * * * They have not been ſold for ſlaves to perpetual ſervitude, but for 6, or 7 or 8 yeares, as we do our owne." Hutchinſon's Coll., 235. He certainly did not mean "our owne" Indians and negroes.
