chuſetts, with whom he lived about five weeks, when he enliſted into the three-years' ſervice, and his laſt owner received the whole of his bounty and part of his wages.
Edom London, for ſuch was the name of this revolutionary patriot, in 1806 was "poor," and "had become chargeable" to the town in which he reſided. That town magnanimouſly ſtruggled through all the Courts, from the Justices Court up to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, to ſhift the reſponsibility for the maintenance and ſupport of the old ſoldier from itſelf to one of the numerous other towns in which he had ſojourned from time to time as the ſlave of his eleven maſters. The attempt was unſucceſsful; but it is worthy of notice, as Chief Juſtice Parſons, in the deciſion on the appeal, ſettled ſeveral very important points concerning the laws of ſlavery in Maſſachuſetts. He said:
"Slavery was introduced into this country [Maſſachuſetts] ſoon after its firſt ſettlement, and was tolerated until the ratification of the preſent Conſtitution [the Conſtitution of 1780]. … The iſſue of the female ſlave, according to the maxim of the Civil law, was the property of her maſter."
With regard to this latter point, Chief Juſtice Dana, in directing a jury, in 1796, had ſtated as the unanimous opinion of the Court, that a negro born in the State before the Conſtitution of 1780, was born free, although born of a female ſlave.
Chief Juſtice Parſons, however, candidly declared that "it is very certain that the general practice and common uſage had been oppoſed to this opinion."
