viii, 184. We have no knowledge of the efforts made under this inftruction of the town of Boſton, but they failed to accompliſh anything. Indeed, the very next enactment concerning ſlavery was a ſtep backward inſtead of an advance towards reform—a meaſure which turned out to be a permanent and effective barrier againſt emancipation in Maſſachuſetts.
The Law of 1703, Chapter 2, was in reſtraint of the "Manumiſſion, Diſcharge, or Setting free" of "Molatto or Negro ſlaves." Security was required againſt the contingency of theſe perſons becoming a charge to the town, and "none were to be accounted free for whom ſecurity is not given;" but were "to be the proper charge of their reſpective maſters or miſtreſſes, in caſe they ſtand in need of relief and ſupport, notwithſtanding any manumiſſion or inſtrument of freedom to them made or given," etc.[1] A practice was prevailing to manumit aged or infirm ſlaves, to relieve the maſter from the charge of ſupporting them. To prevent this practice, the act was
- ↑ Jonathan Sewall, writing to John Adams, February 31, 1760, puts the following caſe:
"A man, by will, gives his negro his liberty, and leaves him a legacy. The executor conſents that the negro ſhall be free, but refuſeth to give bond to the ſelectmen to indemnify the twon againſt any charge for his ſupport, in caſe he ſhould become poor, (without which, by the province law, he is not manumitted,) or to pay him the legacy.
Query. Can he recover the legacy, and how?
John Adams, in reply, after illuſtrating in two caſes the legal principle that the intention of the teſtator, to be collected from the words, is to be obſerved in the conſtruction of a will, applied it to the caſe preſented as follows, viz.:
"The teſtator plainly intended that his negro ſhould have his liberty and a legacy; therefore the law will preſume that he intended his executor ſhould do all that without which he could have neither. That this in-
