father, she was to be treated just as a daughter. But if the father or the son should absolutely marry her, and afterwards take another woman, the first was still to be his wife, and her food, her raitment, and even her duty of marriage must he not diminish. Should he refuse to recognize her any longer as a wife, he could not retain her as a maid servant, but she was to go out free without money, i. e. without being redeemed. The whole arrangement shews that the girl who on account of the poverty of her father had to be transferred to another, who was not her natural guardian, should have her natural rights protected by law, and herself saved from oppression and injury. I see nothing in the whole paragraph to allow the least apology for slavery, and I scarcely think any candid man will, upon examination, claim it as in any way favouring that condition.

Exodus xxi. 20, 21.

"And if a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Not

withstanding, if he continue a day or two he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

There are two inferences drawn from this passage to favour the pro-slavery side of the question. The one is from the expres sion, he is his money," and the other from the reference to the smiting of the servant by the masters.

I first notice the expression," he is his money," and readily meet the advocate of slavery with the remark that the loss of even a hired servant would oftentimes be the loss of money to the employer, and much more a loss, of course, if he had already paid him in advance, as was done when a man on account of his poverty, sold himself until the year of release. The loss, therefore, which the master would sustain in the death of his servant who died a day or two after being smitten, would be taken in evidence that the master did not intend to commit a homicide. If he had intended to kill the servant, he would probably have done it at once. The master, therefore, if tried for murder in a case where the servant lived a day or two,

would be acquitted; but if the servant died under his hand, i. e. immediately after his smiting him, then would the master be punished as a murderer. In the former case he would be acquitted. Why? Because the servant "is his money," i. e. it being to his interest not to kill him, it is presumable he did not intend to kill him. But this plea could not be put in when the death occurred on the spot, because notwithstanding the master's pecuniary interest in the servant, the immediate effect of the blow would be evidence that in his passion or malignity he was alike reckless of his own pecuniary interest and of the servant's life.

I admit that the evidence would be strong against the idea of intentional murder, in proportion to the amount of pecuniary interest the master had in the servant, and therefore that a slave would be more of a man's money probably than another sort of servant would be; but nevertheless this other servant is just as certainly money to the master as the slave is money.

But in the next place the slaveholder or

his advocate lays hold of the idea that the smiting of the servant by the master, was not a legal offence, and not punishable where there was no murder, and therefore he infers that the master had a right to whip his servant, and consequently that servant must have been a slave. I remark that if the master could whip his servant at his own option, under the Mosaic law, and the servant had no legal means of redress, upon evidence of unjustifiable treatment, then was that servant a slave until the year of release. But the law now under consideration does not imply any such state of things. That law had a specific object. That object was to settle the evidence in a trial for murder, under circumstances that did not apply in other cases of homicide. As regards the act of smiting the servant without death. being the supposed consequence, nothing is said; plainly because that was not the thing for which that particular law was enacted. But there were other laws which also related to injuries that a servant might sustain from being smitten by his master, besides having the redress at law

that any other man, not a servant, had a te right to claim for his protection. That is h to say, if a servant from a blow of his master lost his tooth, the master forfeited his rights in the servant, and accordingly he went free, whatever may have been his previous obligations; and the servant I had at the same time the same right for I any other damages that the law gave to any other man in Israel. For it was expressly enjoined in the Mosaic law, that there must be no respect of persons in judgment. It was to be eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &c., never mind who was the injured person, whether servant or freeman. The Israelites were all brethren, and under all circumstances to consider and treat one another as brethren-Israelites either by birth or naturalization. The employer and the employed, the master and the servant, were as to legal rights on a perfect equality; each had his right to appeal to the law if the other did not fulfill his part of the engagement.

Exodus xxi. 32.

"If the ox shall push a man servant or