ERE HAS CHARGE OF THE SLAVES ON CASTLE
ISLAND.--MASSACHUSETTS PASSES A LAW PROVIDING FOR THE
SECURITY, SUPPORT, AND EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS BROUGHT INTO
THE STATE.--GEN. HANCOCK RECEIVES A LETTER FROM THE GOVERNOR
OF SOUTH CAROLINA RESPECTING THE DETENTION OF NEGROES.--IN
THE PROVINCIAL ARTICLES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY, NEGROES WERE RATED AS
PROPERTY.--AND ALSO IN THE DEFINITE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY.--AND
ALSO IN THE TREATY OF PEACE OF 1814, BETWEEN HIS BRITANNIC
MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES, NEGROES WERE DESIGNATED AS
PROPERTY.--GEN. WASHINGTON'S LETTER TO BRIG. GEN. RUFUS
PUTNAM IN REGARD TO A NEGRO IN HIS REGIMENT CLAIMED BY MR.
HOBBY.--ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMY DID NOT ALWAYS WORK A
PRACTICAL EMANCIPATION.

When the Revolutionary War began, the legal status of the Negro slave
was clearly defined in the courts of all the colonies. He was either
chattel or real property. The question naturally arose as to his legal
status during his new relation as a soldier. Could he be taken as
property, or as a prisoner of war? Was he booty, or was he entitled to
the usage of civilized warfare,--a freeman, and therefore to be
treated as such?

The Continental Congress, Nov. 25, 1775, passed a resolution
recommending the several colonial legislatures to establish courts
that should give jurisdiction to courts, already in existence, to
dispose of "cases of capture." In fact, and probably in law, Congress
exercised power in cases of appeal. Moreover, Congress had prescribed
a rule for the distribution of prizes. But, curiously enough,
Massachusetts, in 1776, passed an Act declaring, that, in case
captures were made by the forces of the colony, the local authorities
should have complete jurisdiction in their distribution; but, when
prizes or captives were taken upon colonial territory by the forces of
the United Colonies, the distributions should be made in accordance
with the laws of Congress. This was but a single illustration of the
divided sovereignty of a crude government. That there was need of a
uniform law upon this question, there could be no doubt, especially in
a war of the magnitude of the one that was then being waged.

On the 13th of September, 1776, a resolution was introduced into the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, "to prevent the sale of two
neg