r known as "Mum Bet," was regarded as the first-fruits
of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights in the new Constitution of
1780. The Duke de la Rochefoucault Laincort gives the following
interesting account of the extinction of slavery in Massachusetts:--

"In 1781, some negroes, prompted by private suggestion,
maintained that they were not slaves: they found advocates,
among whom was Mr. Sedgwick, now a member of the Senate of
the United States; and the cause was carried before the
Supreme Court. Their counsel pleaded, 1 deg.. That no antecedent
law had established slavery, and that the laws which seemed
to suppose it were the offspring of error in the
legislators, who had no authority to enact them;--2 deg., That
such laws, even if they had existed, were annulled by the
new Constitution. They gained the cause under both aspects:
and the solution of this first question that was brought
forward set the negroes entirely at liberty, and at the same
time precluded their pretended owners from all claim to
indemnification, since they were proved to have possessed
and held them in slavery without any right. As there were
only a few slaves in Massachusetts, the decision passed
without opposition, and banished all further idea of
slavery."[634]

Mr. Nell gives an account of the legal death of slavery in
Massachusetts, but unfortunately does not cite any authority. John
Quincey Adams, in reply to a question put by John C. Spencer, stated
that, "a note had been given for the price of a slave in 1787. This
note was sued, and the Court ruled that the maker had received no
consideration, as a man could not be sold. From that time forward,
slavery died in the Old Bay State." There were several suits
instituted by slaves against their reputed masters in 1781-82; but
there are strong evidences that slavery died a much slower death in
Massachusetts than many are willing to admit. James Sullivan wrote to
Dr. Belknap in 1795:--

"In 1781, at the Court in Worcester County, an indictment
was found against a white man named Jennison for assaulting,
beating, and imprisoning Quock Walker, a black. He was tried
at the Supreme Judicial Court in 1783. His defence was, that
the black was his slave, and that the beating, etc., was the
necessary restraint and correction of the master. This was
answered by citing the afo