cause there is no malice aforethought. It is therefore a gross and palpable perversion of scripture to say that the phrase "He is his money," shows that the Hebrew master owned the body of his servant. You may, with strict propriety, use the same phrase of a father and son; or of a master cabinet-maker, who had taught a boy for four or five years. Would he let that boy go away at the request of his father or himself? No: he would say "This boy is my money: I cannot spare him." Thus I have shown that Hebrew bondmen were secured in their life, the first of all human rights. Let us now see how the slave code secures the life of the slave.

My brother said that I, or some one else (!) had written out a legal argument with great care; as though I had to get help in constructing my arguments. I have, all along, taken my authority from the slave laws of the States; which I have produced and read; and founded my arguments on the broad principles of the word of God. And in this stage of the debate, and state of the argument, with this audience, it is a truly pleasant insinuation of brother Rice that I lack talent to meet HIM. [A laugh.]

By the law of murder in the Mississippi code, it appears that if an "out-lying slave" is hailed and does not stop, and is shot down, the law does not call the act in question, nor is the shooter accounted a criminal. Thus while the slave's security to life is taken away by his incapacity to testify, or to be a party in court, the slave code expressly provides for killing slaves if necessary to enforce its provisions. While the Hebrew bondman had his life secured to him by the statute of God. So that if a man laid his hand upon him with intent to kill him, so that he died, he was put to death.

Secondly, The property of the Hebrew bondman was secured to him. See Lev. xxv, 49. "Where the Hebrew who had waxed poor," and was "sold," might be redeemed by his kindred, "or if he is able he may redeem himself.” Thus, the law contemplated him as a property holder, who

might acquire enough to pay his debts, and "redeem himself." The word here used, to signify the bond service of the poor Hebrew, is, "ebedh," which, Dr. Rice says, "is the very word for slave;" and this "ebedh" was a legal property holder. Moreover, if he was sold one hour before the jubilee, he was free at the hour's end; and if able to redeem himself before the jubilee, that is, if he acquired property enough-if he had made enough money in the "ebedh" condition, he could redeem himself and go free. He was sold because he could not pay his debts, like the German "redemptioners," who, being too poor to pay their passage money to the United States, were sold, when they arrived at this country, for a term of years, for the amount of the debt, incurred to the captain who brought them over.

But it is said that the Hebrew bond service, in the scriptures, is opposed to "liberty" and "freedom." And it is true. But does that prove it to have been slavery? Apprenticeship and all bond service, is spoken of as opposed to freedom, in the same way. We do not deny that there were Hebrew servants. There was something there. There was a bond service there, but no slavery. These Hebrew "slaves," as he calls them, had no property when they entered into service, but the law allowed them, if able, to redeem themselves before their term of service expired; thus showing that they could acquire and hold property during their service. But "slaves can acquire nothing, can possess nothing but what is their masters." In 2 Samuel, 9th, 10th, Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who was a Hebrew bondman or "ebedh," had 20 "ebedhs," and king David afterwards divided the land between his master and himself. This Ziba was a capable man and gained this property while a bondman himself—an ebedh-"the very word for slave," as my brother says, yet he had twenty ebedhs. So, 1 Samuel 9th chap., Saul was directed by Kish his father, when a young man, to go out and hunt for his asses. This was before Saul was elected king. His father, Kish, told him to "take one of the servants," and search for the animals. Saul, after

passing through many places, was afraid, from his long absence, that his father would leave caring for the asses, and begin to care for him. This servant, who was not a headservant, but simply one of the rank and file; produced onefourth part of a shekel of silver, to supply a gift to the man of God, in the neighborhood; who would tell them the way they should go. There are other instances where these ebedhs, had money, independent, and without the knowl edge of their masters. The fact that they could redeem themselves, and the fact that Ziba had twenty (ebedhs,) and that this servant had a large sum, in silver, show that the Hebrew servant was a legal property holder, secured in this right, as their masters were, by the law of God. Not that every one actually had property, but every one might have, and it was as secure, and the courts were as open to them as to their masters. They were not chattels.

And, in the third place, they had their liberty secured to them, that is, their civil liberty, which was perfect, with personal liberty after short indentures. The reason of this bond service was simply that untaught heathen, brought among the Jews, might be kept steady until fully reclaimed from their savage ways and worship. It was a wise and good apprenticeship to the business of knowing and serving God. Meantime, having legal existence, they could punish their masters, if they were oppressed, and run away with impunity if they chose. The fundamental idea of the Hebrew bond service, and of slavery, are just as wide apart as heaven and hell, that is, they are exact moral opposites.

The very essence of civil liberty, is, that one man has the same chance of justice, by the laws, as another, provided, first, that life and property, are secured to them. This liberty the Hebrew bondmen had, though Cassius M. Clay has it not. They were more secure in the three principal human rights, than Cassius M. Clay is at this day, and yet, C. M. Clay, is a long way from the condition of a slave.

The proof that the laws were as free to the bondmen as to their masters, is the fact, that there was no disabling sta

tute that the men were not made chattels. 2. The frequent and terrible prohibitions against oppression: "Wo to them who use their neighbor's service without wages," &c. "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, nor vex him. If thou afflict them in anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." And if my brother is famishing for more scripture, I give him Prov. xxxi, 8,

66

Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." 1 give him Lam. iii, 35, 36, " To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the MOST HIGH; to subert a man in his cause the LORD approveth not." If he still wishes more scripture, I will quote it. The Word of God blazes from beginning to end with denunciations against those "whose treading is upon the poor ;" and who so destitute, who so poor, as the man who does not own his garments, his wife, his child, or even himself? It is worthy of the most careful notice, the access which the most indigent and lowest people had to the person, not only of the judges, but of the monarch himself. Witness the two harlots who appeared before Solomon to dispute their claim to an illegitimate child. The lowest and most wretched outcast thus had free access to their monarchs, who knew that God would judge them if they did not pronounce just judgments. There were no grand juries intervening between the wronged man and the judge, and no such thing as advocates known in that day; but justice was direct, and simple, and summary, without delay.

For these facts, I refer to “Jahn's Archaeology," and "Horne's Introduction," both of which my opponent will acknowledge to be good authority. I refer also to the declaration of Job, himself a prince and a judge, "If I did despise the cause (suit) of my man-servant, or of my maid-servant, when they contended with me, what then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I

answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him?" Job xxxi, 13—15. And I refer to the general denunciations of the Bible, against those judges who refused the suits of those of low condition, all of whom had free access to the courts of justice, and even to the ear of their monarchs. I have referred to 1 Kings iii, 16-the case of the two harlots before Solomon-and Deut. xvi, 18, "Thou shalt not wrest judgment: thou shalt not respect persons: neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous." In the same chapter it is provided, that judges shall daily sit in all the gates, and hear the complaints of all, without respect of person. There were six thousand of these judges in the time of David, the King. And this custom was adopted as the most certain to bring the judges near to the people; because, sleeping in the cities for safety at night, as they were an ag ricultural people, they passed through the gates in going and returning from their labor. They were nomades, or herdsmen, and in going to their flocks out of the city, they passed directly by the judges seated upon the judgment seat. They were, moreover, as a people, well instructed in the law, and would know whether the judge decided right or wrong; and the judges knew that if they judged unrighteously, the vengeance of God would overtake them. Such was the perfect civil liberty enjoyed by the Hebrew slaves. Slaves! That accursed system has so befouled language, that one can scarcely pick up a clean word!!-[A laugh.] [Time expired.

[MR. RICE'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens:

[We go for free discussion. We are neither afraid to discuss, or afraid to hear discussion. I observe that some are in the habit of leaving the house as soon as the individual with whom they agree has done speaking. I hope those friends who happen to agree with me in sentiment, will not