Viewing page 197 of 275

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

offered to give trust & security for the support of the Child until he attained his majority provided the Court would suffer the Mother to retain possession of him. Further it was in proof before the Court that the party applying had lost all her property excepting her dower right [[strikethrough]]to her[[/strikethrough]] to her land & a few personalities amounting to but little and that she is an aged widow lady. The inference being irresistible that a man and woman vigorous & able bodied (as it was proved the defendants were) were certainly more able to support their own child than the applicant for letters of indenture.
With these [[strikethrough]] proofs [[/strikethrough]] facts before the Court, the Judge granted letters of indenture & wrested the child from its mothers possession. The court assumed that it was guided in its decision 1st upon the ground that the promises for its support [[strikethrough]]supprort[[/strikethrough]] was not sufficient. 2nd That the mother was not intelligent, nor her morals good. 
From all the facts elicited in the trial it is clear if the child had been of white parents the applicant would have been summarily dismissed from Court.
The 2nd Case to which I call your attention was this. A woman aged about 26 & her husband both vigorous & 1st class hands have two children one 9 years old the other an infant at the breast. Their former owner is considered a hard driver keeps or did keep hounds which he used in the chase of his own & sometimes of his neighbors negroes. He applied for letter of indenture and the Court granted them as I think in flagrant violation of every principle of law & humanity. Under the the Common Law of England the Courts even in cases when the mother is proved to have been utterly ignorant and derilict in morals, have in no case