[Legislation on Will]
Letter from Mr. John Ker to the Mississippi State Legislature
regarding the wills of Captain Isaac Ross and his daughter Mrs. M.
A. Reed - December 15, 1841
During the last Session of our
Legislature, measures were introduced into the House of
Representatives and passed by that body, which were evidently
intended to annul the provisions of the last wills and testaments of
the late Captain Isaac Ross, and of his daughter, Mrs. M. A. Reed,
both of Jefferson county. These measures were defeated in the
Senate, but, I regret to say, not without difficulty, arising, as I
believe, from misrepresentations by interested or prejudiced
persons; and I have reason to believe that the purpose is not yet
abandoned, but will be renewed. As I conceive this attempt to
legislate away one of the rights most dear to men, and hitherto held
sacred, the right to dispose of property by will or otherwise at
pleasure, I must ask your patient attention to a brief history of
the wills which it was the object of these measures to destroy,
after their legality and validity had been sustained, at the end of
a severely contested lawsuit, by the highest judicial tribunal of
the State.
With the late Captain Isaac Ross, as well as his daughter, Mrs. Reed, I had the honor of a personal acquaintance for more than 20 years, before the death of the former. To those who enjoyed his acquaintance it would be superfluous for me to say that no man could sustain a higher character for unsullied probity and honor, or for vigor, energy and independence. His character was formed in the battle-fields of his country during her war for liberty and independence. By his subsequent industry and energy, he acquired a large fortune, much of which, during his life, he dispensed in the liberal settlement of his children. In August, 1834, he made his will after long deliberation, and in unquestioned sanity and vigor of mind--providing that most of his slaves should have the privilege of being sent to Liberia, in Africa, and that the remainder of his estate should be sold, and after paying some legacies (one of which was $10,000 to a Grand-daughter) the proceeds to be applied to the use and benefit of said slaves in Africa. In October of the same year, in February, March and June, 1835, and in January, 1836, he made as many different codicils, modifying slightly, but all sustaining the main provisions of the will. These circumstances are stated to corroborate what I allege upon my own responsibility, that he had long intended to make the disposition of his property for which the will provided. This is the more proper, inasmuch as great pains have been taken to make the impression, that the will was made in the immediate prospect of death, and under the influence of "priests and fanatics." The truth is, he counseled with no priest or clergyman, and no man was ever more free from the influence of that class of men, or of any description of fanaticism. His slaves (at least most of them) had long labored with and for him, and they felt, in a high degree, the mutual attachment which is not uncommon in the South between master and slave, and which ought to put to shame the slanders of ignorant or wicked Northern fanatics. He ardently desired to provide for their welfare and happiness after his death. It is not for others to determine whether the plan he adopted was wise or unwise. He believed he had an unquestionable right to make such disposition as he pleased of his property, not inconsistent with the rights of others and the laws of his country. He was rather hostile than otherwise to religion, or at least to the creeds taught by any of the prevailing Christian denominations, and although kind and hospitable to clergymen (and all others) who visited his house, he was far from being influenced by any one. Even the Rev. Mr. Butler, who from having been a class-mate in College with a son of Capt. Ross, had visited and become intimate in the family, had never been in any way consulted by him relative to his will.
Capt. Ross died in January, 1836. By the provisions of one of the
codicils, he had left to his daughter, Mrs. Reed, the possession and
use of his residence and other property, during her life, or as long
as she might choose; and provided for the postponement of the
principal provisions of the will until her death, or such time as
she might previously determine. Before her death, she had ample
proofs of the determination of some of the heirs at law of her late
venerated Father, to dispute the validity of the will, and to defeat
the main objects of the testator. Her filial piety was deeply
wounded, and her indignation strongly excited by this intention; and
fearing that they might possibly succeed, she determined to make her
own will in such manner as would, if possible, avoid the danger of
litigation. She accordingly devised her whole estate (with the
exception of some small legacies) to Rev. Zebulon Butler and Dr.
Stephen Duncan. Before making her will, she consulted with neither
of these gentlemen, whom she also appointed her Executors. Nor is
there reason to believe that she consulted with any one, except the
legal gentleman (the late Mr. Chaplain) whom she sent for to draw up
her will. It was not until some time afterwards that Mr. Butler was
apprized that he was to be one of the Executors; nor even then did
he know the purport of the will. He then regretted, as he has done
ever since, that his dying friend would not release him from the
duty of serving her in that capacity. He could not resist the solemn
and affecting appeals that she made to him when in a dying state.
She had intended at a former period, to make a Nephew one of the
Executors of a will similar to her fathers', but the course taken
with regard to his will had changed that determination, and
embittered her feelings towards her relations. She was still farther
exasperated by declarations made to her, that a learned lawyer had
given his opinion that she could not make a will (to effect her
known wishes) that he could not break. To secure, as far as
possible, the principal object of her father's will, in case of its
being declared invalid, in which event one-third of his estate would
be hers by legal inheritance, she made a codicil to her will,
devising to Dr. Duncan and Mr. Butler her portion of her father's
estate. She doubtless believed that in that case these gentlemen
would have power to dispose, without controversy, of this property
as they pleased, and that they would at least carry into effect the
known wishes of her father, with regard to such of his slaves as
should fall into their hands, by virtue of her will. It is also
probable, that she expected from them a similar disposition of her
own slaves, as she left, at her decease, a letter addressed to them,
stating that she had intended to make a will similar to her
father's, but that having been informed that such a will might be
declared invalid by the Courts, she had made another will and left
them her Executors. Soon after the decease of Mrs. Reed, a suit was
brought in the Chancery Court to defeat both her will and that of
her father. The Chancellor's decree sustained both wills. An appeal
was taken to the "High Court of Errors and Appeals," and there,
after elaborate arguments, the Chancellor's decree was affirmed. The
ground on which the wills were contested was, (assuming that the
devise to Dr. Duncan and Mr. Butler was a trust, for the real
purpose of emancipating the slaves) their alleged "contravention of
the laws and policy of the State," in regard to the manumission of
slaves. The Courts decided that the laws and policy of the State, as
opposed to manumission except by Legislative consent, had no
application to a will providing for the removal of slaves beyond the
limits of the State for the purpose of manumitting them--the object
of the law referred to having been only to prevent an increase of
free negroes within the limits of the State. By the law no citizen
could manumit his slave or slaves within the State, except in
specified cases, and by Legislative action. But no shadow of doubt
could exist, that any citizen possesses the right (which cannot be
taken from him even by law) to remove his slaves from the State for
the purpose of setting them free, or any other, at his pleasure. Nor
until recently was it ever doubted that the right exists in every
one to provide by will for the removal of his slaves from the State
after his death, without question of his motive or object. Several
wills of this nature have been made and executed in this county
without even a question of the right, without allegation of their
contravening the laws and policy of the State, and without even a
suspicion that they were calculated to disturb, or that they had
disturbed the peace or safety of society in the relation of master
and slave. And in reference to the charge of religious or fanatical
influence in dictating the many wills which have provided for the
transportation of slaves to Africa, it is a remarkable fact, that,
so far as I know, in every case of such testamentary provisions, the
testator has not been a professor of religion, but on the contrary
some of them have been decidedly hostile to every known Christian
sect.
Having, as briefly as possible, stated the facts in
relation to these wills, I am now prepared to give you the history
of the most extraordinary attempt at Legislation which has ever
occurred within my knowledge.
On the 10th day of January, during the last adjourned Session of
our Legislature, the following Resolution was passed by the House of
Representatives and sent to the Senate for concurrence:
"Whereas,
it is provided by the laws of this State, that no citizen thereof
"shall, by his or her last will or testament, manumit or set free
his or her "slaves, except by the Legislature of this State,
evidenced by a special act "for that purpose passed; and whereas
Isaac Ross and Margaret A. Reed, "late citizens of the County of
Jefferson in this State, did by their last "wills and testaments,
attempt directly and indirectly, to manumit upwards "of 300 slaves
belonging to them at the time of their decease, for "the purpose of
colonizing them in Africa or elsewhere; and whereas it is "contrary
to the settled policy of this State, and of dangerous example to
"the slaves thereof, to encourage or permit their manumission under
the "circumstances aforesaid,
"Therefore be it Resolved by the
Legislature of the State of Mississippi, "That they will not consent
to the manumission either directly or indirectly "of the slaves
mentioned in the last wills and testaments of the said "Isaac Ross
and M. A. Reed, nor will they consent to the transportation "of said
slaves to Africa or elsewhere, for the purpose of being there
"manumitted."
On the 3rd day of February this resolution was
finally laid on the table of the Senate by a majority of one vote.
On the 22d of January the following Bill was introduced into the
House of Representatives, and, the rules having been dispensed with,
was passed, (without a call of the ayes and nays) and sent to the
Senate:
"An Act declaratory of the laws and policy of this State
on the subject of domestic slavery."
"Section 1. Be it
enacted, &c., That from and after the passage of this "act, no
Executor or Executors, or any other person or persons, shall remove,
"or cause to be removed, the slave or slaves of any deceased person
"or persons, from this State, for the purpose of transporting such
slave or "slaves to Africa or elsewhere, for the purpose of
colonization, emancipation "or freeing such slave or slaves, under
or by virtue of any will or "codicil for that purpose. "Sec. 2. Be
it enacted, &c., That in all such cases when the slave or "slaves of
any deceased person or persons shall have been devised in trust, "or
left to the Executors or other persons, for the purposes prohibited
by "the 1st section of this Act, that such slave or slaves shall
descend to, and "be distributed among the heirs of such deceased
person or persons, in the "same manner as if such deceased person or
persons had died intestate." "Sec. 3. Be it enacted, &c., That this
Act shall take effect from and "after its passage."This Bill having
been committed to a Committee of the whole Senate the following
amendments offered by Senator Tucker (now Governor elect) were, on
the 3d of February, adopted by the Senate--ayes 16; noes 14; viz:
"Amend, Section 1. By inserting after the word 'Executors' in the 3d
line (of the Bill) the words following, viz: 'of any last will and
testament or 'or codicil, hereafter made and published,' and by
inserting after the word 'persons,' same line, 'by authority created
or conferred after the passage of this act."
The Bill with these amendments (which it is obvious were necessary to prevent the law from having a retrospective and therefore unconstitutional operation) was passed and sent back to the House of Representatives for their concurrence in the amendments. The printed journals of the House of Representatives show no trace of the Bill there, except the message from the Senate asking concurrence in the amendments. But on the 4th of February it was sent back to the Senate with a message refusing to concur.
On the 5th of February the message of the House of Representatives was called up, and a strenuous effort made to recede from the amendments. But on my motion the Bill was laid upon the table until the Monday following, which was a day after the close of the Session. This was equivalent to rejection. By joint resolution of the two Houses, the Session was to close on Saturday evening, the 6th of February, at 7 o'clock.
Long after 7 o'clock, perhaps 9 or 10, on the evening of the 6th, whilst I was for a moment absent from the Senate Chamber, an attempt was made to call up the Bill. On my return I stated to the Chair, that having been "laid upon the table until Monday next" (a day beyond the Session) "the Bill could not be called up, except by a motion to reconsider," which could be made only by one of the majority who had voted to lay it on the table. It was alleged by some Senators that this was not so, and the Senator in the Chair (not the President, but the same who occupied it the day preceding when the Bill had been disposed of) declared he did not recollect. I insisted, and expressed my surprise that the Chair did not remember, as immediately after the vote I had emphatically called his attention and that of the Senate to the fact, that the motion which had just been carried was to lay on the table to a day beyond the Session. I appealed to the Senate. The President (pro tem.) appealed to the journal. This had not been made up and read as usual in the morning. The Secretary, after looking at his notes, at first alleged that it was the ordinary motion simply "to lay upon the table." But when I still persisted and moved a call of the Senate, he at length discovered that I was right. Thus ended for that session this extraordinary attempt to legislate away the solemn decisions of the highest judicial tribunals of the State.*
[Note : * I cannot but here state a fact, (without attempting to attach blame to any individual, for I know not who is culpable) that the printed Journals of the Sessions in which I served as a Senator, are exceedingly erroneous. To specify an instance or two: in the Journal of the House of Representatives there is no note of any proceedings on the 20th January, and yet the House transacted business on that day. Again in the Journal of the Senate on the 5th of February, there is no record of proceedings of the Senate on the above mentioned Bill, and yet it was, as above stated, taken up and on my motion after debate, "laid on the table until Monday next." And the minutes of Saturday, the 6th, in relation to the action of the Senate on that Bill, does not state the truth. It was NOT taken up (although an attempt was made to take it up contrary to all rules) nor was it on that day LAID UPON THE TABLE, as stated by the Journal. It is no light matter that the Journals of the Legislature should be falsified.]
Soon after these measures had passed the House of Representatives and whilst their fate was pending in the Senate, I addressed myself to a member of that House whom I happened to see in the lobby, and with whom I had always enjoyed respectful and friendly intercourse, and expressed my astonishment to him that the House of Representatives could pass measures of such a character--striking (as I conceived) at the roots--the very vitals--of a government of laws and equal rights. I scarcely know which surprised me most. the fact of his advocating them, or the grounds upon which he did so. He said (in substance) that if the wills should not be defeated by the Legislature, they would be by violence--that every man in Jefferson (County was opposed to the wills, and that 200 men were ready to oppose their execution by force of arms, and that he wished to save that County from the odium or disgrace or such a proceedure. He admitted that he did not believe that the Legislature could reverse a decision of the Courts; but he wished their action upon this subject to exert a "moral influence," &c. I confess that I was then, as I am now, incapable of understanding how a Legislative act, the plain and obvious import and object of which was to make null and void, and to reverse the decrees of the High Court of Errors and Appeals, could exert any moral influence. Nothing that I can conceive of could be more fatally demoralizing in its effects.
Another highly respected member of the House of Representatives
denied to me that the will was intended to have any retrospective
operation, or to affect the decisions of the Courts. But how can
these gentlemen reconcile these declarations with the fact, that
when the Senate made the amendments which rendered the Bill
prospective only, and deprived it of its obviously intended
retrospective character, they refused to concur in the amendments.
If, as the innocent title of the Bill purported, the intention was
bona fide to declare the laws and policy of the State for the future
government of its citizens, why did they not agree to the
amendments! But no! this would not reach the real object and
therefore the friends of the Bill would not have it. The prime
movers of this measure were interested lobby members, and especially
one who had labored hard but ineffectually in the Courts for a large
contingent fee, and who was now to be seen, day after day and week
after week, in the lobbies of the Legislature diligently and
ardently promoting the passage of these measures by such arguments
as he deemed most potent, and which had well nigh affected their
adoption.
But what were the strong arguments used on the
floor at the Senate to sustain these measures? In addition to those
already alluded to, I think the most prominent were the following:
1. It was alleged that insubordination existed among the slaves
of these two estates to such an extent as to produce great and
general alarm in the neighborhood, and even lively apprehensions of
an insurrection, &c. I cannot do justice to the eloquence which was
called into exercise in the description of the dangers and horrors
which impended over this ill-fated neighborhood. But like many other
splendid passages of poets and orators. this eloquent description
had much more of fiction than fact for its foundation. Subsequent
investigation has enabled me to say, that on the estate or Capt.
Ross there never had been the slightest insubordination, and on that
of Mrs. Reed, none more formidable than frequently occurs from the
change of overseer--and none that was not promptly quelled by the
energy and resolution of a single citizen. But for the sake of
argument, suppose it had been true, that the negroes were a vicious,
insubordinate and dangerous set. What would have been the danger to
the neighborhood, or to the State, of sending them off to Africa?
But one of the complaints actually made against the Executors of one
or both of the wills, was that the negroes had not been promptly
removed. This complaint comes certainly with a bad grace in behalf
of those who, by bringing a law-suit to defeat these wills, coerced
the Executors to incur the heavy expenses incident to litigation
when so large an amount was involved--expenses amounting to more
than thirty thousand dollars, and thereby created the necessity of
detaining the slaves even after the termination of the suit, to
defray them. They first prevented the possibility of removing the
negroes by bringing a suit to break the will, and then charge the
Executors with unnecessary delay because they have to be detained to
make the money to pay the expenses of the suit. 2. It was
insinuated, if not alleged, that the wills were made under the
influence of the terrors of death and judgment, inspired by "priests
and fanatics," operating upon minds enfeebled by disease and
suffering. Much also was said of a similar character. These
allegations, if true, and if they had been proved before the Courts
upon the trial, might have had some just weight, but unfortunately
there is not a shadow of truth to support them, and I believe not
even an attempt was made to prove them. And in the case of Capt.
Ross, the will itself bears internal and irrefutable evidence of the
contrary. The privilege intended to be secured to most of his
slaves, was distinctly excepted and withheld by the testator, from a
portion of them whom he directed to be sold. This proves that it was
no death-bed alarm of conscience from the Abolitionists sin of
slave-holding. It is evident that if this had been the feeling which
prompted the will, it would have been made to embrace all the slaves
in the provisions for emigration to Africa. 3. It was alleged of the
Executors of Mrs. Reed, that one (Mr. Butler) was a Clergyman, and
that the other (Dr. Duncan) is a very rich man, and President of the
Colonization Society. An artful attempt was made to identify
Colonization with Abolitionism, and to attach the odium which very
properly falls upon the latter, to all who would be concerned in
executing the intentions or supposed wishes of the testators in
regard to the removal of the slaves to Africa. Much was said about
fanaticism and "Abolitionism in disguise." I have said that an
artful attempt was made, because I can scarcely suppose a Senator,
and especially the principal champion on this occasion, so badly
informed on the subject as not to know that the most deadly
hostility exists, on the part of the Abolitionists, to the
Colonization Society, and to the object to which (in the language of
its constitution) "its attention is to be exclusively directed,"
viz: "to "promote and execute a plan for colonizing (with their own
consent) the "free people of color residing in our country, in
Africa or such other place "as Congress shall deem most expedient."
The chief difficulty in the way of the Society is want of adequate
funds. Emigrants are offering themselves in greater numbers than
they have means for transporting and providing for. This fact proves
that the Society could have no motive to persuade masters to
emancipate their slaves.The characters of the gentlemen who, without
their knowledge, had been appointed the Executors of Mrs. Reed's
will, require no defence at the bands of so humble an individual as
myself. They are emphatically men without reproach. One of them it
is true is a Clergyman; but this, I trust, can only be a subject of
reproach, even among those who make no profession of religion, when
the life and conduct is inconsistent with the profession. It is in
vain that dligent efforts have been made to attach odium to him in
consequence of his unfortunate connexion with one of these wills,
whilst it is impossible to deny to him the most absolute
disinterestedness. Even his accusers unintentionally praise him. Of
what is he accused? Of intending or desiring to remove to Liberia,
in Africa, his own slaves. A will has been made by virture of which,
so long as there is any law in the land, the property (slaves and
all) of the late Mrs. Reed, have, incontestibly become the property
of Sir. Butler and Dr. Duncan. Their title to the property cannot be
questioned, and if there was an Execution in the hands of the
Sheriff of that County against either of these gentlemen, it would
be subject to seizure and sale to satisfy the Execution--nor could
any legal power prevent it. Who will deny That Mrs. Reed had the
right to make these gentlemen her heirs? Well, if they had applied
the estate to their own use, they might unquestionably have done so.
But because they desire to make a disposition of the property by
which they cannot be benefitted, they are abused and vilified and
even threatened with the interposition of force, to prevent the
execution of their intentions. It has been publicly boasted that 500
men are pledged and ready to prevent them from removing their
slaves.
I appeal to you, if this is a mere private contest
for property, in which we have no concern? So long as it was
confined to the judicial tribunals, this would have been the case,
and public discussion of the subject would have been improper. But
on the part of those who contested the wills, this becoming silence
was not observed even pending the litigation in the Courts.
Publication was made in the newspapers of the briefs of the lawyers
and other ex-parte views of the case, for no other obvious purpose
then that of operating through popular prejudices upon the Courts.
There was nothing in this case to justify or even to apologize for
Such attempts to create popular excitement. It demanded only the
calm and unblessed judgment of the Courts--the only tribunals which
could legally take cognizance of the questions at issue. But after
the most full and labored arguments of the most able and learned
counsel on both sides, the High Court of Errors and Appeals, the
highest tribunal in the State, affirmed the judgment of the
Chancellor sustaining the wills. But, as you have seen, the contest
was not given up. The people have been called upon to rise up and
put the laws at defiance--calls have been made upon the Legislature
to usurp power not granted to them by the people in the
Constitution, to annul the solemn decrees of the Courts--to wrest
from the hands of citizens property which has been devised to them
under the laws of the State. And shall it be said that you and I
have no concern with these extraordinary movements? If we quietly
fold our arms and passively acquiesce in such proceedings, what
security, I ask, have any of us for the protection of law to our
property, our lives or our liberty? To what purpose have we yielded
a portion of our natural liberty, in the constitution of civil
government, if, on the one hand, we are compelled to submit to the
decisions of the established tribunals of the country; whilst on the
other, in the protection of our rights and property and perchance of
our lives, the same authority is to be trampled upon and set at
naught? Has it indeed come to this, that the laws of the land are to
be annulled by one man or by even 500 men, because certain testators
did not happen to make their wills in accordance with their views or
with public sentiment. Let us not deceive ourselves. Passive
acquiescence in such doctrines or in such measures is criminal. "The
poisoned chalice may soon be returned to our own lips." We may be
the next victim to the ruthless hand of lawless usurpation and
violence.
I am, gentlemen,
Your friend and fellow-citizen,
JOHN KER.
Linden, December 15th, 1841.
(NOTE.)
The above
letter was written some time ago, and would then have been published
but that the writer was informed, that some legal steps had been
renewed in relation to one of the wills. The publication was then
suspended. The writer has, however, just seen a copy of the 7th
section of a bill now before the House of Representatives, entitled
"an act to amend the several acts of this State relative to free
negroes and mulattoes." This section is so palpably adapted, and
intended to bear upon these wills, that he cannot feel at liberty
longer to withhold the publication.
Feb. 1st, 1842.