[Footnote 675: See his admirable _Massachusetts: Its History and Historians_ (Boston, 1893).]
[Footnote 676: Compare MOORE'S article "Slave Marriages in Mass.," in DAWSON'S _Hist. Mag._, 2d series, V (Feb., 1869), 135, to which I am much indebted.]
[Footnote 677: PALFREY, _Hist. of New England_, II, 30, note; _cf._ MOORE, _loc. cit._, 135-37.]
[Footnote 678: SUMNER, in his speech in the Senate, June 28, 1854: _Works_, III, 384.]
[Footnote 679: According to HURD, _Law of Freedom and Bondage_, I, 225, "the involuntary servitude of Indians and negroes in the several colonies originated under a law not promulgated by legislation, and rested upon the prevalent views of universal jurisprudence, or of the _law of nations_, supported by the express or implied authority of the home Government." Compare WASHBURN, "The Extinction of Slavery in Mass.," 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ (1857), IV, 333-46; the same in _Procds. Mass. Hist. Soc._ (1855-58), 188 ff.; and BELKNAP'S answer to TUCKER'S _Queries_ (1795), in 1 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, IV, 191-211, which on the points under consideration is very superficial and misleading.]
[Footnote 680: See Justice Gray's note to the case of Oliver _v._ Sale: _Quincy's Reports_, 29. The authorities there cited are misleading and do not establish the assertions quoted. The well-known apology for Massachusetts slavery by NATHAN DANE in his _Abridgment_, II, 413, 426, 427, is equally unsupported by the facts. The same view as that of Gray is taken by Chief Justice Dana in Littleton _v._ Tuttle (1796): 4 _Mass. Reports_, 128, note; by Chief Justice Shaw in Commonwealth _v._ Aves: 18 _Pickering's Reports_, 208, 209; and it is repeated in _Cushing's Reports_, 410. On the other hand, in Winchendon _v._ Hatfield: 4 _Mass. Reports_ (1806), 123, Chief Justice Parsons correctly says "slavery was introduced" in Massachusetts "soon after its first settlement, and was tolerated until the ratification of the present constitution" in 1780. "The issue of the female slave, according to the maxim of the civil law, was the property of her master." The same opinion is held in Perkins, Town Treasurer of Topsfield _v._ Emerson (1799): DANE'S _Abridgment_, II, 412; and by Chief Justice Parker in Andover _v._ Canton (1816): 13 _Mass. Reports_, 551, 552. In 1865 the errors of Gray, Dane, Webster, and others were fully exposed by MOORE, _Notes on the History of Slavery in Mass._, 10 ff., 22 ff., 94 ff., 98 ff.; yet it is curious to see BISHOP, _Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_ (Chicago, 1891), I, 179 n. 1, 282, still accepting Gray's dictum as authority.]