Pierre, a man of color v. Gabrial Chouteau
View original image: Page  087
[missing figure]

To Cross question 2nd - Did not the Intendants under the French Govern-
ment in CanadaCanadapossess legislative as well
as Judicial - & administrative powers?

Answer - In Intendants under the French Government
in CanadaCanada, in virtue of their commissions,
legislative powers to a certain extent, as well as judicial
and administrative powers.

To Cross- question 3rd Were not the Ordinances by them made under
and by virtue of their Commissions declared as
valid and binding as if âimanes de nos coeurs
âsouverains, touts prises a partie
edits, ordonnances, et autres a u contraire,
and are not the
french terms quoted, the language
of the Intendants' commission?

Answers,- The Ordinances of the Intendants, when made in
virtue of their commission, and within its legal
limits, were valid and bindiing according to the
French Terms quoted in this cross-interrogating, and
the terms so quoted from a part of the terms or
language used in the Commission of the Intendants,
which, however, are not to be taken alone, but in
[ connexion ] with the rest of the context, or other portions
of the Commission. The powers of the Intendants were
limited to the extent of the commission under which
they were appointed, and their commissions required
them to act in conformity to the Royal Edits and
Ordinances for FranceFrance, and according to the custom
of ParisParis, and could not, in my opinion, be interpreted
by legitimate and legal construction to authorize
the Intendants to pass laws inconsistent with the
public law and public rights of subjects, as they
existed in FranceFrance, and in the custom of ParisParis, where
slavery would not have heen in accordance with
the laws. To authorize the Intendants, or others, to
give a legitimate sanction to the establishment of

Emanatang from
Mr Sovreign County
Edicts ordinances &
other things to the contrary

View original image: Page  088
[missing figure]
slavery in CanadaCanada, would have been inconsistent with
the public rights of the subjects or dwellers in the
custom of ParisParis, and must have required, in my opinion,
express and positive authority to that effect. Such
express authority was not conferred by their commissions.
In intendents and others having legislative authority in
CanadaCanada, were appointed, it must be considered, according
to their commission, to uphold and preserve the public
rights of all subjects and indwellers in conformity with
the custom of ParisParis, and not to abolish their rights as
regarded innocent persons of particular classes or
races or of peculiar colour.

To Cross-question 4th. Were any-and what required by any-
and what ordinance in CanadaCanada under the French
dominion for the manumission or emancipation
of slaves?

Answers,- An edict or ordinance of Mr. , one of
the Intendants of CanadaCanada in 1736, required masters
who gave freedom or emanicipation to their slaves,
to do so by written document passed before public
notorius, and declared all other forms of emancipation
null and of no effect. An Edict or ordinance of a
previous Intendant, Mr. RandotRandot , had been [ antice-dently ] paassed, which declared, among other things,
that it would be useful to the Colony to hold negroes
, and Indians of a distant nation called ParisParis, as
slaves, and therefore that the negroes and panis who
had been, or might be bought, should be held by the
purchasers as their slaves. This is an ordinance
under which slavery existed de facto in CanadaCanada,
while under the French Government, the establishment
whereof, as I have already stated, exceeded, as
, the limits of the legal authority confirmed upon the
Intendants, and would, consequently, not have been
regarded as binding under a correct and legitimate
interpretation of the law.