Mary Charlotte, a woman of color v. Gabriel S. Chouteau
View original image: Page  167
[missing figure]

confirmation. "Nous, oous le lon plaisir de de sa Majesté,
Ordomous pa", the limitation itself is of a very peculiar
character, and I have been able to discover the like restriction
in only two other Intendants' Ordinances, from among about
one hundred and fifty in number that I have examined
from a very early period down to the time of the conquest of
the Province, and both of those Ordinances had reference to
what might be called Royal interests, _ one, by the same Ran-
dot, in 1710, for the appointment of a Judicial officer as Mon-
-treal; and the other, in 1744, by another Intendant for regulat-
ing
the Current value in the Colony of certain moneys of account
and coins, No other Intendants Ordinances professed to
reach to a matter of state policy, or of public law, and therefore,
no other was restricted in the terms as above. The Confir-
mation of Randots Ordinance of 1709, sous le bon plaisir de
sa Majesté, was never given; and of this, the appended copy
of the Ordinance, with the certificate attached, is proof. The
signature thereto "Geo Pownall" is that of the late_
Sir George Pownall, secretary and Registrar of the Province
whose signature I recognize from having frequently,
seen such appended to public official documents in
his official capacity: he was knighted, I think in 1790,
and died in 1834. RandotRandot was appointed in 1701, relieved
from his Intendancy by his successor's appointment in
March 1710, and returned to FranceFrance, where he probably
satisfied himself of the propriety of not requiring this
Royal sanction to his Ordinance. A copy of Randot's
commission as Intendant, duly authenticated by the Certificate
and signature of the said Sir George Pownall, secretary and
Registrar of the province, is also hereto appended.

I have been unable to discover a single judicial enforce-
ment of the slave principle recorded during the existence
of the French dominion over CanadaCanada: it is probable that
the penalty was so financially effective in preventing
[ in ]

View original image: Page  168
[missing figure]
18
interference with a compulsory service that even the patriotic
opponents of the arbitrary ordinance hesitated before em-
=barking in a litigation which, in the Colony itself, would
be opposed by the self interest of the wealthy, and, probably of
the Intendant himself, and his subordinate judicial defen-
-dants; and which, at all events, could not be carried on
without considerable expense, before it could receive final
adjudication by the appellate jurisdiction of the Parliament of
ParisParis.

Although the absolute nullity of the Ordinance, with reference
to the establishment of slavery in CanadaCanada, cannot
be doubted, from what has been above stated, that nullity
manifestly follows from the following additional reasons.

Upon the trial of Boucaux, already referred to, it was
unhesitatingly admitted by the Counsel for both parties,
as well as by the Procureur du Roi, that the slave status
could attach only to the negro of the West-Indian and
African colonies, because he was a slave there par la loi
de l'Etat, and that such a status did not extend, even by
implication, to any other person, or to servitude for any
other cause, except that arising out of the necessarily
peculiar cultivation of the West-Indian Estates.

As stated above, the same fact of the localizing of
the slavery is also expressed in the preamble of the ordinance
by Raudot himself. The argument urged by
the Counsel for the Master, in Boncaux's case, rested
solely and entirely upon the local application and
effect of the exceptional Edicts of 1683 and 1716, and
candidly exempted from their operation all but the
negro slaves of those island colonies âon ne counoil
point il est vrai, d'esclave en FranceFrance, et qui-conque
a mis le pied dans ce RoyaumeRoyaume , est gratifiè de la
libertè. Mais, quelle est l'application, et quelle est la
distinction du principe Le principe est vrai [ dans ]