The wish to use the bodily powers of another person as a means of ministering to one's own ease or pleasure is doubtless the foundation of slavery.1 In the United States, up to July 28, 1868 (as see below), a slave had no political rights, and only such civil rights as were given him by local law. The offspring followed the status of the mother. See PARTUS. either slay the crew or compel them to sail for an other country.¹ The maxim in international law is that "the air makes free." If then a cargo of slaves is stranded on the soil of a state which prohibits slavery, there is no process, excepting express treaty, by which they can be prevented from availing themselves of their free dom.2 But the Constitution provided that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." 3 The master owned whatever property his slave acquired; and the slave could be a witness only for or against another slave or one who had been a slave; and he could sue in court only for his freedom: in other cases the master sued for his own use. If the master neglected to provide proper support for his helpless or impotent slave, a public officer made the provision at the owner's expense. In Louisiana, for cruel treatment, the slave could be emancipated; in In the Dred Scott Case it was decided: that a free Alabama and Texas, sale to another master was part ❘ negro, whose ancestors were brought here and sold as of the penalty. He could be the subject of unlawful homicide; and was himself responsible for acts of crime. His owner could manumit him: the effect being to make him, not a citizen, but merely a freeman.2 The first governmental action toward abolishing the slave-trade was the provision that "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." 3 In 1807, importing slaves was made to cease after January 1, 1808; and in 1818, a law passed increasing the penalties of the trade. In 1819, the vessels and effects of citizens engaged in the trade were made liable to seizure and confiscation. And by the act of March 3, 1820, all persons over whom our jurisdiction extends, whether found on domestic or foreign vessels, concerned in the slave-trade, or in kidnaping negroes or mulattoes, were to be deemed pirates and to suffer death. In Great Britain the trade was declared unlawful in 1807, and in 1824 it was made piracy. Since then efforts have been made by that nation, by treaties and otherwise, to suppress the trade everywhere. As early as 1793, the State of Georgia prohibited the trade. Slavery is a status unprotected by the law of nations, supported, where it exists, by local law. Hence persons seized to be sold as slaves in a territory where the importation of slaves is forbidden, commit no crime when they get possession of the vessel, and Maine, Anc. Law, 158, 157-61. See 2 Kent, 248-58; Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pick. 206-25 (1836), Shaw, C. J.; Wood v. Ward, 2 Flip. 842-43 (1879), cases; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 22 (1883); 70 Ala. 388. "Everywhere, always, by everybody, in statutes alike of Virginia and South Carolina, in speeches, in letters, slavery in those days (1787) was spoken of as an evil." 2 Bancroft, Const. 129 (1884). "Every word in the Constitution bearing on the subject was chosen with the greatest caution." Ib. 164. See also ib. 141-44, 151-64. • Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9. See 2 Story, Const. §§ 1332-37, 1915-27. slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution. When that instrument was adopted, Africans were not regarded in any State as "people or citizens; " the two clauses which refer to them treat them as persons whom it was lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. A citizen may take into United States territory any article of property recognized as such by the Constitution, and the Federal government is pledged to protect him in his lawful uses of it. Dred Scott acquired no title to freedom by being taken by his owner into Illinois from Missouri: the status of a person of African descent depending on the law of the State in which he resides. See Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, under CITIZEN; CHATTEL; DEBT, Public; MIGRATION; VILLEIN; WAR. Occurs in a few expressions in its literal or in a figurative sense. "Sleeping with a man" is equivalent to lying awake with a man, and being "in bed with a man" is equivalent to sleeping with him. Sleeping on rights. See DELAY; SILENCE; STALE; VIGILANS. Sleeping partner. See PARTNER, Dormant. Sleeping-car company. Is not responsible either as a common carrier or as an innkeeper. It is bound, however, not only to 1 See United States v. The Amistad, 15 Pet. 587-98 (1841), Story, J.; "The Case of the Amistad," a pamphlet read before the New Haven Historical Society in 1886, by Prof. S. E. Baldwin, of Yale Law School. See Priscilla Smith v. Smith, 13 La. *444 (1838); Eliz. Thomas v. Generis, 16 id. *486 (1840); Woolsey, Int. Law, § 74. 3 Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 2, cl. 3. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 399-456 (1856), Taney, C. J., Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron, JJ., concurring, 454-529; McLean and Curtis, JJ., dissenting, 529-633. State v. Thomas, 32 La. An. 351 (1880). • Barnett v. Ward, 36 Ohio St. 110 (1880).