In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on _receiving information on oath_ of any _infirm_ slave or slaves, being in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make _particular inquiries_ into the situation of such slaves, and render such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a _white man_ upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made? Not of the slave, nor of his companions,--for their evidence goes for nothing; and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior courts, if from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable to _prove_ that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this risk, for a starving slave? PROP. 3.--_Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold, pledged, &c._ The advertisements in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of evidence.[M] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the _republic_ of the United States! [Footnote M: A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not _persons_ enough in the affair to constitute a riot, because the slaves were mere _chattels_ in the eye of the law. It was, however, decided that when liable to the _punishment_ of the law, they were persons.]