The Overseers of the Poor of Forks Township in Northampton County against The Overseers of the Poor of Catawessa Township in Northumberland County

The Overseers of the Poor of Forks Township in Northampton County against The Overseers of the Poor of Catawessa Township in Northumberland County. Sunbtay, Monday, June 11. A slave has a settlement in where his'master resides, -which is bound in the first instance to support him, though it may have a remedy over against the master or his estate. So in the case of a manumitted slave, who has not acquired a settlement elsewhere, after his manumission. Vide act of 29th March 1803, sec. 28. 5 St. Laras 536. THE pauper, Samuel Williamson, his wife and two JL children, were removed by an order of two Justices from the township of Catazvessa to the township of Forks; and upon appeal to the Quarter Sessions of Northumberlandj the order of removal was confirmed, and the proceedings brought to this court by certiorari. ' It appeared upon the hearing, that the pauper was the property of John Arndt, of Forks township in Northampton county, who recorded him as his slave on the 23d of October 1780, stating him to be then of the age of thirty-five. After remaining for some time with Arndt as his slave, Arndt manumitted him, but no deed of his manumission was entered of record. Subsequent to this manumission, the pauper left Forks, and went to Whitehall township in the same county, where he married and had children; but he never gained a settlement in any place after he left Forks, nor did he ever after his marriage reside in Forks. He first became chargeable in the township of Catawessa. Hall, for the overseers of Forks, argued against the order of removal, from the terms of the 6th section of the act of 1st March 1780, 1 St. Laws 838, which provides that the owner of any slave at the passing of that act shall be liable to the overseers of the township where such slave shall become chargeable, unless the owner, before the slave attains his 28th year, shall execute and record in the proper county, a deed of manumission. The law therefore contemplates in such a case as this, the liability in the first instance of the township where the slave becomes chargeable, and in the next place the owner; but it does not speak of settlement; it does not consider him as having any settlement, or as being able to obtain any; it merely provides for the case of his having an owner, and of his being chargeable in fact to some township or other, which embraces all the provisions that ar^ necessary in the case of a pauper slave. Here the pauper became chargeable in Catawessa, and that township must indemnify itself by recourse to Arndt or his representatives; it cannot remove the pauper to Forks, because he was incapable of gaining a settlement there as a slave; and he never gained a settlement there after his manumission. Indented servants stand upon a different footing; the master is not bound to support them, and they are held to acquire a settlement where the master resides. But the law for the abolition of slavery compels the master to maintain the slave unless he manumits him before twenty-eight, and therefore no settlement is necessary. The poor laws do not say any thing of the settlement of slaves. Duncan, in support of the order, contended that a slave has a settlement in the township where his master resides. The section of the act referred to shews that as a slave he can have a settlement somewhere, because in technical language, a township is not chargeable unless the pauper has a settlement there; unless he is irremovable. Where then can he have a settlement during his slavery, except where his owner resides? The case of an indented servant holds a fortiori as to a slave, because the latter is emphatically bound to his master. It is true that in the present case, the master must ultimately answer to the township, in consequence of the manumission’s coming too late; but that does not affect the question, by what township is he to be supported in the first place. Suppose the master is insolvent, or absent from the state, must the pauper perish? Williamson had a settlement in Forks, and has never acquired one elsewhere. His children go with him, and so does his wife during marriage, even if she had a settlement of her own before. The opposite argument would fix the burden of maintaining the pauper, upon the first township through which he should happen to pass, after he ceased to be able to help himself. [MAJORITY — Tilghman C. J.] Tilghman C. J. delivered the court’s opinion. Samuel Williamson, a pauper, and Elizabeth his wife, with their two children, were 'removed by an order of two justices of the peace of Northumberland county, from Catawessa township in the said county, to Forks township in the county of Northampton. The overseers of Forks, appealed to the Quarter Sessions of Northumberland county, who affirmed the order of removal, and their proceedings have been brought before this court by certiorari. It appears that the pauper was the slave of John Arndt, deceased, of Forks township, who recorded him as such, of the age of thirty-five years, on the 23d of October 1780; agreeably to the provision of the act of 1st March 1780. After having remained the slave of Arndt for some time, the pauper was manumitted by deed not recorded. He afterwards left Forks township, married, had children, and has lived in various places, but gained no settlement. The •counsel on both sides agree, that inasmuch as the pauper was not manumitted before the age of twenty-eight years, the estate of Arndt is liable for his maintenance, but the question is, which of the contending townships, must be at the charge of maintaining him in the first instance? It is not pretended that he has gained a settlement in Catawessa; but the overseers of Forks say, that he ought not to be thrown upon them, because he has gained no settlement there; in other words, he has a settlement na where, because the estate of Arndt is to maintain him. This argument appears to me to be not well founded. It does not appear by the record, that Arndt left any estate. But taking for granted that he did, the pauper is not to be left starving, until the representatives of Arndt can be compelled to maintain him. The question is, whether the township, in which the master of a slave resides, is not in the first instance bound to support him, in case he falls into distress? I apprehend it is. So I understand, has the law been taken, although it is not expressly declared so by any act of assembly. Indented servants gain a settlement in the place where they serve their time; and it would.be a reflection on humanity to say, that a manumitted slave was intitled to no support in case of the insolvency of the master, or his neglect to support him. It is necessary that there should be some township to which he may look for immediate relief. This seems to have been always taken for granted, because by the old laws of the former province, the person manumitting a slave was obliged to give security to indemnify the township. I am therefore of opinion that the order of removal was legal, Forks township being in the first place chargeable with the pauper’s maintenance. They may take their remedy against the estate of Arndt. It is unnecessary to say any thing about the wife and children, because they follow the settlement of the husband and father. Order of the sessions confirmed.