ANSWER:—­Their knowledge on this point must have been derived, either from the slaveholders and overseers themselves, or from the slaves, or from their own observation.  If from the slaveholders, their testimony has already been weighed and found wanting; if they derived it from the slaves, they can hardly be so simple as to suppose that the guest, associate and friend of the master, would be likely to draw from his slaves any other testimony respecting his treatment of them, than such as would please him.  The great shrewdness and tact exhibited by slaves in keeping themselves out of difficulty, when close questioned by strangers as to their treatment, cannot fail to strike every accurate observer.  The following remarks of CHIEF JUSTICE HENDERSON, a North Carolina slaveholder, in his decision (in 1830,) in the case of the State versus Charity, 2 Devereaux’s North Carolina Reports, 513, illustrate the folly of arguing the good treatment of slaves from their own declarations, while in the power of their masters.  In the case above cited, the Chief Justice, in refusing to permit a master to give in evidence, declarations made to him by his slave, says of masters and slaves generally—­

“The master has an almost absolute control over the body and mind of his slave.  The master’s will is the slave’s will.  All his acts, all his sayings, are made with a view to propitiate his master.  His confessions are made, not from a love of truth, not from a sense of duty, not to speak a falsehood, but to please his master—­and it is in vain that his master tells him to speak the truth and conceals from him how he wishes the question answered.  The slave will ascertain, or, which is the same thing, think that he has ascertained the wishes of his master, and MOULD HIS ANSWER ACCORDINGLY.  We therefore more often get the wishes of the master, or the slave’s belief of his wishes, than the truth.”

The following extract of a letter from the Hon. SETH M. GATES, member elect of the next Congress, furnishes a clue by which to interpret the looks, actions, and protestations of slaves, when in the presence of their masters’ guests, and the pains sometimes taken by slaveholders, in teaching their slaves the art of pretending that they are treated well, love their masters, are happy, &c.  The letter is dated Leroy, Jan. 4, 1839.

“I have sent your letter to Rev. Joseph M. Sadd, Castile, Genesee county, who resided five years in a slave state, and left, disgusted with slavery.  I trust he will give you some facts.  I remember one fact, which his wife witnessed.  A relative, where she boarded, returning to his plantation after a temporary absence, was not met by his servants with such demonstrations of joy as was their wont.  He ordered his horse put out, took down his whip, ordered his servants to the barn, and gave them a most cruel beating, because they did not run out to meet him, and pretend great attachment to him.  Mrs. Sadd had overheard the servants agreeing not to go out, before his return, as they said they did not love him—­and this led her to watch his conduct to them.  This man was a professor of religion!”