A law similar to the above has been passed in Louisiana, which contains an additional provision for the benefit of the master—­ordaining, that ‘if the slave’ (thus maimed and disabled,) ‘be forever rendered unable to work,’ the person maiming, shall pay the master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and shall, in addition, take the slave, and maintain him during life.’  Thus ‘public opinion’ transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of his master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services, might possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole power of the wretch who has disabled him for life—­protecting the victim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands!  What but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circumstances, be expected from a man brutal enough at first to ‘maim’ and ‘disable’ him, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the master, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his maintenance.  Since writing the above, we have seen the following judicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs.  Patton—­5 Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 615.  A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of his only eye, and thus rendered useless, on which account the court adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full value.  The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court.  Judge Mathews, in his decision said, that ’when the defendant had paid the sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,’—­adding, that ’the judgment making full compensation to the owner operates a change of property.  He adds, ’The principle of humanity which would lead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION!’ The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of the services of the slave, is worthy of all ‘consideration,’ even to the uttermost farthing; ‘public opinion’ is omnipotent for her protection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging, medicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of her poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the question—­ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the representative of ‘public opinion,’ ’CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.’  Protection of slaves by ‘public opinion’ among slaveholders!!

The foregoing illustrations of southern ‘public opinion,’ from the laws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far from being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their deadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.