Preserving Religious History of the Shore

Wilmington Conference of the M.E. Church - locations
Shared by Philip Thomas of Rock Hall, Maryland

Honor Our Veterans

Combining History

Elizabeth Turner

A Gathering of Information

Cynthia V. Schmidt

1860 Slave Schedule of Talbot County

Philamon T. Hambleton merchant and farmer of St. Michaels, Md.

1 female mulatto 29 years (Betsy Turner?)

1 female black 25 years

1 female black 15 years

1 female mulatto 12 years (Eliza Jane?)

1 male black 12 years

1 female mulatto 5 years (Betsy?)

Indentures of Talbot County

Pgs 332,333

Justices Leonard and Hopkins bind to Philamon T. Hambleton, Eliza Jane Turner, daughter of Betsy Turner, born 15 September 1850 and Betsy Turner, daughter of Betsy Turner, born 8 October 1856 to serve until 18 years of age.

New York Times

October 17, 1867

Maryland

Negro Apprenticeship – The Case of Elizabeth Turner, a Colored Apprentice – Judge Chase Decides the Indentures are Illegal and Releases the Petitioner from Servitude.

Baltimore, Wednesday, Oct. 16

In the United States Circuit Court yesterday, a hearing was had before Chief Justice Chase, upon the petition of Elizabeth Turner (colored) by her next friend Charles Henry Minaky, addressed to Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Maryland District. The petitioner alleges that she is the child of Elizabeth Minaky, formerly Elizabeth Turner; that she is restrained of her liberty and held in custody by Philemon T. Hambleton, Talbot County, Md., in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States; also that petitioner is restrained of her liberty by virtue of certain alleged indentures of apprenticeship made not in accordance with the laws of Maryland, as applicable to binding of white children. The petitioner prays the court for a writ of habeas corpus, addressed to said Hambleton, requiring him to produce in court the person of the petitioner and to certify the true cause of her detention, and to show cause, if he has, why the petitioner should not be discharged.

Signed H. Stockbridge and Nathan M. Pusey attorneys for the petitioner.

The petition was filed Sept. 20 and indorsed “writ granted as prayed, returnable Oct. 15, 1867”

Signed S.P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States

The master P.T. Hambleton made the following return to the writ:

“In obedience to the command of the within writ, I herewith produce the body of Elizabeth Turner, together with a copy of the indenture of apprenticeship, showing the cause of her caption and detention and respectfully await the action of your Honor”

The petitioner appeared by counsel.

The Chief Justice inquired of the respondent if he had counsel in court. He replied in the negative, and said he would let the matter be settled by the court.

The Chief Justice stated that he would prefer that the case should be fully argued.

The respondent stated that the child and its mother were formerly his slaves, and were set free by the Constitution, which went into operation Nov. 1, 1864. The child was apprenticed Nov 3, 1864 two days after she was emancipated. The law of Congress called the Civil Rights Bill was passed since the child was indentured April 3, 1866 and everybody told him that the law did not interfere with this case.

The Chief Justice said the questions in the case were so grave and important that he wished to be advised by the argument of counsel on the part of claimant. He would adjourn the court until today at 9 o’clock in order to give the claimant or any person interested in the decision an opportunity to appear. If not person opposed he would dispose of the case.

The Court convened at 9 o’clock this morning.

When the Chief Justice delivered the following decision:

The petitioner in this case seeks relief from restraint and detention by PHILEMON T. HAMBLETON of Talbot County in Maryland, in alleged contravention of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The facts as they appear from the return made by Mr. HAMBLETON      to the writ, and by his verbal statement made in court and admitted as part of the return are substantially as follows: The petitioner, ELIZABETH TURNER a young person of color and her mother were, prior to the adoption of the Maryland Constitution of 1864 slaves of the respondent. That Constitution went into operation Nov 1. 1864 and prohibited slavery. Almost immediately thereafter many of the freed people of Talbot County were collected together under some local authority, the nature of which does not clearly appear and the younger persons were bound as apprentices usually, if not always, to their masters. Among others, Elizabeth the petitioner was apprenticed to Hambleton by an indenture, dated on the 3d of November two days after the new Constitution went into operation. Upon comparing the terms of this indenture, which is claimed to have been executed under the law of Maryland relating to negro apprentices, with those required by the law of Maryland in indentures for the apprenticeship of white persons the variance is manifest, the petitioner under this indenture is not entitled to any education. A white apprentice must be taught reading, writing and arithmetic. The petitioner is liable to be assigned and transferred at the will of the master to any person in the same country. The white apprentice is not thus liable. The authority of the master over the petitioner is described in the law as a property and interest; no such description is applied to authority over a white apprentice. It is unnecessary to mention other particulars: such is the case. I regret that I have been obliged to consider it without the benefit of any argument in support of the claim of the respondent to the writ, but I have considered it with care and an earnest desire to reach right conclusions. For the present, I shall restrict myself to a brief statement of these conclusions without going into the grounds of them. The time does not allow more. The following propositions seem to me to be sound and they decide the case.

First ~ The first clause of the 13^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States interdicts slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, and establishes freedom as the constitutional right of all persons in the United States.

Second ~ The alleged apprenticeship in the present case is involuntary servitude within the meaning of these words in the amendment.

Third ~ If this were otherwise the indenture set forth in the return does not contain important provisions for the security and benefit of the apprentice which are required by the laws of Maryland in indenture of white apprentices and is therefore, in contravention of that clause of the first section of the Civil Rights Law enacted by Congress April 9, 1866.

Fourth ~ The law having been enacted under the second clause of the 13^th Amendment in enforcement of the first clause of the same amendment is constitutional and applies to all conditions prohibited by it, whether originating in transactions before or since its enactment.

Fifth ~ Colored persons equally with white persons are citizens of the United States.

The petitioner, therefore, must be discharged from restraint by the respondent.

1870 Maryland Census – Baltimore

Canton Avenue

Charles Manokey black male 50 yrs of age born Maryland

Elizabeth Manokey black female 46 years of age born Maryland

Elizabeth Manokey black female 14 years of age born Maryland

1880 Maryland Census – Baltimore

Charles H. Manoky black male 60 years of age

Elizabeth Manoky mulatto female 55 years of age

Cassie Bell Manoky mulatto female 7 years of age (their daughter)