And Justice standeth afar off;
For Truth is fallen in the street,
And Equity2 cannot enter.
Yea, Truth faileth;
And HE THAT DEPARTETH FROM EVIL MAKETH HIMSELF A PREY3.
Isaiah 59: 14, 15.
There is one very remarkable4 class of laws yet to be considered.
So full of cruelty and of unmerciful severity is the slave-code,—such an atrocity5 is the institution of which it is the legal definition,—that there are multitudes of individuals too generous and too just to be willing to go to the full extent of its restrictions6 and deprivations7.
A generous man, instead of regarding the poor slave as a piece of property, dead, and void of rights, is tempted8 to regard him rather as a helpless younger brother, or as a defenceless child, and to extend to him, by his own good right arm, that protection and those rights which the law denies him. A religious man, who, by the theory of his belief, regards all men as brothers, and considers his Christian9 slave, with himself, as a member of Jesus Christ,—as of one body, one spirit, and called in one hope of his calling,—cannot willingly see him “doomed to live without knowledge,” without the power of reading the written Word, and to raise up his children after him in the same darkness.
Hence, if left to itself, individual humanity would, in many cases, practically abrogate10 the slave-code. Individual humanity would teach the slave to read and write,—would build school-houses for his children, and would, in very, very many cases, enfranchise11 him.
The result of all this has been foreseen. It has been foreseen that the result of education would be general intelligence; that the result of intelligence would be a knowledge of personal rights; and that an inquiry13 into the doctrine14 of personal rights would be fatal to the system. It has been foreseen, also, that the example of disinterestedness15 and generosity16, in emancipation17, might carry with it a generous contagion18, until it should become universal; that the example of educated and emancipated19 slaves would prove a dangerous excitement to those still in bondage21.
For this reason, the American slave-code, which, as we have already seen, embraces, substantially, all the barbarities of that of ancient Rome, has had added to it a set of laws more cruel than any which ancient and heathen Rome ever knew,—laws designed to shut against the slave his last refuge,—the humanity of his master. The master, in ancient Rome, might give his slave whatever advantages of education he chose, or at any time emancipate20 him, and the state did not interfere22 to prevent.[16]
But in America the laws, throughout all the slave states, most rigorously forbid, in the first place, the education of the slave. We do not profess25 to give all these laws, but a few striking specimens26 may be presented. Our authority is Judge Stroud’s “Sketch28 of the Laws of Slavery.”
Stroud’s Sketch, p. 88.
The legislature of South Carolina, in 1740, enounced the following preamble:—“Whereas, the having of slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences;” and enacted29 that the crime of teaching a slave to write, or of employing a slave as a scribe, should be punished by a fine of one hundred pounds, current money. If the reader will turn now to the infamous30 “protective” statute31, enacted by the same legislature, in the same year, he will find that the same penalty has been appointed for the cutting out of the tongue, putting out of the eye, cruel scalding, &c., of any slave, as for the offence of teaching him to write! That is to say, that to teach him to write, and to put out his eyes, are to be regarded as equally reprehensible32.
Stroud’s Sketch, p. 89. 2 Brevard’s Digest, pp. 254–5.
That there might be no doubt of the “great and fundamental policy” of the state, and that there might be full security against the “great inconveniences” of “having of slaves taught to write,” it was 111enacted, in 1800, “That assemblies of slaves, free negroes, &c., * * * * for the purpose of mental instruction, in a confined or secret place, &c. &c., is [are] declared to be an unlawful meeting;” and the officers are required to enter such confined places, and disperse34 the “unlawful assemblage,” inflicting35, at their discretion36, “such corporal punishment, not exceeding twenty lashes37, upon such slaves, free negroes, &c., as they may judge necessary for deterring38 them from the like unlawful assemblage in future.”
Stroud, pp. 88, 89.
The statute-book of Virginia is adorned39 with a law similar to the one last quoted.
Stroud’s Sketch, pp. 89, 90.
The offence of teaching a slave to write was early punished, in Georgia, as in South Carolina, by a pecuniary40 fine. But the city of Savannah seems to have found this penalty insufficient41 to protect it from “great inconveniences,” and we learn, by a quotation42 in the work of Judge Stroud from a number of “The Portfolio,” that “the city has passed an ordinance43, by which any person that teaches any person of color, slave or free, to read or write, or causes such person to be so taught, is subjected to a fine of thirty dollars for each offence; and every person of color who shall keep a school, to teach reading or writing, is subject to a fine of thirty dollars, or to be imprisoned44 ten days, and whipped thirty-nine lashes.”
Secondly45. In regard to religious privileges:
The State of Georgia has enacted a law, “To protect religious societies in the exercise of their religious duties.” This law, after appointing rigorous penalties for the offence of interrupting or disturbing a congregation of white persons, concludes in the following words:
Stroud, p. 92. Prince’s Digest, p. 342.
No congregation, or company of negroes, shall, under pretence46 of divine worship, assemble themselves, contrary to the act regulating patrols.
Stroud, p. 93. Prince’s Digest, p. 447.
“The act regulating patrols,” as quoted by the editor of Prince’s Digest, empowers every justice of the peace to disperse ANY assembly or meeting of slaves which may disturb the peace, &c., of his majesty’s subjects, and permits that every slave found at such a meeting shall “immediately be corrected, WITHOUT TRIAL, by receiving on the bare back twenty-five stripes with a whip, switch, or cowskin.”
The history of legislation in South Carolina is significant. An act was passed in 1800, containing the following section:
Stroud, p. 93. 2 Brevard’s Dig. 254, 255.
It shall not be lawful33 for any number of slaves, free negroes, mulattoes or mestizoes, even in company with white persons, to meet together and assemble for the purpose of mental instruction or religious worship, either before the rising of the sun, or after the going down of the same. And all magistrates48, sheriffs, militia49 officers, &c. &c., are hereby vested with power, &c., for dispersing50 such assemblies, &c.
The law just quoted seems somehow to have had a prejudicial effect upon the religious interests of the “slaves, free negroes,” &c., specified52 in it; for, three years afterwards, on the petition of certain religious societies, a “protective act” was passed, which should secure them this great religious privilege; to wit, that it should be unlawful, before nine o’clock, “to break into a place of meeting, wherein shall be assembled the members of any religious society of this state, provided a majority of them shall be white persons, or otherwise to disturb their devotion, unless such person shall have first obtained * * * * a warrant, &c.”
Thirdly. It appears that many masters, who are disposed to treat their slaves generously, have allowed them to accumulate property, to raise domestic animals for their own use, and, in the case of intelligent servants, to go at large, to hire their own time, and to trade upon their own account. Upon all these practices the law comes down, with unmerciful severity. A penalty is inflicted53 on the owner, but, with a rigor24 quite accordant with the tenor54 of slave-law the offence is considered, in law, as that of the slave, rather than that of the master; so that, if the master is generous enough not to regard the penalty which is imposed upon himself, he may be restrained by the fear of bringing a greater evil upon his dependent. These laws are, in some cases, so constructed as to make it for the interest of the lowest and most brutal55 part of society that they be enforced, by offering half the profits to the informer. We give the following, as specimens of slave legislation on this subject:
The law of South Carolina:
Stroud, pp. 46, 47. James’ Digest, 385, 386. Act of 1740.
It shall not be lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c., for any goods, &c., without a license56 from the owner, &c.; nor shall any slave be permitted to keep any boat, periauger,[17] or canoe, 112or raise and breed, for the benefit of such slave, any horses, mares, cattle, sheep, or hogs57, under pain of forfeiting58 all the goods, &c., and all the boats, periaugers, or canoes, horses, mares, cattle, sheep or hogs. And it shall be lawful for any person whatsoever59 to seize and take away from any slave all such goods, &c., boats, &c. &c., and to deliver the same into the hands of any justice of the peace, nearest to the place where the seizure60 shall be made; and such justice shall take the oath of the person making such seizure, concerning the manner thereof; and if the said justice shall be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to law, he shall pronounce and declare the goods so seized to be forfeited61, and order the same to be sold at public outcry, one half of the moneys arising from such sale to go to the state, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same.
2 Cobb’s Dig. 284.
The laws in many other states are similar to the above; but the State of Georgia has an additional provision, against permitting the slave to hire himself to another for his own benefit; a penalty of thirty dollars is imposed for every weekly offence, on the part of the master, unless the labor62 be done on his own premises63. Savannah, Augusta, and Sunbury, are places excepted.
Stroud, p. 47
In Virginia, “if the master shall permit his slave to hire himself out,” the slave is to be apprehended64, &c., and the master to be fined.
In an early act of the legislature of the orthodox and Presbyterian State of North Carolina, it is gratifying to see how the judicious67 course of public policy is made to subserve the interests of Christian charity,—how, in a single ingenious sentence, provision is made for punishing the offender68 against society, rewarding the patriotic69 informer, and feeding the poor and destitute70:
Stroud’s Sketch, p. 47.
All horses, cattle, hogs or sheep, that, one month after the passing of this act, shall belong to any slave, or be of any slave’s mark, in this state, shall be seized and sold by the county wardens71, and by them applied72, the one-half to the support of the poor of the county, and the other half to the informer.
Stroud, p. 48.
In Mississippi a fine of fifty dollars is imposed upon the master who permits his slave to cultivate cotton for his own use; or who licenses73 his slave to go at large and trade as a freeman; or who is convicted of permitting his slave to keep “stock of any description.”
To show how the above law has been interpreted by the highest judicial51 tribunal of the sovereign State of Mississippi, we repeat here a portion of a decision of Chief Justice Sharkey, which we have elsewhere given more in full.
Independent of the principles laid down in adjudicated cases, our statute-law prohibits slaves from owning certain kinds of property; and it may be inferred that the legislature supposed they were extending the act as far as it could be necessary to exclude them from owning any property, as the prohibition75 includes that kind of property which they would most likely be permitted to own without interruption, to wit: hogs, horses, cattle, &c. They cannot be prohibited from holding such property in consequence of its being of a dangerous or offensive character, but because it was deemed impolitic for them to hold property of any description.
It was asserted, at the beginning of this head, that the permission of the master to a slave to hire his own time is, by law, considered the offence of the slave; the slave being subject to prosecution76 therefor, not the master. This is evident from the tenor of some of the laws quoted and alluded77 to above. It will be still further illustrated78 by the following decisions of the courts of North Carolina. They are copied from the Supplement to the U. S. Digest, vol. II. p. 798:
The State v. Clarissa. 5 Iredell, 221.
139. An indictment79 charging that a certain negro did hire her own time, contrary to the form of the statute, &c., is defective80 and must be quashed, because it was omitted to be charged that she was permitted by her master to go at large, which is one essential part of the offence.
140. Under the first clause of the thirty-first section of the 111th chapter of the Revised Statutes81, prohibiting masters from hiring to slaves their own time, the master is not indictable; he is only subject to a penalty of forty dollars. Nor is the master indictable under the second clause of that section; the process being against the slave, not against the master.—Ib.
142. To constitute the offence under section 32 (Rev23. Stat. c. cxi. § 32) it is not necessary that the slave should have hired his time; it is sufficient if the master permits him to go at large as a freeman.
This is maintaining the ground that “the master can do no wrong” with great consistency82 and thoroughness. But it is in perfect keeping, both in form and spirit, with the whole course of slave-law, which always upholds the supremacy83 of the master, and always depresses the slave.
Fourthly. Stringent84 laws against emancipation exist in nearly all the slave states.
Stroud, 147. Prince’s Dig. 456. James’ Dig. 398. Toulmin’s Dig. 632. Miss. Rev. Code, 386.
In four of the states,—South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi,—emancipation cannot be effected, except by a special act of the legislature of the state.
In Georgia, the offence of setting free “any slave, or slaves, in any other manner and form than the one prescribed,” was punishable, according to the law of 1801, by 113the forfeiture85 of two hundred dollars, to be recovered by action or indictment; the slaves in question still remaining, “to all intents and purposes, as much in a state of slavery as before they were manumitted.”
Believers in human progress will be interested to know that since the law of 1801 there has been a reform introduced into this part of the legislation of the republic of Georgia. In 1818, a new law was passed, which, as will be seen, contains a grand remedy for the abuses of the old. In this it is provided, with endless variety of specifications86 and synonyms87, as if to “let suspicion double-lock the door” against any possible evasion88, that, “All and every will, testament89 and deed, whether by way of trust or otherwise, contract, or agreement, or stipulation90, or other instrument in writing or by parol, made and executed for the purpose of effecting, or endeavoring to effect, the manumission of any slave or slaves, either directly ... or indirectly91, or virtually, &c. &c., shall be, and the same are hereby, declared to be utterly92 null and void.” And the guilty author of the outrage94 against the peace of the state, contemplated95 in such deed, &c. &c., “and all and every person or persons concerned in giving or attempting to give effect thereto, ... in any way or manner whatsoever, shall be severally liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars.”
Stroud’s Sketch, pp. 147–8. Prince’s Dig. 466.
It would be quite anomalous96 in slave-law, and contrary to the “great and fundamental policy” of slave states, if the negroes who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, but being instigated97 by the devil, should be guilty of being thus manumitted, were suffered to go unpunished; accordingly, the law very properly and judiciously98 provides that “each and every slave or slaves in whose behalf such will or testament, &c. &c. &c., shall have been made, shall be liable to be arrested by warrant, &c.; and, being thereof convicted, &c., shall be liable to be sold as a slave or slaves by public outcry; and the proceeds of such slaves shall be appropriated, &c. &c.”
Judge Stroud gives the following account of the law of Mississippi:
Stroud’s Sketch, 149. Miss. Rev. Code, 385–6 (Act June 18, 1822).
The emancipation must be by an instrument in writing, a last will or deed &c., under seal, attested99 by at least two credible100 witnesses, or acknowledged in the court of the county or corporation where the emancipator101 resides; proof satisfactory to the General Assembly must be adduced that the slave has done some meritorious102 act for the benefit of his master, or rendered some distinguished103 service to the state; all which circumstances are but pre-requisites, and are of no efficacy until a special act of assembly sanctions the emancipation; to which may be added, as has been already stated, a saving of the rights of creditors104, and the protection of the widow’s thirds.
The same pre-requisite of “meritorious services, to be adjudged of and allowed by the county court,” is exacted by an act of the General Assembly of North Carolina; and all slaves emancipated contrary to the provisions of this act are to be committed to the jail of the county, and at the next court held for that county are to be sold to the highest bidder105.
But the law of North Carolina does not refuse opportunity for repentance106, even after the crime has been proved: accordingly,
Stroud’s Sketch, 148. Haywood’s Manual, 525, 526, 529, 537.
The sheriff is directed, five days before the time for the sale of the emancipated negro, to give notice, in writing, to the person by whom the emancipation was made, to the end,
and with the hope that, smitten107 by remorse108 of conscience, and brought to a sense of his guilt93 before God and man,
such person may, if he thinks proper, renew his claim to the negro so emancipated by him; on failure to do which, the sale is to be made by the sheriff, and one-fifth part of the net proceeds is to become the property of the freeholder by whom the apprehension109 was made, and the remaining four-fifths are to be paid into the public treasury110.
Stroud, pp. 148–154.
It is proper to add that we have given examples of the laws of states whose legislation on this subject has been most severe. The laws of Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Louisiana, are much less stringent.
A striking case, which shows how inexorably the law contends with the kind designs of the master, is on record in the reports of legal decisions in the State of Mississippi. The circumstances of the case have been thus briefly111 stated in the New York Evening Post, edited by Mr. William Cullen Bryant. They are a romance of themselves.
A man of the name of Elisha Brazealle, a planter in Jefferson County, Mississippi, was attacked with a loathsome112 disease. During his illness he was faithfully nursed by a mulatto slave, to whose assiduous attentions he felt that he owed his life. He was duly impressed by her devotion, and soon after his recovery took her to Ohio, and had her educated. She was very intelligent, and improved her advantages so rapidly that when he visited her again he determined113 to marry her. He executed a deed for her emancipation, and had it 114recorded both in the States of Ohio and Mississippi, and made her his wife.
Mr. Brazealle returned with her to Mississippi, and in process of time had a son. After a few years he sickened and died, leaving a will, in which, after reciting the deed of emancipation, he declared his intention to ratify66 it, and devised all his property to this lad, acknowledging him in the will to be such.
Some poor and distant relations in North Carolina, whom he did not know, and for whom he did not care, hearing of his death, came on to Mississippi, and claimed the property thus devised. They instituted a suit for its recovery, and the case (it is reported in Howard’s Mississippi Reports, vol. II., p. 837) came before Judge Sharkey, our new consul114 at Havana. He decided115 it, and in that decision declared the act of emancipation an offence against morality, and pernicious and detestable as an example. He set aside the will, gave the property of Brazealle to his distant relations, condemned116 Brazealle’s son, and his wife, that son’s mother, again to bondage, and made them the slaves of these North Carolina kinsmen117, as part of the assets of the estate.
Chief Justice Sharkey, after narrating118 the circumstances of the case, declares the validity of the deed of emancipation to be the main question in the controversy120. He then argues that, although according to principles of national comity121 “contracts are to be construed122 according to the laws of the country or state where they are made,” yet these principles are not to be followed when they lead to conclusions in conflict with “the great and fundamental policy of the state.” What this “great and fundamental policy” is, in Mississippi, may be gathered from the remainder of the decision, which we give in full.
Let us apply these principles to the deed of emancipation. To give it validity would be, in the first place, a violation123 of the declared policy, and contrary to a positive law of the state.
The policy of a state is indicated by the general course of legislation on a given subject; and we find that free negroes are deemed offensive, because they are not permitted to emigrate to or remain in the state. They are allowed few privileges, and subject to heavy penalties for offences. They are required to leave the state within thirty days after notice, and in the mean time give security for good behavior; and those of them who can lawfully124 remain must register and carry with them their certificates, or they may be committed to jail. It would also violate a positive law, passed by the legislature, expressly to maintain this settled policy, and to prevent emancipation. No owner can emancipate his slave, but by a deed or will properly attested, or acknowledged in court, and proof to the legislature that such slave has performed some meritorious act for the benefit of the master, or some distinguished service for the state; and the deed or will can have no validity until ratified125 by special act of legislature. It is believed that this law and policy are too essentially126 important to the interests of our citizens to permit them to be evaded127.
The state of the case shows conclusively129 that the contract had its origin in an offence against morality, pernicious and detestable as an example. But, above all, it seems to have been planned and executed with a fixed130 design to evade128 the rigor of the laws of this state. The acts of the party in going to Ohio with the slaves, and there executing the deed, and his immediate47 return with them to this state, point with unerring certainty to his purpose and object. The laws of this state cannot be thus defrauded131 of their operation by one of our own citizens. If we could have any doubts about the principle, the case reported in 1 Randolph, 15, would remove them.
As we think the validity of the deed must depend upon the laws of this state, it becomes unnecessary to inquire whether it could have any force by the laws of Ohio. If it were even valid119 there, it can have no force here. The consequence is, that the negroes, John Monroe and his mother, are still slaves, and a part of the estate of Elisha Brazealle. They have not acquired a right to their freedom under the will; for, even if the clause in the will were sufficient for that purpose, their emancipation has not been consummated132 by an act of the legislature.
John Monroe, being a slave, cannot take the property as devisee; and I apprehend65 it is equally clear that it cannot be held in trust for him. 4 Desans. Rep. 266. Independent of the principles laid down in adjudicated cases, our statute law prohibits slaves from owning certain kinds of property; and it may be inferred that the legislature supposed they were extending the act as far as it could be necessary to exclude them from owning any property, as the prohibition includes that kind of property which they would most likely be permitted to own without interruption, to wit, hogs, horses, cattle, &c. They cannot be prohibited from holding such property in consequence of its being of a dangerous or offensive character, but because it was deemed impolitic for them to hold property of any description. It follows, therefore, that his heirs are entitled to the property.
As the deed was void, and the devisee could not take under the will, the heirs might, perhaps, have had a remedy at law; but, as an account must be taken for the rents and profits, and for the final settlement of the estate, I see no good reason why they should be sent back to law. The remedy is, doubtless, more full and complete than it could be at law. The decree of the chancellor133 overruling the demurrer must be affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings134.
The Chief Justice Sharkey who pronounced this decision is stated by the Evening Post to have been a principal agent in the passage of the severe law under which this horrible inhumanity was perpetrated.
Nothing more forcibly shows the absolute despotism of the slave-law over all the kindest feelings and intentions of the master, and the determination of courts to carry these severities to their full lengths, than this cruel deed, which precipitated135 a young man who had been educated to consider himself free, and his mother, an educated woman, back into the bottomless abyss of slavery. Had this case been chosen for the theme of a novel, or a tragedy, the world would have cried out upon it as a plot of monstrous136 improbability. As it stands in the law-book, it is only a specimen27 of that awful kind of truth, stranger than fiction, which is all the time evolving, in one form or another, from the workings of this anomalous system.
This view of the subject is a very important one, and ought to be earnestly and gravely pondered by those in foreign countries, who are too apt to fasten their condemnation137 and opprobrium138 rather on the person of the slave-holder than on the horrors of the legal system. In some slave states it seems as if there was very little that the benevolent139 owner could do which should permanently140 benefit his slave, unless he should seek to alter the laws. Here it is that the highest obligation of the Southern Christian lies. Nor will the world or God hold them guiltless who, with the elective franchise12 in their hands, and the full power to speak, write and discuss, suffer this monstrous system of legalized cruelty to go on from age to age.
16. In and after the reign74 of Augustus, certain restrictive regulations were passed, designed to prevent an increase of unworthy citizens by emancipation. They had, however, nothing like the stringent force of American laws.
17. i. e. Periagua.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
equity
|
|
| n.公正，公平，（无固定利息的）股票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
atrocity
|
|
| n.残暴，暴行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
deprivations
|
|
| 剥夺( deprivation的名词复数 )； 被夺去； 缺乏； 匮乏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
abrogate
|
|
| v.废止，废除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
enfranchise
|
|
| v.给予选举权，解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
franchise
|
|
| n.特许，特权，专营权，特许权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
disinterestedness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
emancipation
|
|
| n.（从束缚、支配下）解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
contagion
|
|
| n.(通过接触的疾病)传染；蔓延 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
emancipated
|
|
| adj.被解放的，不受约束的v.解放某人（尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚）( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
emancipate
|
|
| v.解放，解除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
bondage
|
|
| n.奴役，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
rigor
|
|
| n.严酷，严格，严厉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
specimens
|
|
| n.样品( specimen的名词复数 )；范例；（化验的）抽样；某种类型的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
reprehensible
|
|
| adj.该受责备的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
disperse
|
|
| vi.使分散；使消失；vt.分散；驱散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
inflicting
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
lashes
|
|
| n.鞭挞( lash的名词复数 )；鞭子；突然猛烈的一击；急速挥动v.鞭打( lash的第三人称单数 )；煽动；紧系；怒斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
deterring
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
adorned
|
|
| [计]被修饰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
pecuniary
|
|
| adj.金钱的；金钱上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
militia
|
|
| n.民兵，民兵组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
dispersing
|
|
| adj. 分散的 动词disperse的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
tenor
|
|
| n.男高音（歌手），次中音（乐器），要旨，大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
hogs
|
|
| n.（尤指喂肥供食用的）猪( hog的名词复数 )；（供食用的）阉公猪；彻底地做某事；自私的或贪婪的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
forfeiting
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
forfeited
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
apprehend
|
|
| vt.理解，领悟，逮捕，拘捕，忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
ratify
|
|
| v.批准，认可，追认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
wardens
|
|
| n.看守人( warden的名词复数 )；管理员；监察员；监察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
licenses
|
|
| n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
illustrated
|
|
| adj. 有插图的，列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
stringent
|
|
| adj.严厉的；令人信服的；银根紧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
forfeiture
|
|
| n.（名誉等）丧失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
specifications
|
|
| n.规格；载明；详述；（产品等的）说明书；说明书( specification的名词复数 )；详细的计划书；载明；详述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
synonyms
|
|
| 同义词( synonym的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
evasion
|
|
| n.逃避，偷漏(税) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
stipulation
|
|
| n.契约，规定，条文；条款说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
anomalous
|
|
| adj.反常的；不规则的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
instigated
|
|
| v.使（某事物）开始或发生，鼓动( instigate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
judiciously
|
|
| adv.明断地，明智而审慎地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
attested
|
|
| adj.经检验证明无病的，经检验证明无菌的v.证明( attest的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；声称…属实；使宣誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
emancipator
|
|
| n.释放者；救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
meritorious
|
|
| adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
creditors
|
|
| n.债权人，债主( creditor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
bidder
|
|
| n.(拍卖时的)出价人，报价人，投标人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
repentance
|
|
| n.懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
smitten
|
|
| 猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
remorse
|
|
| n.痛恨，悔恨，自责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
apprehension
|
|
| n.理解，领悟；逮捕，拘捕；忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
loathsome
|
|
| adj.讨厌的，令人厌恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
consul
|
|
| n.领事；执政官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
kinsmen
|
|
| n.家属，亲属( kinsman的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
narrating
|
|
| v.故事( narrate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
comity
|
|
| n.礼让，礼仪；团结，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
ratified
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
evaded
|
|
| 逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 )； 避开； 回避； 想不出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
evade
|
|
| vt.逃避，回避；避开，躲避 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
defrauded
|
|
| v.诈取，骗取( defraud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
consummated
|
|
| v.使结束( consummate的过去式和过去分词 )；使完美；完婚；（婚礼后的）圆房 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
precipitated
|
|
| v.（突如其来地）使发生( precipitate的过去式和过去分词 )；促成；猛然摔下；使沉淀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
opprobrium
|
|
| n.耻辱，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
benevolent
|
|
| adj.仁慈的，乐善好施的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |