flattering unction to his soul, that the end justifies the means. Your Orator does not mean therefore, to charge so capital a sin on the defendant Craven as trading in human flesh - So as to make him the owner of a slave even for a moment: But he will and does charge him, of adopting means by which the creditor of the said Sampson (if he is not defrauded of his debts) will be posponed for a considerable time in the receipt thereof. The facts as far as they have come by information to your Orator that he stated and your Honor will judge how far justice and the principles of equity have been violated. It has already been stated that on the 12th day of Aug. 1819 two suits were depending in the name of your orator, against the sd Sampson. He had no property except some slaves which he owned (part of them were his children) by which the debts afsd could be discharged. This it is believed was well known to the deft Cravens. To obtain the advantages of the labours of the children or slaves of sd Sampson (a matter which it is supposed would be peculiarly desirable in a new country where there are no slaves and hirelings are scarce and to withdraw them, together with the wife of sd Sampson who is also his slave, from the legal process to which they were liable on behalf of the sd Sampson's Creditors: The sd Cravens combining with the sd Sampson (who is also made a defendant to this bill) to defraud his creditors, contracted as your Orator has been informed and believes, with the sd Sampson for all the children of which he Sampson was the owner (and there were several) together with the wife of sd Sampson. The Girls your orator has understood were to serve the sd Cravens untill they reached the age of eighteen at which time they were to receive some trifle and be free. The boys for a longer period who also were to be free and receive a piece of land. What was the nature of this contract with regard to the wife of Sampson your orator has not learned: it is probable however, it was nothing more than to adopt each a farm as was thought to be waiting, to keep her secure from the creditors of Sampson: for it can not be believed that Sampson would in fact, make over any portion of his wife's time, even to his friend, the defendant Cravens This was the devious path which the defendant Cravens pursued, hoping to profit by the labour of the sd children (who are even now capable of earning wages) reaping the benefits of slavery and yet not a slave holder; claiming to be entitled to the applause of emancipating, without being owner, and setting free at the cost of other peoprle. Exhibit A is refered to as part of this bill. This was a result worthy the Genius of the defendant. It is admitted to be ingenious: but this complainant with great modesty would suggest, that the plan is neither lawful or honest. Honest it can not be, to take property from a debtor & give him nothing in return by which his debt can be discharged: it is not lawful, for the law pronounces the gift of a father to his child, at the moment he is pressed by debt, as a gift fraudulent in reference to the creditor; and he who combines with the father or unites in making such a contract as the father by the law was forbid to make, engages in a transaction which is subject to the same imputations. Notwithstanding your orator had reason to believe that the contract made as afsd, under the existing circumstances already set forth was void, in relation to the creditors of the said Sampson, yet inasmuch as the contract was admitted and as your orator understood relied on by the sd Sampson, and as your orator was averse to engage in a legal controversy, he therefore after the execution issued on the afsd judgement and after they were served on Fanny one of the female slaves of the said Sampson of the age of 12 years on the 23d of Feby, 1820 (and who is one of the children for whom service to the age of eighteen the sd Cravens contracted afsd) only required the said girl to be sold, subject to the claim of the said Cravens to her services untill she should attain the age of eighteen. Then she was sold by the sheriff and your orator became the purchaser for the sum of $97:15 cents (& the Sheriff returned the execution satisfied) that being as was understood the amount of his debt principal Interest & costs, so soon as the girl was bid off John Cravens one of the Nephews of sd Defendant Cravens took her into possession for his uncle. The Deft Cravens is about to remove without the limits of this Commonwealth to the state of Illinois - and your orator understands & believes he means to take with him, or send to the said last mentioned state, the said Girl Fanny who your orator bought as afsd. This your Orator believes would be doing an act from which an injury must inevitably result to him as he does think: If the said Girl Fanny is so removed without security for her return.