St. Louis, Feb 4th 1862.

General            There are a number of Negroes at the military prison at McDowells College who, were captured with the rebels taken at Blackwater. They have frequently applied to me to be released from the prison. They were employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States contrary to the provisions of the Act of Congress of 6 July 1861. before preferring their request, I asked the opinion of the U.S. Dist Attorney as to the rights of such slaves; enclosed is his reply                        Very respectfully Your Obt sert

Bernard G Farrar

St Louis Feb: 2. 1862—

            My opinion has been asked as to whether; in the case of slaves taken by the military authorities on account of their having been employed in the service of the rebellion, there is any necessity of enquiry into the facts or of condemnation by any tribunal —

            Of course I can only speak of the act of Congress—for what the military authorities may do under the operation of martial law is another question—

            The act of Congress of August 6th 1861—is very plain and explicit— 

            That act provides “That whenever during the present insurrection, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any state, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy-yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States then and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, shall forfeit his claim to such labor.” 

            And the same section provides further that “whenever thereafter, the person claiming such labor or service, shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim, person whose service or labor is claimed, had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States contrary to the provisions of this act” —

            It needs no argument to show that the evident intention of the act was to make the slave eo instanti free, whenever he had been employed in hostile service against the Government— The act of the owner, or agent of the owner in compelling the slave to such hostile service or in permitting him to engage in it—is his deed of emancipation—

            The last clause of the section above cited shows it clearly—for whenever an effort is made to enforce the claim to service or labor—the full answer to such claim is—not a decree of any tribunal under the act—but that he had been employed in hostile service against the Government contrary to the provisions of the act—

            It may be further remarked that while the act of Congress provides a mode of proceeding in all other cases of forfeiture under the act, and declares how the property forfeited may be condemned—it makes no provision for the case of slaves whose services have been forfeited by reason of their being employed in hostile service against the Government—

            There is no occasion therefore for the military authorities to hold slaves thus seized, for the purpose of instituting of having instituted by the civil authorities,—any enquiry into the matter—         Respectfully yours

Jas O. Broadhead