## Facts

- Mary Clark, a Black woman born enslaved in Kentucky, was brought into Indiana Territory and held in long-term service.
- On October 24, 1816, in Vincennes, Clark executed a written indenture binding herself to G.W. Johnston as an “indented servant and house maid” for a term of 20 years.
- The indenture was formally acknowledged and recorded, and Johnston claimed it as authority to restrain Clark and compel her labor.
- Clark petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Knox County Circuit Court, alleging unlawful restraint.
- Johnston asserted the indenture made the restraint lawful; the circuit court accepted the indenture and remanded Clark to Johnston’s custody.
- Clark appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether a 20-year indenture for personal service, executed in Indiana after adoption of the 1816 Indiana Constitution, is enforceable despite the constitutional prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude.
2. Whether habeas corpus provides a remedy to discharge a person restrained under an indenture that functions as constitutionally prohibited involuntary servitude.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order remanding Clark to Johnston.
- The court held the 20-year indenture created involuntary servitude barred by the Indiana Constitution and was void.
- The court ordered Clark discharged from Johnston’s service and custody.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana’s 1816 Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for crime), and courts may not enforce arrangements that recreate those conditions.
- A purportedly “voluntary” contract for long-term personal service can be treated as involuntary servitude when it effectively establishes coercive bondage inconsistent with the constitution.
- Constitutional limits and public policy restrict freedom of contract; private agreements cannot authorize a status the constitution forbids.
- Habeas corpus is an appropriate procedure to test the legality of restraint arising from slavery or slavery-like indentures and to order release when the restraint lacks lawful basis.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Mary Clark’s 20-year indenture as unconstitutional involuntary servitude and granted habeas relief, confirming that Indiana courts would not enforce contractual devices used to maintain bondage after the state constitution’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude.


In re Clark, 1 Blackf. 122 (Ind. 1821)