Republics which constitute this nation? Shall proclamation of outlawry be made against these men, and they be treated by this government as it treats the enemies of the human race? How much more deserving is the one than the other, since each acts alike in the premises?

The American government must perform its obligations to its citizens it is bound to protect them in the enjoyment of their rights—and, reciprocally, the citizen owes allegiance to the government, and is bound to its support. Its genius is opposed to all encroachments of his domicil on the land, as well as to all invasions of his vessel on the sea. At its inception, in the very infancy of the government, to supply an oversight of the makers of its constitution, it was amended so as to provide that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, should not be violated; and that no warrants should issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. And allthis, indeed, to guard against the unlawful acts of their own felowcitizens, and not foreigners.

A high constitutional obligation is here devolved on the government in reference to landsmen. Shall it be forgetful of the rights of the citizen as soon as he shall embark for other regions in the pursuits of trade and commerce abroad? Does not the provision embrace both sea and land? Where is the difference in principle between the houses of citizens on the land, and the vessels of the sailors on sea? If a man's house is his castle his sanctuary-which may not be violated by unlawful intruders, nor entered but by his consent, or according to law, why may not his vessel be equally sacred and inviolable! Search of vessels at sea, is certainly similar or analogous to search of houses on land, and should be subject to the same treatment. As vessels carry their nationality, and are subject, territorially, to the jurisdiction of the country to which they belong, nationalizing the persons navigating them as fully as terra firma can those in dwelling-houses, no reason is apparert why the search-exemption of the Constitution may not reach

every American citizen wheresoever he may be in an American vessel. Let this government then see that the foreigner shall not exercise greater or other privileges over the papers, property, or persons of Americans, than its own citizens may themselves exercise.

But Great Britain, albeit, does not now claim to visit and search American vessels to ascertain whether the subjects of its government are on board, or to impress into its service. such persons as the Admiral may find there, whether Americans or otherwise; such claim and practice received its proper quietus by the war of 1812, which was provoked by the repeated exercise of such high-handed acts. Another and quite different reason is now urged for the justification of the present aggressions. The claim originates in the alleged purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel is engaged in the African slave-trade-a traffic which that government affects to look upon as an abomination. Admit the morality and philanthropy of the avowed motive;-if the government of the United States will not, in view of paramount motive, grant by conventions and treaty stipulations, the desired privilege of an examination of its vessels, their manifests, their cargoes, and effects, there should be a finality to friendly argument, and a resort to force, if it is the design to visit and search for slaves at any hazard. The sovereignty of the American people having spoken with a voice of authority denying the claim, it should be satisfactory. To exercise such claim in the face of a refusal to allow it, is a virtual declaration of war, and commencement of hostilities. Apology or explanation can alone satisfy the public sentiment, and allay the indignation and injured feelings of the people. The offence is gross-the injury great.

And what would Great Britain have the United States to do, which they have not already done in respect to the slavetrade? And what has Great Britain done in that respect, which has not been done by the United States? Has not importation of slaves into the United States throughout every part of its domain, been prohibited by law since the year of our Lord 1808? Has not the Congress of the nation, exer

cising a power claimed by that body to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, at sundry times since the Constitution became a rule of national conduct, enacted laws pronouncing importation of slaves and traffic in them an offence punishable with death? Is not the slave-trade this day statutory piracy? Legislation in the United States against the slave-trade is not a whit behind that of Parliament in hostility and hatred-in severity and extent of punishment in that behalf. And besides all this, have not the United States, at an expense equal to that of the nation which boasts itself to be the mistress of the seas, and with as profound interest for the African, kept a cordon of cruisers armed and equipped, in constant duty upon the waters which wash the shores of his continent, to aid in the suppression of the trade in slaves? The barriers which this nation has placed in the way of migration or importation from its dark territories, of its still darker and benighted inhabitants, will not suffer in comparison with those furnished for the like purpose by Great Britain. Hitherto the two governments have gone hand in hand in their efforts to protect those wretched natives from transportation. Each has placed in the African seas ships of war, constituting an invincible armada—an efficient marine police department-to prevent the stolid and miserable men of the waste places and wildernesses of their shores from becoming the merchandise of the stranger from beyond the sea. Indeed, no reasonable measure proposed by that government was ever rejected by the United States, if within its constitutional ability of performance. To say nothing more of the statutory steps taken, ranging all the way from the year 1794, it is sufficient to cite their joint action as stipulated in the Convention at Washington, treated by those distinguished statesmen, Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, in the year 1842, as the latest arrangement between these governments on the subject of the slave trade. On the 9th of August in that year, it was mutually stipulated between the high contracting parties, that each should prepare, equip, and maintain in service on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron or naval force of vessels of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry

in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce separately and respectively the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries, for the suppression of the slave trade. It was further agreed on this occasion, that the squadrons should in all things be independent of each other, but that the two governments should give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces as should enable them most effectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies should arise for the attainment of the object. Has this government neglected to perform its duty under this treaty? Has not the squadron been equipped and sent into the African seas? Is not the nation vigilant to execute the laws against the slave-trade by the judgments of its courts of justice? The proposition long ago made to establish courts of Mixed Commission, to hear and determine cases of seizure made by the Cruisers of either government, was rejected only because the Constitution of this government rendered it impossible for Congress to establish such courts. But in everything possible to be done, proposed by Great Britain, to cooperate with its government in the suppression of the slave-trade, has been cheerfully done. Why, then, this breach of national good manners? Why this culpable disregard of a national flag, and wilful determination to visit and search vessels bearing it aloft? These nations are not, or were not, belligerents at the time of the trespasses; and search by the public law is never tolerated but as a belligerent right. It behoves the United States to see to it, that its sovereignty on sea and land shall be respected; that its maritime rights never be surrendered; and that its flag shall not be dishonored with impunity. This nation has kept its faith, and it expects like fidelity on the part of Great Britain.

To inquire concerning the African slave trade, the position. which our national government occupies in respect to it, and the powers of its legislative department to reach its evils, may not be uninteresting at this juncture of state affairs. The signs of the times portend and foreshadow the importance of an examination into the warrant of authority for Congress to enact laws prohibiting the slave trade-a commerce jus

tifiable and lawful under the code of nations-and declaring its pursuit piracy and punishable with death. The public sentiment of the world is alive to the question of the slave trade, as it is settled at present by the law of nations.

This government, and that of Great Britain, alike in aim to disparage and cut off the commerce in slaves, are unlike in power and authority to produce such consummation. The one is a government of limited powers, of a derived and delegated jurisdiction, and is but the creature of a people whose power is divided between it and other and lesser governments. The other is a government original and integral, without limitation of powers and uncontrollable in authority -independent in its sovereignty. Its constitution is not enrolled in a single parchment of paper writing, with divisions of articles and sections; but it embraces the entire system and whole embodiment of its laws, written and unwritten, and the usages of the people whether ancient or modern, animated by the living spirit of the current moment, and developing in the course of centuries the present form of government, kings, lords, and commoners contributing of their knowledge and experience to give it excellence and to increase its value as a means of prosperity to the nation. Its parliament is not obligated to act within the precincts of enumerated powers, and to consult an inventory of grants and authority. It is next to omnipotent in its behests. It reaches by its decrees every interest in the realm. It is the depository of all power in the nation, whether ecclesiastical or secular, civil or criminal, military or maritime. Parliament is plenipotential. It may make, and it may unmake; it may confirm, enlarge, restrain, revise; it may repeal; it may abrogate. Parliament is transcendental. It may exercise absolute power; its element in the last analysis is a triplex despotism. By the constitution of the British government there is vested in the Parliament all authority-all supremacy-in esse aut in posse. It can do whatsoever it will without the pale of natural impossibility, and nothing human can subvert the absolutism of its powers. It has but to put forth its will, and both subject and citizen must bow in obedience. Parliament has, indeed, the power