to vessels chartered, as well as owned by the citizens or subjects of either party; and to the citizens or subjects of either party carrying on the trade under foreign flags; and they added an article authorizing either party to terminate the treaty at any time, on giving six months notice.

It will have been observed from the documents we have quoted, that the slaves imported into the United States, have been chiefly introduced through the Spanish possessions on our southern frontiers; slavers direct from Africa, rarely having the hardihood to enter our ports, and discharge their cargoes; while small vessels from the West Indies, have occasionally found their way into the southern waters. Of course the treaty as altered by the Senate, would afford but little interruption to this mode of stocking the plantations of Louisiana and the neighbouring States.

As chartered vessels were excepted, our traders would only have to hire slavers instead of owning them, to be exempted from the hazard of being arrested and sent home for trial, by British officers; or even if on board their own vessels, by running up a foreign flag, they would escape the penalties of piracy.

The British Cabinet refused to agree to the treaty thus despoiled of all its efficiency; but with

wonderful simplicity, they proposed to restrict the right of search on the coast of America, to the coast of the southern States. This proposition was of course, promptly rejected by our Minister in England.

The British Government vainly cherishing the hope, that the United States might still consent to some combined effort to destroy a trade they professed to abhor, offered through their Minister at Washington, to consent to a treaty, word for word the same as the one the Senate had ratified, with the single exception of restoring the word, "America." To this, Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, replied, that "from the views entertained by the Senate, it would seem unnecessary and inexpedient any longer to continue the negotiation respecting the slave convention, with any hope that it can assume a form satisfactory to both parties. That a similar convention had been formed with Columbia, on the 10th December, 1824, excepting that the coast of America was excepted from its operation; and yet, notwithstanding this conciliatory feature, the Senate had by a large majority refused to ratify it.”*

*The documents quoted on this subject, may be found in State Papers, 1st Sess. 19 Cong. vol. 1. And in Reports of Committees, 1st Sess. 21 Cong. vol. 3. No. 348.

Negotiations have since been renewed on this subject; and France has united with Great Britain, in urging the Cabinet at Washington to cöoperate with them in putting an end to the African slave trade. The correspondence has not been made public, but we learn from the Edinburgh Review, for July, 1836, that the final answer of the American Government is, that "under no condition, in no form, and with no restriction, will the United States enter into any convention, or treaty, or combined efforts of any sort or kind with other nations, for the suppression of this trade."

To our readers we leave the task of making their own comments on this history of duplicity and hypocrisy ; and proceed to other details.

On the 2nd November, 1825, the Columbian Minister at Washington, in the name of his Government, invited the United States to send delegates to a Congress of the South American Republics, to be held at Panama. In enumerating the topics to be discussed in the proposed Congress, he remarked: "The consideration of means to be adopted for the entire abolition of the African slave trade, is a subject sacred to humanity, and interesting to the policy of the American States. To effect it, their energetic, general, and

uniform cooperation is desirable. At the proposition of the United States, Columbia made a convention with them on this subject, which has not been ratified by the Government of the United States. Would that America which does not think politic what is unjust, contribute in union, and with common consent, to the good of Africa!"

This document was submitted to the Senate, and on the 16th January, 1826, a committee of the Senate made a report in relation to it, in which they observe; "The United States have not certainly the right, and ought never to feel the inclination to dictate to others who may differ with them on this subject," (the slave trade,) "nor do the committee see the expediency of insulting other States by ascending the moral chair, and proclaiming from thence mere abstract principles, of the rectitude of which each nation enjoys the perfect right of deciding for itself."

The remarks made on this occasion by Mr. White, a Senator from Tennessee, are worthy of observation. "In these new States (the S. American Republics,) some of them have put it down in their fundamental law, 'that whoever owns a slave shall cease to be a citizen.' Is it then fit that the United States should disturb the quiet of the southern and western States upon any subject

connected with slavery? I think not. Can it be the desire of any prominent politician in the United States, to divide us into parties upon the subject of slavery? I hope not. Let us then cease to talk about slavery in this House; let us cease to negotiate upon any subject connected with it."

We have seen most abundantly, that slaveholders have no objection to talk about slavery in Congress, or to negotiate about it with foreign nations, when the object is to guard their beloved institution from danger. It is only on the abominations of the system, and the means of removing it, that every tongue must be mute, and the Federal Government passive. Turning from the consideration of our professions, as contrasted with our conduct in regard to the suppression of the African slave trade, let us next take a view of

THE EFFORTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO

PREVENT THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE

ISLAND OF CUBA.

At the time of the Congress of Panama, Spain was still at war with her late colonies, and of course they were authorized by every principle of national law, as well as of self-defence, to carry their arms into the dominions of their enemy.