of colour in the place, amount in number to fifty, and of course, should they determine to emigrate, the sum of 972 dollars will be raised for their assistance and rica or Hayti. The members, to HYMN FOR THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE NORFOLK COLONIZATION SOCIETY THERE is a land for ages past O'erlook'd by God above; (For so it seem'd) but now at last Remember'd in his love. O! she hath drunk the wine of woe But all her tears shall cease to flow, And I will plant you on the shore, And lead you thro' the land, And I, who am the KING OF KINGS, For, "Go, ye ransom'd slaves," He cries, And men shall wonder to behold "Across the swelling sea; Go, seek again your sunny skies, Where ye shall flourish free. And ye shall teach your rudest race All good and gentle arts, The things that I will do, ALMIGHTY GOD! we hear thy voice, NOTICES. Another donation of thirty dollars, has been forwarded by the Female Liberian Society of Essex county, Virginia. This makes an amount of one hundred and seventy dollars, in little more than six months! An example of liberality worthy of imitation. A most interesting letter, highly approving of the measures of the Colonization Society, has just been received from the Rev. Theophilus Blumhardt, superintendent of the Missionary College at Basle, Switzerland. It shall appear in the next number. We publish, with pleasure, the following very able and interesting de cision of the Chief Justice of the United States, in reference to a vessel captured and brought in for adjudication, under the acts of Congress for the suppression of the Slave Trade: Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after stating the case, proceeded as follows: In prosecuting this appeal, the United States assert no property in themselves. They appear in the character of guardians, or next friends, of these Africans, who are brought, without any act of their own, into the bosom of our country, insist on their right to freedom, and submit their claim to the laws of the land, and to the tribunals of the nation. these Africans as slaves, who have, in the regular course of legitimate commerce, been acquired as property by the subjects of their respective sovereigns, and claim their restitution under the laws of the United States. In examining claims of this momentous importance; claims in which the sacred rights of liberty and of property come in conflict with each other; which have drawn from the bar a degree of talent and of eloquence, worthy of the questions that have been discussed; this Court must not yield to feelings which might seduce it from the path of duty, and must obey the mandate of the law. That the course of opinion on the slave trade should be unset The Consuls of Spain and Portugal, respectively, demanded || tled, ought to excite no surprise, and the feelings of justice and humanity, regaining their long lost ascendency, prevailed so far in the British parliament as to obtain an act for its abolition. The utmost efforts of the British government, as well as of that of the United States, have since been assiduously employed in its suppression. It has been denounced by both in terms of The Christian and civilized nations of the world, with whom we have most intercourse, have all been engaged in it. However abhorrent this traffic may be to a mind whose original feelings are not blunted by familiarity with the practice, it has been sanctioned in modern times by the laws of all nations who possess distant colonies, each of whom has engaged in it as a common commer-great severity, and those concial business which no other cerned in it are subjected to the could rightfully interrupt. It has heaviest penalties which law can claimed all the sanction which inflict. In addition to these meacould be derived from long usage, and general acquiescence. That trade could not be considered as contrary to the law of nations which was authorized and protected by the laws of all commercial nations; the right to carry on which was claimed by each, and allowed by each. sures operating on their own people, they have used all their influence to bring other nations into the same system, and to interdict this trade by the consent of all. Public sentiment has, in both countries, kept pace with the measures of government; and the The course of unexamined opinion is extensively, if not uniopinion, which was founded on versally entertained, that this unthis inveterate usage, received its natural traffic ought to be supfirst check in America; and, as pressed. While its illegality is soon as these States acquired the asserted by some governments, right of self-government, the traf- but not admitted by all; while fic was forbidden by most of them. the detestation in which it is held In the beginning of this century, is growing daily, and even those several humane and enlightened nations who tolerate it in fact, individuals of Great Britain de-almost disavow their own conduct, voted themselves to the cause of and rather connive at, than legathe Africans; and, by frequent lize, the acts of their subjects; it appeals to the nation, in which is not wonderful that public feelthe enormity of this commerce ing should march somewhat in was unveiled, and exposed to the advance of strict law, and that public eye, the general sentiment opposite opinions should be enwas at length roused against it, tertained on the precise cases in which our own laws may control same principle was again affirmand limit the practice of others.ed. Indeed, we ought not to be surprised, if, on this novel series of cases, even Courts of justice should, in some instances, have The Diana (1 Dodson's Rep. 95.) was a Swedish vessel, captured with a cargo of slaves, by a British cruiser, and condemned carried the principle of suppres-in the Court of Vice-Admiralty sion farther than a more deliberate consideration of the subject would justify. at Sierra Leone. This sentence was reversed on appeal, and Sir William Scott, in pronouncing the sentence of reversal, said, "the condemnation also took place on a principle which this Court cannot in any manner recognise, inasmuch as the sentence motives of humanity, hath been abolished by most civilized nations, and is not, at the present time, legally authorized by any." This appears to me to be an assertion by no means sustainable." The ship and cargo were restored, on the principle that the trade was allowed by the laws of Sweden. The Amedie, (1 Acton's Rep. 240.) which was an American vessel employed in the African trade, was captured by a British cruiser, and condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Torto-affirms, that the slave trade, from la. An appeal was prayed; and Sir William Grant, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said, that the trade being then declared unjust and unlawful by Great Britain, "a claimant could have no right, upon principles of universal law, to claim restitution in a prize Court, of human beings carried as his slaves. He must show some right that has been violated by the capture, some property of which he has been dispossessed, and to which he ought to be restored. In this case, the laws of the claimant's country allow of no right of pro-its sanction to the trade, restituperty such as he claims. There can, therefore, be no right of restitution. The consequence is, that the judgment must be affirmed." The principle common to these cases is, that the legality of the capture of a vessel engaged in the slave trade, depends on the law of the country to which the vessel belongs. If that law gives tion will be decreed; if that law prohibits it, the vessel and cargo will be condemned as good prize. This whole subject came on afterwards to be considered in the Louis, (2 Dodson's Rep. 238.) opinion of Sir opinion of Sir William in that case, demonstrates The Fortuna (1 Dodson's Rep. 81.) was condemned on the au-The thority of the Amedie, and the Scott, the attention he had bestowed a question of this nature, that upon it, and gives full assurance standard must be founded in the that it may be considered as set-law of nations, as fixed and evitling the law in the British Courts of Admiralty as far as it goes. The Louis was a French vessel, captured on a slaving voyage, be-laws and ordinances, and the fore she had purchased any slaves, brought into Sierra Leone, and condemned by the Vice-Admiralty Court at that place. On an appeal to the Court of Admiralty in England, the sentence was reversed. In the very full and elaborate opinion given on this case, Sir William Scott, in explicit terms, lays down the broad principle, that the right of search is confined to a state of war. It is a right strictly belligerent in its character, which can never be exercised by a nation at peace, except against professed pirates, who are the enemies of the human race. The act of trading in slaves, however detestable, was not, he said, "the act of freebooters, enemies of the human race, renouncing every country, and ravaging every country, in its coasts and vessels, indiscriminately." It was not pi racy. denced by general, and ancient, and admitted practice, by treaties, and by the general tenor of the formal transactions of civilized states; and, looking to those authorities, he found a difficulty in maintaining that the transaction was legally criminal.” The right of visitation and search being strictly a belligerent right, and the slave trade being neither piratical, nor contrary to the law of nations, the principle is asserted and maintained with great strength of reasoning, that it cannot be exercised on the vessels of a foreign power, unless permitted by treaty. France had refused to assent to the insertion of such an article in her treaty with Great Britain, and, consequently, the right could not be exercised on the high seas by a British cruiser on a French vessel. "It is pressed as a difficulty," says the Judge, "what is to be done, if a French ship, laden with slaves, is brought in? I answer, without hesitation, restore the possession which has been unlawfully devested; rescind the He also said, that this trade could not be pronounced contrary to the law of nations. "Aillegal act done by your own subCourt, in the administration of ject, and leave the foreigner to law, cannot attribute criminality the justice of his own country." to an act where the law imputes none. It must look to the legal standard of morality; and, upon This reasoning goes far in support of the proposition, that, in the British Courts of Admiralty, |