brotherhood of human kind? Is it in the nature of the geographical lines which separate the family of man into various nations and governments, to absolve one portion of that family from all obligation to exert a moral influence over others? We feel assured that such a sentiment will find no tolerance with British abolitionists. Whether Americans desire, deprecate, or defy their rebukes, they will be uttered, and they will be heard.

FIFTEENTH QUESTION. What is the practice of the American abolitionists in reference to the use of slave grown produce?

In this respect there is no uniformity in the practice of American abolitionists. Some abstain entirely from slave grown produce as a matter of conscience; others regard it as a question of expediency merely, and abstain so far as they find it convenient. Others still-and large numbers-view it neither as a question of conscience nor expediency; consequently they purchase and use slave grown produce of all descriptions without compunction and probably without giving a thought to the subject. It should, however, be observed that this subject has been but little discussed among American abolitionists-far less in our opinion than its intrinsic importance demands.

SIXTEENTH QUESTION. Would the recommendation to give a preference to the use of free instead of slave grown produce, be likely to have an extensively practical good effect, and if cotton, the exclusive growth of free labor, were manufactured in England, would it find a sale in America to any extent?

Our views respecting the first part of the above query have been already given in the remarks under the fourteenth question. To the latter part of the question we reply that free labor cotton fabrics would probably be bought by a majority of American abolitionists. Beyond this we do not suppose they would find much demand. Could it be furnished at the same prices for which slave labor fabrics can be had, it would probably stand in the American market on the same footing with the latter; for very few, we suppose, give a preference to slave grown articles on account of their being slave grown.

SEVENTEENTH QUESTION. Would fiscal regulations by European countries favorable to the consumption of free grown cotton, sugar, rice, coffee, tobacco, and other tropical productions, have a beneficial effect?

Such regulations, if made in good faith and vigorously carried out, would doubtless yield most happy results.

EIGHTEENTH QUESTION. Would Denmark, France, Cuba, Porto Rico, or the Brazils, consent to abolish slavery, if all the tropical productions of these countries or their colonies were admitted for consumption in the European market on the same terms as their own colonial produce-no discriminating duty being placed against British manufactures in the countries from which such produce is admitted?

We have not sufficient data in our possession to enable us to furnish a satisfactory answer to this query.

NINETEENTH QUESTION. What is the number of slaves still remaining in the so called free states?

The answer to this query will be seen by a reference to the statistics, and observations under the first question.

TWENTIETH QUESTION. What are the laws of the northern states affecting slaves and the rights (so called) of slave-masters?

These laws may be considered in two points of view-as affecting the slaves still remaining in the nominally free states, and as affecting those brought thither from slave states, for a temporary sojourn.

In some of the states slavery was abolished by judicial decisions made on the ground of express constitutional declarations that “all men are born free and equal." The states which thus abolished slavery are Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In these cases the act of abolition extended of course to all the slaves; though a very few aged persons may, though legally free, be still held in nominal slavery, and as slaves, be enumerated in the national census.

The western free states, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, were rescued from slavery previous to their existence as states, by the "ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States, north west of the river Ohio," ratified by congress July 13th, 1787.

Maine never held slaves as a state, being a part of Massachusetts at the time slavery was abolished there.

In the remaining free states, slavery was abolished by acts of their respective legislatures in a gradual way. In these cases emancipation was secured only to those born after a fixed period. The slaves then living were unaffected by it, and remained slaves till death.

The act passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 1st day of March, 1780, entitled "An act for the gradual abolition of Slavery," provided that all coloured persons born in the state after that date should be free. It required the owners of slaves, i. e. of persons born previous to 1780, to register the name, age, &c. of every such slave, with their own (the master's) name, occupation, residence &c., in a place designated, on or before the 1st day of November next ensuing the date of the act. It further provided that all slaves not thus registered, should after the said 1st of November be free. But to this provision there were sundry exceptions, such as the slaves of members of congress from other states, in attendance upon their masters during the sessions of Congress,* the slaves of foreign ministers and consuls, and of persons passing through or sojourning in the state, but not residing therein, also seamen belonging to, and employed on vessels belonging to the inhabitants of other states; these continued slaves provided they were not sold to an inhabitant of the state nor (except in the case of members of congress, foreign ministers and consuls) retained in the state longer than six months." +

66

The Abolition Act of Connecticut, which came next in order of time, provided that all colored persons born in that state after the 1st day of March, 1784, should be free on reaching the age of twenty-five years, till which time they might be held in ser

*At the date of this law the national congress held its sessions in Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania.

+ Stroud's "Laws of Slavery," chap. iv.

vitude. All slaves, born previous to that date, remained such for life.

The Act of Rhode Island was substantially the same with that of Connecticut, and came into operation on the same day, 1st of March, 1784.

The first Act of New York bears date the 29th day of March, 1799, and provides that all born of slaves after the 4th of July, 1799, should be held as slaves by the owners of their mothers, until the males were twenty-eight years old and the females twenty-five.

Another Act was passed April 8th, 1801, not materially differing from the former.

By a third Act, passed March 31st, 1817, it was provided that all descendants of slaves born after the 4th of July, 1799, should be free, but should continue in the service of the former owner, as if bound to service by the overseers of the poor”—males till twenty-eight, and females till twenty-five years old; and all born after the date of the last Act were to remain 66 servants as aforesaid until the age of twenty-one, and no longer." The Act of 1817 declared that all slaves within the state, born before the 4th of July, 1799, should, after the 4th of July, 1827, be free.

Slavery, strictly speaking, was terminated in New York in 1827. Still, however, the descendants of slaves, born after July 4th, 1799, were continued in service, as if bound; and this species of service exists at this time, and will not cease with some till 1845, with others till 1848.

The following is the legal remedy provided for these bound servants in New York, in case of misusage or violations of the conditions of service on the part of the master:

"If any master be guilty of any cruelty, &c., or any violations of the provisions of this title (title 7, Part 2, chap. 8th, Revised Statutes), or of the terms of the indenture or contract, towards any person bound to contract, such persons may complain to any two justices of the peace of the county, &c., who shall summon the parties before them, &c., and may, by certificate under their hands, discharge such person from his obligations of service."-[2 Revised Statutes, 91; section 32.]

The Abolition Act of New Jersey went into effect on the 4th day of July, 1804. It provided that all who were slaves on the 14th day of March, 1798, should continue such during life.

That every child born of a slave after the 4th of July, 1804, should be free, but should remain in the service of the mother's owner, the same as if bound by the overseers of the poor; if a male until twenty-five, if a female until twenty-one years of age. It made it the duty of the grand jury to indict any person for inhumanly treating or abusing his slave; and the person so offending was, on conviction, to be punished by a fine, not exceeding forty dollars, for the use of the poor of the township. It further provided that no slave should be admitted a witness in any matter, except in criminal cases, where the evidence of one slave may be admitted for or against another slave.

This last provision makes the preceding almost wholly a dead letter; for in the great majority of cases the only evidence would be that of the slave and his fellows.

The New Jersey Act forbade the introduction of slaves into the state, either for sale or servitude, under a penalty of forty dollars, but inserted a provision to this effect, "that this shall not prevent any person from bringing his slaves, who shall remove into this state to make a settled residence; nor foreigners, nor others having only a temporary residence for the purpose of transacting business, or on their travels, from bringing and employing their slaves during their stay, provided each slave shall not be sold, or disposed of in this state."

If we understand this provision correctly, it opens the door for any number of slaveholders to remove to this state and bring their slaves. They may not only come from any place, but may bring their slaves from any place. A citizen of New York or Philadelphia may send to Washington and buy slaves, and then remove to this state, and bring his slaves and hold them for life. So that it does, in fact, give to citizens of other states greater power than to its own citizens. Only that a citizen of New Jersey, wishing to become a slaveholder, might remove to another state, obtain his slaves, and then remove again to New Jersey and hold them. A gentleman from Guadaloupe who brought his servant to New York, was indicted for importing a slave, and was obliged to declare him free. But a foreign traveller, from Cuba, Brazil, or Africa, might bring a whole retinue of slaves to New Jersey, and hold them under the statute during his stay. In Illinois there is a system of indentured servitude or appren