and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the prejudice against colour here? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The Soodra is not further separated from the Bramin in regard to all his privileges, civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by THE GOD OF NATURE."-(Rep. Am. Col. Soc. p. 87.)

We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference is made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the prejudice, and the other to banish its victims.

With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of the condition of the free people of colour in the non-slaveholding states; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the customs of society.

1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is founded solely on the colour of the skin, and is therefore irrational and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain. But now, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen original states, only two were so recreant to the principles of the revolution, as to make a white skin a qualification for suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in every state constitution subsequently formed or revised, [excepting Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,] the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.* The necessary effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and degradation of the coloured inhabit

From this remark the revised constitution of New York is nominally an exception; coloured citizens, possessing a freehold worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while suffrage is extended to white citizens without any property qualification.

ants must be obvious to all who call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all who have votes to bestow.

2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION.

It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly guarantees to "the citizens of each state, all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states:"-It is in vain that the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this clause confers on every citizen of one state the right to "pass through, or reside in any other state for the purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise." It is in vain that "the members of the several state legislatures" are required to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions, and religious obligations are alike outraged by our state enactments against people of colour. There is scarcely a slave state in which a citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave states we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the free states we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency and morality. Yet even in these states we behold the effects of a miasma wafted from the south. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the instruction of any coloured person from another state, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of this detestable law. But among all the free states, Ohio stands pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable violations of the state constitution, and manifest an absence of moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to the statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers. We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask attention to the one intended to prevent the coloured citizens of other states from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York, the coloured inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let us suppose that a New York freeholder and voter of this class, confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes into Ohio. No matter how much

property he takes with him; no matter what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is required, by the act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his good behaviour; and likewise for his maintenance, should he at any future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a black stranger, to find such sureties. It was the design of the act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent coloured emigrants from remaining within the state; and in order more certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbour," that is, receive under his roof, or who shall even employ" an emigrant who has not given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant so harbouring or employing him, legally liable for his future maintenance !!

We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in fact aggravated the condition of the coloured people, bond and free. The date of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is recent, its odium is thrown upon the friends of the blacks-if ancient, we are assured it is obsolete. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the state was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 the number in the state was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a very large proportion of the present coloured population of the state must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their legislators-that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible persecution to which the coloured people are legally exposed. But let it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its very existence forgotten.

In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and about one thousand free blacks were in consequence of it driven out of the state; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian country of Canada: Previous to their departure, they sent a deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this reply,-"Tell the republicans on your side of the line, that we royalists do not know men by their colour. Should you come to us, you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his

majesty's subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper Canada.

We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated 12th March, 1838. In this instrument, notice is given to all "black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the requisitions of the act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms." Whites, look out! If any person or persons employing any black or mulatto person, contrary to the 3rd section of the above law, you may look out for the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and continues it in being.

Now what says the constitution of Ohio! "ALL are born free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their maker to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent fellow-countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in exchange for his honest labor!

3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal application. The laws of some states in relation to people of colour are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free states have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and for the honour of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other state in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of their grievances been denied.

On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal disabilities, from coloured inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the popular branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved by George H. Flood.* This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, but an expu sion of the petition itself, as an intruder into the house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the members, "is simply thisShall human beings, who are bound by every enactment upon our statute book, be permitted to request the legislature to modify or soften the laws

* It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.

under which they live ?" To the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but American democrats can exert a tyranny over men who have no votes, utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by a majority of only four votes; but this triumph of humanity and republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The next day, the house, by a large majority, resolved "That the blacks and mulattoes who may be residents within this state, have no constitutional right to present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose whatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of the General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed or implied power of the constitution."

The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply that the constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favour or expediency. Hence it is obvious, that the principle on which the resolution is founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and hearing petitions rests solely on constitutional enactment, and not on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared to be a mere act of privilege or policy. Now it is difficult to imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life. The victim of oppression or fraud has no right to appeal to the constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under any obligation to consider the appeal the needy and unfortunate have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate neighbours: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, unless expressly adopted and enforced by the state constitution!

But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of the constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The words of the constitution, which it is pretended sanction the resolution we are considering, are the following, viz." The people have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for a redress: of grievances." It is obvious that this clause confers no rights, but is