The daily republic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1853-1853, 1853-08-09


amber. So having undergone the necessary
sacrifice of her interest in slavsry, which was
about equal to that Of an insolvent who swsars
ont Of custody, France subscribed thu treaty for
the suppression Of the slave trade.
England invited also the most ancient and
Christian monarchy Of Spain to unite ia the
treaty. Spain, who claimed to perpetuate
the Roman race with small dash of the
Afrcan-we mean Moorish of course-Spain
who claimed to have brought down the reli-
gion through clergy rather more corrupt than
the laiiy whose, souls they were to save
Spain who having for some centuries tasted
the terrors of subjugation and slavery, endorse
them over to the Indians of America, and hold
ing the heritage of continent in the name of
the cross, condemned it's natives to slavery,
torture, and death, in the aame of tho crucifx-
Spain at last consented to subscribe the treaty.
We cannot pretend to state the causes which
induced her to abandon trade SO important to
her revenues. 1t may have been because she
was IN hard place and need material aid. 1t
may have been one of those splendid strokes of
enlightened negotiations of the world, she has
diminished her Professionalism her cha
racter for good faith, and established charac-
ter for pride, perfdy, and pretension. She, how
ever, became party to the treaty. How has she
kepti,? 1.-THE SLAYER can escape the cruisers Of
two Of the parties to the treaty for suppressing
the trade, she is sure Of profitable welcome in
the ports Of the third. Spain furnishes mar
ket for the carnal and contraband cargo. Now,
why cannot this inhuman perfidy be prevented
If it is the object of Spain to stop the trade, can
she not enforce the treaty within her own juris-
diction? 1t is said that the laws Of Spain protect
the premises Of her subjects from search, and
that therefore the British consul is not permit
ted to identify the native African upon the
plantations. But the treaty is public law,
paramount to the municipal law of the contract
ing State; it can therefore offer no bar to its
execution of the treaty
1t may be supposed that SO soon as the slaves
are landed they are intermixed with others and
cannot be distinguished. In no country is the
police more strict than in Cuba; filibuster
cannot land or conceal himself without the
knowledge of an officer or spy; he can scarcely
write a letter to the United States without it's
being known. As for the sanctity of person and
property, it has never protected the subject Of the
Spanish crown from arrest or imprisonment,
his private papers from violation and search,
his property from spoliation. Why, then, can
not the slave trade be abolished? 1t is because
England and France, two of the parties to the
suppression treaty, are not fast enough to catch
slave clipper, and because Spain, third par
ty to the same treaty, will not in good faith
carry out her public promises.
We could easily show that if these powers
were sincere in their desire to terminate the
slave trade, they should encourage the ces-
sion of Cuba to the United States. The Fede-
raj law prohibiting the introduction of slaves
operates as a prohibitory duty. The value Of
slave property within the slave States would
therefore prevent the trade, because the effect of
slave importations would be to reduce the value
of the slave property already in the States.
Public sentiment and private interest would
combine to demand the suppression of the slave
trade; there would be scarcely any other terri
tory in which a demand for African slaves ex-
lists, and the Government and Navy of the Uni
ted States, with the Colonization Society, and
the eolonsts once fairly embarked in the bust
ness Of closing the slave trade, would soon ter
inmate it forever.