In this letter another case is put, in the following words; "Suppose that, by the law of England, all blacks were slaves, and incapable of any other condition; if persons of that color, free in the United States, should, in attempting to pass from one port to another in their own country, be thrown by stress of weather within British jurisdiction, and there detained for an hour or a day, would it be reasonable that British authority should be made to act upon their condition, and to make them slaves?" The reply to this is that it is one of the cases where, according to the principles already adduced, the law of nature and of nations ought to be paramount over the local law. But aside from this reply, the question seems an unfortunate one for an American to ask, for the free black citizens of the northern states of the union, who are called by their business to, or thrown by necessity within, the southern states, are condemned to a slavery more or less severe and enduring. Colored strangers, from the northern states, are by law imprisoned until they are ready to depart in the vessel in which they came. And it is said that there are now many free colored citizens of New England, working in chains on the roads and levee of New Orleans, and doomed to hopeless slavery, because the presumption of color is against them; and, being confined and restrained on that presumption, they have neither the means nor the liberty to procure the necessary evidence to rebut it. It is a disgraceful and mortifying fact, that in our southern ports a protection to colored freemen is afforded under the British flag, which our own is unable to secure to them. The severity of the laws applies, in terms, to all colored strangers, but a violation of the persons of some British negro sailors having occurred in the port of Charleston, in 1826, the British government took the matter up, and since that time, with a commendable prudence, the southern authorities have abstained from molesting negroes in their ports, while resting under the sanctuary of the red cross of England.' We think that the claim which our government makes upon Great Britain of a strict observance, not of the laws of the United States, or of rights derived under those laws, but of the local rights and privileges of individual members of the union, which at the utmost are only guarantied by the United States, is, at this moment, an awkward and ungraceful pretension. For the occurrences of the M'Leod case must be still a subject of fresh and painful recollection, to the British government. In that case, Great Britain asked of our federal government redress for an admitted infraction of her rights, under the law of nations. Yet the state of New York, in this case, placed safely beyond the reach of British coercion or negotiation, was able to disregard the unquestioned law of nations, and to violate the rights of Great Britain, who, disappointed in her appeal to our national government, finding it powerless to afford her redress, was obliged to submit in passive endurance to the wrong, and to expose her subject and servant, to the chances of a trial by jury, in the midst of an exasperated population, when it was conceded by the only American authority with which our institutions enabled her to communicate, that he was entitled to an immediate discharge. And now we call upon Great Britain to guaranty and preserve the at best, doubtful and uncertain rights of individual states of this union. We cannot believe that the British government will feel itself placed in an awkward position, with regard to the mutineers. If they are tried at all, which we doubt, they We take these facts from a report made by George Bradburn to the house of representatives of Massachusetts, at the session of 1839, being No 38 of the house documents for that year. will be tried before some British tribunal. Notwithstanding some intimations to the contrary, which we have heard, we do not believe that the idea will be entertained for a moment of giving up these men to the American government. If Great Britain is arbitrary and imperious, she is, on this subject at least, consistent, and if she were to withdraw her protection from these men, she would be false to the principles and the policy on which she has been acting for the last seventy years. We can entertain no hope or fear, from the change in the ministry, that the American claim will be heard more favorably, in the case of the Creole, than in that of the Enterprise. Emancipation is not a party, but a national question, in Great Britain. There is but one opinion upon it. Lord Aberdeen himself is committed upon the question, for when he was colonial secretary during the short-lived tory administration of 1834-5, he took part in the discussions and negotiations relating to the Comet, Encomium, and Enterprise. Whatever his opinions may be, we feel very sure that no British ministry would dare to face parliament or the people as advocates of the surrender of fugitive slaves. We regret the course which has been taken with regard to the Creole, by our government. It may be regarded as certain that we shall get no unforced satisfaction from Great Britain. We think it equally certain that we cannot compel her either to give satisfaction for the past, or to change her policy for the future. It impairs the respectability and dignity, both of nations and individuals, to advance pretensions which they cannot sustain or enforce. In this predicament we shall be placed by Mr. Everett's necessary compliance with the instructions he has received. It is no part of our plan to discuss the probabilities of collision between the two countries. We believe that we shall escape the scourge of war, if the present causes of difference are not increased; but we greatly fear, that, in the estimation of Europe, our demand of indemnification, in the case of the Creole, and the inevitable refusal which will ensue, will plunge us to a still lower deep in that abyss of discredit, into which, as a nation, we have already fallen. NOTE BY THE EDITORS. HAVING inserted, in the present number, an article on the right of visitation and search in time of peace, and also articles on the right of indemnification in the case of the Creole, in reference to which subjects there are very strong feelings of a local, if not political nature; we deem it not unimportant, in order to prevent misconception, to republish the following paragraph, from a statement of the plan and objects of this journal, contained in the number for April, 1838. "The practice of affixing the initials of the writers to their articles, though not considered as indispensable, has been adopted as the general rule. The editors thus have it in their power, as the nature of the topics, discussed in the pages of their journal, makes it proper they should have, to relieve themselves from being responsible for the opinions advanced in the articles which they publish, or for the inferences which might possibly be drawn from them. In general, therefore, the articles published in the Jurist will be signed with the initials of the several writers; and must consequently be regarded as expressing their sentiments alone. The papers, prepared by the editors themselves, are not to be deemed exceptions." JURISPRUDENCE. 1.- DIGEST OF ENGLISH CASES. COMMON LAW. Selections from 11 Adolphus & Ellis, parts 3 & 4; 4 Perry & Davison, part 2; 1 Gale & Davison, part 1; 8 Scott, part 4; 7 Meeson & Welsby, part 1; and 9 Dowling, part 4. BASTARD. (What evidence sufficient to illegitimize the child of a married woman.) A woman who was married in 1812, in 1818, her husband being alive, went through the form of marriage with another man, with whom she cohabited till 1832: Held, that the Quarter Sessions, in 1840 (the husband being still alive) were not justified in finding, upon these facts alone, and without any evidence of the non-access of the husband, that her child, born in 1821, was illegitimate. Reg. v. Inhabitants of Mansfield, 1 G. & D. 7. BILLS AND NOTES. (Promissory note, what is Guarantee - Consideration.) An instrument was in the following terms: -"I undertake to pay to R. I. the sum of 67. 43. for a suit of, ordered by D. P.:" Held, that it was not a promissory note, but good as a guarantee, as the consideration could be collected by necessary inference from the instrument itself. Jarvis v. Wilkins, 7 M. & W. 410. 2. (Notice of dishonor.) In an action by the indorsee against the drawer of a bill of exchange, it is enough for the plaintiff to show, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the letter containing the notice of dishonor was posted in such time as that, by the |