This historic book may have numerous typos or missing text. Not indexed. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1851. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Could any thing be considered as property of the American inhabitants, at the time of the treaty, and in contemplation of the treaty, which, by the ordinary rules of the laws of war, had previously become the absolute property of the captors? Is there any-thing which exempts negroes more than other articles of personal property, from capture and confiscation as booty? If thejre is not, why should negroes have been claimed under this article, more than the vessels which had been captured and condemned? Is that a probable sense of the treaty which would require such a restitution? 2. If negroes were objects of capture in war, the captor might proclaim their liberty when in his possession. If once declared free, could the grant be recalled? Could the British government stipulate the surrender of men made free to slavery? Is it natural to put such a construction upon general words, if they will bear another? Is not this, as it regards the rights of humanity, an odious sense? 3. The treaty will bear another construction--that which is put upon it by the British--a provision for greater caution against depredation or the carrying away of property not changed by the laws of war. It is observable, in confirmation of this, that there is no stipulation to restore, but negatively not to carry away; whereas, immediately after, in the same article, there follows a clause which stipulates that "archives, records, &c.," shall be restored and delivered up. This different mode of expression seems to denote a different sense in the two cases. Let it be observed that I do not mean to advocate this sense in preference to the other. I have at different times viewed the matter in different lights, and our ablest lawyers differ concerning it. I even entertain a clear opinion tha...