_They_ deny the right of prosecution and indemnification for felony, which of course would be impossible, where there is no law; the Abolitionists deny the right of indemnification for the deprivation of property in slaves. _They_ deny the right of all punishment for crimes; this would be extremely convenient for Abolitionists. _They_ deny that their “doctrines are Jacobinical;” and why set up this defence before they are accused, except from the consciousness, that all the world will pronounce them so? The Abolitionists, too, as we think, are somewhat involved in this predicament. The members of this new Society are advocates of Non-resistance, _on one side_; and so are the Abolitionists: both are averse to being _opposed_, except so far as it may afford them the opportunity and title to plead the rights of the honest Connecticut negro’s conscience, who, being asked by his master, what it said, replied, “Why, Massa, it says, I _won’t_.” But the members of this Society are to be great fighters, after all, and that, too, in the way of _aggression_, as they claim the right and declare the purpose of making war “boldly, by the application of their principles, upon all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions;” that is, as one, remarking well on their scheme, hath it, “to take the greatest possible pains to get mobbed, persecuted, imprisoned, hung, and murdered.” And little pity would they get. They, of course, are the framers of their own conscience, and its interpreters; and that is the empire, the rights of which they claim, under their professions of _Non-resistance_. Allow any man that, and what, repudiating the restraints of law, could he ask more? [Footnote 1: The abstract notion, that whatever is judged to be wrong in the customs or laws of society, _may_ and _must_ be broken down, or rooted out, _forthwith_, without any regard to consequences.]