'The Colonization Society, therefore, instead of being a philanthropic and religious institution, is anti-republican and anti-christian in its tendency. Its pretences are false, its doctrines odious, its means contemptible. If we are to send away the colored population because they are profligate and vicious, what sort of missionaries will they make? Why not send away the vicious among the whites, for the same reason and the same purpose? If ignorance be a crime, where shall we begin to select? How much must a man know to save him from transportation? How white must he be? If we send away a mixed breed, how many will be left? If foreigners only, then the people of color must remain--for they are our countrymen. Would foreigners submit? No--not for an instant. Why should the American people make this enormous expenditure of life and money? Why not use the funds of the Society to instruct and elevate our colored population at home? This would be rational and serviceable. Instead of removing men from a land of civilization and knowledge--of schools, and seminaries, and colleges--to give them instruction in a land of darkness and desolation--would it not be wiser and better to reverse the case, and bring the ignorant here for cultivation?' The foregoing accusations are grave, weighty, positive--involving a perilous responsibility, and requiring ample and irrefragable proof. They are expressed in vehement terms: but to measure the propriety of language, we must first examine the character of the system, or the nature of the object, against which it is directed. If we see a person wilfully abusing the goods of an individual, we may reprehend him, but with comparative mildness. If we see him maiming, or in any way maltreating another man's cattle, we may increase the severity of our rebuke. But if we see him violating all the social and sacred relations of life,--daily defrauding a number of his fellow creatures of the fruits of their toil, calling them his property, selling them for money, lacerating their bodies, and ruining their souls,--we may use the strongest terms of moral indignation. Nor is plain and vehement denunciation of crime inconsistent with the most benevolent feelings towards the perpetrators of it. We are sustained in these positions by the example of Christ, and the apostles, and the prophets, and the reformers. So, also, if there be an institution, the direct tendency of which is to perpetuate slavery, to encourage persecution, and to invigorate prejudice,--although many of its supporters may be actuated by pure motives,--it ought to receive unqualified condemnation.