'Something he must yet be allowed to say, as regarded the object the Society was set up to accomplish. This object, if he understood it aright, _involved no intrusion on property_, NOR EVEN UPON PREJUDICE.'--[Fifteenth Annual Report.] 'To the slaveholder, who had charged upon them the wicked design of interfering with the RIGHTS OF PROPERTY under the specious pretext of removing a vicious and dangerous free population, they address themselves in a tone of conciliation and sympathy. We know your rights, say they, and _we respect them_.' * * 'Equally absurd and false is the objection, that this Society seeks indirectly to disturb the rights of property, and to interfere with the well established relation subsisting between master and slave.'--[African Repository, vol. vii. pp. 100, 228.] 'I repeat, that though not a slaveholder, yet I think that every man ought to be protected in his property, and as the laws of our country have decreed that negroes are property, every person that holds a slave, according to these laws, ought to be protected.'--['A new and interesting View of Slavery.' By Humanitas, a colonization advocate. Baltimore, 1820.] 'We are made to disregard this description of _property_, and to touch without reserve the _rights_ of our neighbors.'--[Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the New-Jersey Colonization Society.] Thus the American Colonization Society shamelessly surrenders the claims of justice, and leaves the enemies of oppression weaponless! Hence it rejects the proposition, that _man cannot hold property in man_; and we are called upon to prove that which is self-evident. No accidental differences of condition or complexion--no vicissitudes of fortune--no reprisal or purchase or inheritance, can justly make one individual the slave of another. When God created man, he gave him dominion over the fowls of the air and the beasts of the field; but not over his fellow man. 'All men are born free and equal,' and are 'made of one blood.' Shall we look to wealth as giving one a title to the labor and freedom of another? Wealth is the creature of circumstances, and not an arbitrary law of nature. It takes to itself wings, and flies away; and he who is an opulent tyrant to-day, may on this principle be an impoverished slave to-morrow. Does physical strength make valid this claim? This, too, is evanescent: sickness and age would ultimately degrade the most muscular tyrants to servitude; and mankind would be composed of but two parties--the strong and the weak. Can high birth annul the rights of the lower classes? There is no difference at their birth, between the children of the beggar and those of the king. 'We brought nothing into this world,' says an inspired apostle, 'and it is certain we can carry nothing out.'