The question resolves itself therefore into one of prudence, about which you will be told by the learned Counsel, and properly told, that you alone can be, and you alone must be, the judge, _viz._ whether, under the state of the law which has been developed, it is safe to enter into any dealings, not which you know or suspect (this is _a fraud of the law_), but which _may be_ rendered subservient, however indirectly by others, to a slave trading purpose. The letter of the law seems to speak of _knowingly and wilfully_ aiding and abetting the slave trade, and so it is expounded by the highest legal authority of the land, when consulted upon any one case in perspective; but the practice renders this a most _egregious fraud_ on the part of the law itself, which presents itself under false colours; for, whilst in theory it does not permit of any other advice being given for its observance than that just mentioned, in practice it has been seen how the proof of your knowledge is established, not by evidence produced against you, but by that which you do not produce when a case of probable _knowledge_, founded upon knowledge of others in totally different circumstances, has been made out. These things speak for themselves and show what is the practical situation of merchants trading with countries in which dealing in slaves and slave negotiations are both legal and of common occurrence. I need not say, that the United States, Cuba, Brazils, and a large portion of Europe, without talking of Africa, fall exactly under this description. It has been admitted, for indeed it cannot be denied, that it is impracticable to draw a line of separation, in order to distinguish the illicit from the licit traffic, in countries where they both subsist, for they are interwoven and mix themselves with, and merge the one into, the other. This is perfectly clear, and indeed the only intelligible account of the matter. Under such a view of the nature of the thing--after what has been brought to light in the late proceedings as to the mode in which a man may be attacked, with ruin staring him in the face at the first onset, whatever the subsequent result may be, seized on--laid hold of at any, perhaps the most critical, moment--after what has been seen of the method in which his prosecution will be suffered to be carried on, and the manner in which the evidence will be made to bear, in order to prove the _knowledge_ which constitutes the guilt--after seeing that no precaution can guard a man against the attack, and no endeavour to ascertain the real sense of the treacherous law, which speaks one thing and means a very different one--after seeing that as a merchant of wealth, character, and education, he carries in those very circumstances as many presumptions of guilt--after it has been shown that the only thing which can save him, according as the law is laid down and administered, is that which in the nature of mercantile