Sect. 5. Every person violating the provisions, or any of them, of section 2 of this Act, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment, as before provided, not exceeding five years, and a fine of not less than one thousand, nor more than five thousand dollars.

Sect. 6. Every negro illegally imported as aforesaid into the Confederate States shall be arrested by the marshal or his deputies, or any officer of the said States charged in any manner with the execution of this Act, and shall be safely kept, subject to the disposition hereinafter provided. And the said officer shall immediately notify the President of the Confederacy of such arrest and confinement. The President shall, as soon as possible, communicate with the governor of the State whence the vessel in which such negroes were imported cleared, if the same be one of the United States of America, and shall offer to deliver such negroes to the said State, on receiving a guarantee from such State that the said negroes shall enjoy the rights and privileges of freemen in such State, or in any other State of the United States, or that said negroes shall be transported to Africa, and there placed at liberty, free of expense to this Government. If such proposition be rejected, or if the contingency specified above shall not have occured, the President shall receive any proposition which may be made by any responsible persons or society, who will furnish satisfactory guarantee to the President that such negroes will be transported to Africa, and there placed at liberty, free of expense to this Government; and if no such proposition shall be made within a reasonable time, the President shall cause said negroes to be sold at public outcry to the highest bidder in any one of the States where such sale shall not be inconsistent with the laws thereof, under such regulations as he may prescribe; the proceeds of which sale, after paying all the expenses incurred by the Government in the capture, detention, and sale of such negroes, and in the prosecution of the offenders, shall be paid, one-half to the informer (if he be bonâ fide such), and the other half into the treasury of the Confederate States.

Sect. 7. All proceedings under this Act, and all offences against its provisions, shall be had and prosecuted in the district court of the Confederate States held in the State in which, or upon the waters adjacent to which, the same may occur, or into whose port the vessel may be carried. And the writs, processes, and other mandates issued from such courts, shall run and be enforced in any State of this Confederacy, by the marshal, or his deputy, of the district which such State shall compose. And in the execution of this Act, any marshal or deputy may summon as his posse any citizen or citizens of the Confederate States.

Sect. 8. All proceedings for offences committed against the provisions of this Act, or forfeitures incurred by the same, shall be barred unless commenced within five years from the time the same were committed or incurred, or from the time of the discovery of the same.

Sect. 9. No transfers of title to an innocent purchaser, with or without notice, for or without value, shall interfere with such forfeiture, but the same shall be declared at the instance of any informer. On such trials, the informer or prosecutor shall not be required to allege or prove the name of master, owner, or consignee, nor the person from whom the negro was purchased, but shall only be required to satisfy the jury that such negro has been illegally imported. And, on all such trials, the person having such negro in possession shall be compelled to produce such negro in open

court for the personal inspection of the jury. On failure to comply with the order of the court for such production, judgment of forfeiture shall go as of course, unless satisfactory excuse for such failure be offered to the

court.

Sect. 10. All other laws on the same subject shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

HOLSTEIN, LAUENBURG, AND SCHLESWIG.

Correspondence respecting the Affairs of the Duchies of Holstein, Lauenburg, and Schleswig.

On the 21st March, 1861, Lord John Russell received from Sir A. Malet, from Frankfort, a despatch enclosing a memorandum, presented to the Diet by the Danish envoy, which made no direct proposition to the Diet on the part of the Danish Government, but laid before the assembly only a statement of the manner in which the Copenhagen Cabinet was proceeding with the States of Holstein. On the same date a letter came from Mr. Ward from Hamburg, sending a copy of the report of the Committee of the States of Holstein, recommending the rejection of the Government propositions. The substance of the report is as follows:

"The report comprised three heads: 1. The definitive organization of the monarchy, on which the opinion of the States was asked by the Government; 2. The project of law submitted to the States for defining provisionally the position of Holstein in regard to the common affairs of the monarchy; 3. The project of law relating to the constitution of Holstein itself.

"Under the first head, the Committee recommended an unreserved declaration by the States, that they cannot agree to any such organization of the monarchy as that proposed by the Government. The plan of a First Chamber of thirty members named by the Crown, and of a Second Chamber of sixty members elected in the ratio of population throughout the monarchy, would deprive Holstein of the independent and equal rights to which it is entitled, and would place the duchy at the mercy of a perpetual Danish majority, as was the case under the Corporate Constitution of October, 2, 1855. The plan would also be inconsistent with that which, in the opinion of the Committee, continues to be the most desirable thing, viz., the restoration of the ancient political connection between Holstein and Schleswig. Without the union of the Duchies, it is emphatically urged, their wellbeing is impossible, nor can Germany expect any permanent peace so long as the constitutional rights of the Duchies continue to be withheld from them.

"Secondly. The Committee refers to the recommendation made by the States in their last Diet for a provisional arrangement of the affairs of the duchy, in accordance with which the Federal Diet resolved, on the 8th of March, 1860, that during the provisorium all laws laid before the Imperial Council ("Reichsrath") should also be submitted to the States of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, and that no law relating to the common affairs of the monarchy, especially to finances, should be put in force within those Duchies, unless it should first have received the assent of

the States. This demand was in accordance with the Royal Ordinance of the 28th of January, 1852, which guaranteed to the Duchies their independence and equal rights in regard to the other parts of the monarchy. During the last two years the Government had done nothing towards the accomplishment of those objects, nor would they be fully attained by the provisional constitution now recommended; for it did not give to the States the right of concurrent legislation for all the common affairs of the monarchy, as demanded by them and the Federal Diet, but limited the legislative powers of the States to the taxes raised within the duchy, to the domain lands, and other matters particularly specified, which are mostly of a local nature. It is not, therefore, intended to place the States of Holstein upon the same footing as the Imperial Council, or to give them the power of resolving on projects of law, whether financial or otherwise, which affect the interests of the monarchy in general, but to treat Holstein rather as a colony, or distant province, than as an integral part of the entire monarchy.

"The report remarks that the proportion to be contributed by Holstein to the common expenses of the monarchy has been reduced by the Government project from 23 per cent. to 21.64 per cent. This was too much, the right proportion being 20.75 per cent. of the whole. It is complained that the Government seeks to continue the practice of levying more from Holstein than is placed to the credit of the duchy, and the aversional sum of 640,000 dollars required to be paid over as the surplus from the domains of the ducy is considered much too high, inasmuch as this would be about 35 per cent. of the whole surplus arising from the entire domains of the monarchy. After pointing out other practical difficulties found in the project, the Committee recommended the rejection of the proposed law for determining the provisional position of Holstein in regard to the common affairs of the monarchy. The Committee regretted the possibility of an impending execution being sent by the Federal Diet, but declared that such an occurrence would not be the fault of the States, who have done the utmost in their power to conciliate, and bring about a constitutional state of things.

"Thirdly. The Committee observed, that although former projects of special constitutions for Holstein have been declined by the States, yet considering the defects of the existing special constitution of the 11th June, 1854, and the many infringements of the liberty of the subject sanctioned by it, in regard to the police, the press, public meetings, elections, &c., that it is desirable to accept an amended constitution for the duchy, provided always that a provisional settlement of the relations of Holstein to the rest of the monarchy shall, at the same time, take place in conformity with the former demands of the States, and with the Federal resolution of the 8th March, 1860. Upon this assumption, and not otherwise, the Committee recommend the adoption of the Government project of a new special constitution for Holstein, subject to a number of amendments particularly specified, of which the following are the most important, viz. :-The new constitution to be entitled a provisional law. The phrase "special affairs" of the duchy to be avoided, so as to prevent the supposition that the revenues of the domains do not specially belong to Holstein.

"In regard to certain matters common to Schleswig and Holstein, in which, according to the Royal Ordinance of the 28th January, 1852, the tates are to have the power of resolving, a deliberative voice only is given them. They must have a resolving voice in conformity with the ordinance.

The matters to be considered as specially belonging to the Duchy of Holstein, or to that duchy in common with Schleswig, are then particularly enumerated. The Committee objected to the proposed court of competency for deciding questions of excess of authority by the police or Government authorities, and wished such questions to be decided by the ordinary courts of justice.

"The Committee considered that concessions to printers, booksellers, or newspapers, ought only to be withdrawn for abuse by the sentence of a court of justice; that public meetings of unarmed persons ought to be allowed, though, if in the open air, they should have the permission of the police; and that the religious confession should make no difference either in civil, communal, or municipal rights.

"Subject to these, and some other modifications of minor importance, they recommended the acceptance of the project of the Government specially concerning Holstein; provided always, that the Government consented to establish such a provisorium for the position of Holstein as to the entire monarchy, as was consistent with the Federal resolution of the 8th March, 1860.

"Lastly. In the present state of the relations between the Germanic Confederation and the Danish Government, the Committee did not advise the States to submit any propositions to the Federal Diet, but merely to authorize the president to communicate to the Federal Diet its objections, together with the propositions of the Government to which those objections relate."

On the 26th March Mr. Ward informed that the States of Holstein had, after three days' discussion, resolved to reject the first part of the propositions, relative to the definite organization of the monarchy. The votes upon the second and third parts of the Government propositions were not taken yet, but there was no doubt of the disposition of the assembly to reject these parts also.

On the 30th March Lord John Russell wrote to Lord A. Loftus as follows:

"Her Majesty's Government considered that it is desirable that the points in dispute between the German Confederation and the King of Denmark should be made as clear as possible. It was with this view that he instructed them to give explanations on the following points:-1st. Her Majesty's Government understand that the German Confederation required that the States of Holstein should have submitted to them the budget, that is to say, the quota of contribution to be paid by Holstein for the expenses of the monarchy, as well as the sums necessary for the local expenditure of Holstein. 2ndly. Her Majesty's Government understood that the German Diet required that laws which are to bind the whole monarchy should be submitted to the States of Holstein, and obtain their assent before they can become binding, so far as Holstein is concerned.

"These two requirements appeared to her Majesty's Government to be just. They are conformable to the constitutional laws and the customs which were in force in the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland before the Irish Union. But there was a third point regarding which some obscurity prevails. M. Hall appears to infer that the German Diet demand that a law fecting Denmark only, approved by the Rigsraad, shall not have the validity of law unless it is laid before the States of Holstein for their infor

mation, although not for their consent. I confess I read the votes of the German Diet in the same way as M. Hall. At the same time, such a demand appears to her Majesty's Government quite unreasonable, and Count Bernstorff denies that it makes part of the requirements of the German Diet.

"I shall be glad to hear from you a precise explanation on these points."

On the same date, Lord John Russell wrote to Mr. Paget, instructing him to state to the Danish Government "that nothing will bring the question which has arisen in Holstein to a peaceful issue but the most frank and clear conduct on the part of Denmark. The budget, so far as Holstein is concerned, should be submitted to the States of Holstein, and their consent should be explicitly asked. Such was the advice given by Great Britain, in conjunction with the Governments of France and Russia, and Denmark will find it her own interest neither to reject nor to evade it." Mr. Paget had an interview with M. Hall on the 1st April, and M. Hall replied that the Danish Government did not wish either to reject or evade the advice given by Great Britain, but that the position of the Holstein States was different from that of any other representative States, and that the King could not waive his right of veto, without divesting himself of the only sovereign authority he possessed. On the 4th August, Mr. Paget sent a copy of the instructions to the Royal Commissioner, which were to be read by him to the States of Holstein. But Mr. Paget observed he could not help feeling some disappointment on perusing them, for instead of being clear and precise, as he had been led by M. Hall to expect they would be, they struck him as being couched in the same confusion of language which but too generally characterizes all the communications of the Danish Government to the Holstein States and to Germany. Their substance agrees very nearly with what M. Hall told him at their recent interview, but there was a difference in the form, which he thought not likely to be advantageous. Instead of a distinct declaration, as he had been led to expect the instructions would contain, that, " à moins d'un obstacle insurmontable," the vote of the States would be sanctioned by the King, a hope is expressed that the vote of the States may be such as not to make it impossible for his Majesty to sanction it, in which case the budget voted by the States would replace the Royal ordonnance of September 23, 1859. There is no doubt if the States had confidence in the Government, and were anxious to meet it half-way, this document might be taken as a concession to their wishes; but as the reverse is the case, Mr. Paget doubted much if it was likely to produce any good result.

On the 13th April, the Swedish Minister, Count Platen, communicated a note of M. Manderström's on the part of the Swedish Government; and, after dwelling on the state of the disputes between Denmark and the States of Holstein, he concluded as follows:

"Judging from the fruitless experiments to which the desire of arriving at a solution of the problem has hitherto given rise, it seems obvious to the Government of the King that it can only be obtained on the following conditions::

"1. Complete administrative separation of the rest of the monarchy from the Duchy of Holstein, to which should be left the management of its domestic affairs and that of its own army, restricting the business