pro-slavery party.  Some years ago he had the ear of a negro sent to him by post, in an insulting anonymous letter.  During the past year, though marked by a severe domestic affliction, in addition to his engagements as a merchant, in partnership with his brother Arthur, and his various public and private duties as a man and as a citizen, in the performance of which I believe he is punctual and exemplary, he has edited, almost without assistance, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, and has also been one of the most active members of a committee of benevolent individuals formed to watch over the interest of the Amistad captives.  Besides superintending the maintenance, education, and other interests of these Africans, it was necessary to defend their cause against the whole power of the United States’ Government, to raise funds for these objects, to interest foreign Governments in their welfare, and more than all, to keep them constantly before the public, not only for their own sakes, but that a portion of the sympathy and right feeling which was elicited in their favor might be reflected towards the native slave population of the country, whose claim to freedom rests upon the same ground of natural and indefeasible right.  With what success this interesting cause has been prosecuted is well expressed in a single sentence by a valued transatlantic correspondent of mine, who, writing at the most critical period of the controversy, says:—­“We, or rather Lewis Tappan, has made the whole nation look the captives in the face.”

Joshua Leavitt, proprietor and editor of the New York Emancipator, a large weekly abolition newspaper, and secretary of the American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, is another remarkable man, clear and sound in judgment, and efficient in action.  He is justly regarded by American abolitionists as one of their ablest supporters.

La Roy Sunderland, member of the Executive Committee, and editor of “Zion’s Watchman,” a Methodist, religious, and anti-slavery newspaper, with his slight figure, dark intellectual face, and earnest manner, is pointed out to the anti-slavery visitor from the Old World as the most prominent advocate of emancipation among the Wesleyans.  His boldness and faithfulness have combined against him the leading influences of his denomination, but notwithstanding he has been several times tried by ecclesiastical councils, they have always failed to substantiate the charges against him, and his vindication has been complete.

Theodore S. Wright, member of the committee, is a colored presbyterian preacher in this city—­an amiable man, much and deservedly respected.

All the above mentioned individuals, who have from an early period been among the most zealous and laborious members of the anti-slavery committee, found themselves placed by the events of last year in the position of seceders from the American Anti-Slavery Society, though their opinions had undergone no change.  They now belong to the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, or as it is technically called the “new organization,” a distinction which will be afterwards explained.