The state[051] alone is considered to have been injured, and as _injuries cannot possibly be transferred_, the state alone can justly receive the advantages of his labour.

But if the African prince, when he thus condemns him to labour for the benefit of an _unoffended individual_, should at the same time sentence him to become his _property_; that is, if he should make the person and life of the convict at the absolute disposal of him, for whom he has sentenced him to labour; it is evident that, in addition to his former injustice, he is usurping a power, which no ruler or rulers of a state can possess, and which the great Creator of the universe never yet gave to any order whatever of created beings.
That this reasoning is true, and that civilized nations have considered it as such, will be best testified by their practice.

We may appeal here to that _slavery_, which is now adjudged to delinquents, as a punishment, among many of the states of Europe.

These delinquents are sentenced to labour at the _oar_, to work in _mines_, and on _fortifications_, to cut and clear _rivers_, to make and repair _roads_, and to perform other works of national utility.
They are employed, in short, in the _publick_ work; because, as the crimes they have committed are considered to have been crimes against the publick, no individual can justly receive the emoluments of their labour; and they are neither _sold_, nor made capable of being _transferred_, because no government whatsoever is invested with such a power.
Thus then may that slavery, in which only the idea of _labour_ is included, be perfectly equitable, and the delinquent will always receive his punishment as a man; whereas in that, which additionally includes the idea of _property_, and to undergo which, the delinquent must previously change his nature, and become a _brute_; there is an inconsistency, which no arguments can reconcile, and a contradiction to every principle of nature, which a man need only to appeal to his own feelings immediately to evince.

And we will venture to assert, from the united observations that have been made upon the subject, in opposition to any arguments that may be advanced, that there is scarcely one of those, who are called African convicts, on whom the prince has a right to inflict a punishment at all; and that there is no one whatever, whom he has a power of sentencing to labour for the benefit of an unoffended individual, and much less whom he has a right to sell.
Having now fully examined the arguments of the _sellers_[052], and having made such additional remarks as were necessary, we have only to add, that we cannot sufficiently express our detestation at their conduct.