Newspaper Page Text
Now sir, it is not true in point of fact that
slavery exists or has existed only by force of
local statutes. The fact ha* been assumed in
certain judicial decisions, and has been reitera
ted here, hut it is contradicted in others, and
is utterly at variance with the historic record
of the original Slates. Whoever will consult
this, will find that slavery existed in all the
colonies before any law was passed to author
ise it. It was introduced into them by the cu
pidity of the mother country (seeking to avail
' herself of the profits of the African slave trade,
and of the market which the colonies afforded
for the sale of slaves,) not only without any
local law to authorise it, but in the face of the
remonstrances of the colonists, and of acts
(Kissed by the local Legislatures, which were
negatived by the royal Governors. When, in
process of time, it became necessary to regu
late this peculiar class of people, and to dis
tinguish between those who were free and
those who were slaves, such laws were passed, 1
but slavery existed long anterior to their enact- ,
ment. The case of Georgia is striking in this
particular. The colony was settled in 1732
under the government of trustees, which con- ]
tinned for about twenty years, when they sur- I
rendered their charier,and it became a royal '
province. In 1 735, the trustees passed an act
prohibiting- the use and importation of negroes
into the colony, yet in despite of this, they !
were introduced into South Carolina ; so that, j
when the government of the trustees ceased, ■
it was deemed advisable to repeal the prohib
itory act. But the first law recognising the '
existence of slavery in that colony, was passed
in 1770, some twenty years after. Such, on
examination, will be found to have been the
fact, I doubt not, in all the colonies. There
is an express recognition of it in a case decided
in Louisiana, in which the court say : It is an
admitted fact that slavery has been permitted
and tolerated in all the colonies established in
America by the mother country. And again :
Slavey .existed in the colonies Jong before
any legislative net of the mother country au
thorising their introduction, except the char
ter of the African company, and before any
colonial act had passed declaring its exisience.
In a case decided in Virginia,the court say :
The slavery of the African has existed from
the time of bringing them into the colony—in
many States by express enactments declaring
them slaves, in others by custom.
In Virginia it is certain that slavery existed
long before any local laws were passed to au
thorise it—nay, notwithstanding the Provincial
Legislature attempted to impose a tax which
would amount to a prohibition of their impor
tation j and so little foundation is there for
the assertion that slavery exists only by force
of local statutes, which has so often been
made on this floor, that in the case from Lou
isiana, to which I have first referred, the court
say: It may be laid down as a legal axiom,
that in all Governments, in which the munici
.pal regulations are not absolutely opposed to
BMavery, persons reduced to that stale mav be
held in ifH’Pv
The ioundatfon of the first proposition, the d
assumed fact on which it rests, is therefore, la- c
ken from it. It is not true, as we have seen, b
that slavery exists only-by force of local sta- d
tutes. }t existed in these'colonies long anten- tl
° r to SUj'joeaT Statute in relation to it. ®
regulaaadLJwt did rfrff*
IK-T-
l ** w "4H*fßbl!Sll. ine principle stared by ttje'
Court to which I have
was ( thai on which it rested. The persons*
brought to the colonies. by the African com>
pany, had been reducedto slavery, according
to the laws and customs of their own coun
try, either as utqftives in war, or in whatever
other mpde, and there being no municipal reg
pP*uhtioji in the colonies opposed to it, they
were held in that condition. The remaining
branch of this proposition, that slavery can
not exist beyond the limits of the State in
which it is established, 1 will consider present
ly.
The next proposition stated by Senators is
this : The laws of a conquered country re
main in force until they are altered by the con
querors. It is not necessary to deny this posi
tion, but it is desirable to understand it. A
country subdued by force of arms isjteld as a
conquest until the right of the conqueror is
acknowledged by a treaty of peace, or until
so long a time has elapsed as to destroy the
right of post limine of the nation from whom
it has been wrested by force of arms. If it
has been yielded in the treaty of peace, the
terms of that treaty settle the condition of
the inhabitants. Now, that New Mexico and
California are' the fruits of conquest—that Mex
ico has been compelled to yield them by the
terror of our arms, and for the preservation of
her nationality—is a proposition which 1 do
rot doubt. But she has yielded them and a
definite treaty of peace has settled the condi
tion of their inhabitants. They no longer
stand upon the footing of a conquered people.
They were left by the terms of that treaty free
to choose between Mexico and the U. States.
If they had adhered to the former, they would
have continued to enjoy the benefit of Mexi
can laws by a removal to some other part of
Mexico. If they chose the latter they be
came at once entitled to the privileges of citi
zens of the United States, and in due time to
be admitted as members of the Union. Can
those privileges be enjoyed ni subservience to
Mexican laws ? A citizen of the United
Slates has the privilege of worshipping God I
according to the dictates of his own conscience.
The laws of Mexico prescribe the only form
in. which that worship is allowed. A citizen
of the United Statesis entitled to his personal
liberty ; his landsand tenements, goods and
chattels, are liable for the payment of his debts,
but his person is exempt. For non-payment
cf a debt the laws of Mexico subject him to
slavery, which can only bo terminated by the
certificate of the creditor that the debt has
been discharged. Are Mexicans who have
been elected to become citizens of the United '
States still subject to these laws ? Are citi
zens of the United States who have emigra
ted or may emigrate to these territories to be 1
subjected to them ? Who will affirm this ? '
Let it be remembered that, in no one of the
cases which have been referred to by Senators, <
was the question we are considering distinctly 1
in issue. i
The opinions on which they rely are obi'er 1
dicta of the learned judges who uttered them. 1
In the case decided by Lord Mansfield, the 1
question was, whether the King, by virtue of I
his royal prerogative—that is, independent of '
Parliament—could impose the duty of tax
which was the subject of controversy. It !
was a question of British constitutional law, 1
and was the only one decided in the case. In *
the case of Canter, the inquiry related to the e
, validity of a decree in a court of admirality in
Florida, established by the Territorial Legis
lature, under the authority of Congress ; and
. the questions which it was necessary to decide
were the right of this Government to acquire
territory, and the consequent power to govern
it. In the case of Strother and Lucas, the
point decided was, that the inhabitants of Lou
isiana were entitled to the protection of their
property, as well under the treaty as by the
law of nations, and, in determining the ques
tion of title, tp have the benefit of those laws
under which it accrued. The distinct ques
tion, whether the laws of a country which is
acquired by treaty, incorporated into the Uni
ted Slates as an integral portion of it, whose
inhabitants are declared to be entitled to the
privileges of citizens of the United States, and
for which a Territorial Government has been
established by Congress—the question wheth
er those laws continue to exist and to operate
I prospectively, has not, I think, been decided.
‘ In relation to the past, they are certainly ef
fective to protect rights acquired under them ;
I but, in relation to the future, the laws of the
] United States and these made by the Territori-
I al Legislature, under the authority delegated to
i them, are the only recognised laws of the Ter
i ritory, unless Congress shall otherwise provide.
I Accordingly,in the act establishing Territorial
' Governments in Louisiana and Florida, there is
jin each case an express provision continuing
. the pre-existing laws, under certain restrictions.
If without this provision they would have
! been in force, why was it made ?
But, Mr. President, is it quite certain that
slavery is abolished in Mexico ? I do not
speak now of peonage, or white slavery, but
of the African race ? The Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Clarke) has exhibited the decrees
of the Mexican President and Congress of the
15th September, 1829, and of 1837. Now,
it is very clear that slavery had not been abol
ished by the first act, or there would have re
mained no slaves to be manumitted by the sec
ond. And yet it provides that ‘‘the owners of
slaves manumitted by this (the second) act
shall be indemnified for the interest they hold
in them,” &c. It is certain, then, that there
were slaves in Mexico in 1837, notwithstand
ing the decree abolishing slavery in 1829.-
Ihe truth I suppose to be that these decrees
were acts declaratory of the will of the Gov
ernment, to be carried into effect when its fi
nancial condition permitted. They did not
mean to deprive the owner of his property
without indemnifying him. Accordingly, in
the second decree, they provide for an ap
praisement and the issue of scrip to the owner,
payable at the Treasury. This appraisement
was to be made by “duly considering the per
sonal qualities ot the slaves.” Now were
the appraisers to do this unless the slaves were
produced to them, and how could they be pro
duced if they become free co-inslanti on the
publication of the decree, and before the ap
praisements were made, and of course at lib-
erty to go whenever they might think proper.
I suppose, therefore, looking merely to these
decrees,that the abolition of slavery in Mexi
co enacted by them, remains to be completed
by the appraisement of the slaves, and the in
demnification of their owners, and that until
this is done they are inoperative, or rather their
jperation incomplete.
now, sir, luffing* offered- to tfl_e Senate
*'lions we hjive been examining, I turn to the
* consideration of that which is in my judgmeni
, most important.—the right of every citizen ol
the United States to remove with his property,
of whatsoever kind, to any Territory of the
United States. He who denies this, is pre
pared to deny the right of all, to participate
equally in that which has been acquired by the
united efforts of all ; to assert, as a legislator,
what as an individual he would blush to affirm,
that the majority of a joint association have a
right to appropriate exclusively to themselves
the whole gains of the copartnership. The
firmer of the North may emigrate to these
. Territories with his family and household
goods, with his apprentices and hired laborers,
his herds and his flocks, his property of every
description. Why is not a like privilege ac
corded to the Southern planter ? I am tld
that negroes are not property beyond the lim
its of the States in which the owner resides :
that beyond those limits they are considered as
persons, over whom the owner can exercise
no dominion. Mr. President, 1 have before
pointed out the fallacy of this position, but I
desire again to expose it to the view of the
Senate. Sir, no case has been, no case can be
produced to sustain it. Certain State courts
have affirmed that a slave brought with the
consent of his owners within the limits of a
State, whose laws forbid slavery, thereby be
comes free. The correctness of these deci
sions may well be doubted, so far as they ap
ply to a citizen of the United States transiently
passing through such Stales, not resident there
in ; but, waving this, it must be obvious to ev
ery Senator that they fall very far short of the
position that they are adduced to maintain
They do not decide that the slave becomes free
by passing beyond the limits of the State
where his master resides, but by entering with
in the limits of a State whose laws forbid sla
very. To sustain the position which is con
tended for here, tis necessary to produce a
case which decides that a slave becomes free
by passing into a Territory where there is no
I law prohibiting slavery—into aterriloty which
is the common property of all the people of
the United States, whose inhabitants" owe a
common allegiance to a Government whose
constitution and laws do not but ex
pressly recognise the proprietary interest of
the master in his slave. Such a case has not
been and cannot be produced. The precise
converse was decided in the Supreme Court'
of Louisiana, in the case to which I have be
fore referred. The learned judge who pro
nounced that decision slated it as a legal axi
om, that in all governments in which the mu
nicipal regulations are not absolutely opposed
to slavery, persons to that state may
be held in it. If, then the abolition of slave
ry has not been completedin Mexico, or if, as
1 suppose, Mexicali laws will have ceased to
exist under the provisions of the treaty, from
the establishment of territorial governments
in New Mexico and California, and the exten
sion of the laws of the United Slates over
them, this is, then, the precise case suggested
by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in which
persons previously reduced to slavery, may be
held in it.
I have said that slaves are recognised as
such in the constitution and laws of the Uni
ted Slates. They are recognised both as per
sons and as property. As persons, they con
stitute an element of representation, giving po-
litical rights to their owners which they would
not otherwise possess. As property, they are
liable to taxation, and have been subjected io
it whenever yon have resorted to direct taxes.
Your laws provide for the taxation of slaves,
and the collection of the tax by distiess and
sale, by your officer, of the slave so tr”fd.—
Under the operation of these laws, are
now held who have been purchased from your
officer, under warrants issued by your com
mand. They have beetvsold al your instance,
and the proceeds of the sales have been paid
into the National Treasury. You are** daily
repeating this operation by the sale of slaves
under executions founded on judgments recov
ered against defaulting officers. Do you mean
to deny the title which has been given by
your command, under the authority of your
laws, while you retain in your Treasury the
price of ihe slave ?
Again : slaves are recognised as property
by your navigation laws. You provide for
their t •asnporlalion coastwise, from the port of
any State, to “any port or place within the
limits of the United States.” You require
certain things to be done by the owner, and
thereupon your officer, under the authority of
law, grants him a permit to transport his slave
expressly to any port or place within the lim
its of the United States, to be sold as a slave,
or to be held to service or labor. Now con
sider the operations of these laws on the ques
tions before us. A citizen of Savannah fold
ing a slave, the issue of one purchased by
him from your officer, under a sale for direct
taxes for which he has paid the price which
you hold, goes before the collector of that
port, and having complied with the requisi
tions of the law, obtains from him a permit to
transport that slave to Monterey, a port or
place within the limits of the United States,
there to be sold as a slave, or to be held to ser
vice or labor; and having your title to this
slave, and you having his money, he has also
your permit to carry him there as a slave, tell
me what authority is there in any territory of
this Union which can overrule and nullify that
of the Supreme Government on which it de
pends, and from which it derives whatever
power it possesses ? Holding a title to this
slave, given by your officer under the authority
of your laws, while the price which he has
paid yet remains in the National Treasury—•
having your permit to carry him there to be'
sold as a slave, or to be held to service or la
bor, what authority in that territory, over
which you have exclusive dominion, can wrest
from the owner the right which he has thus?
acquired to the labor and service of this slave?-
From the Campaign.
TIII2 NEXT PRESIDENT.
Baltimore, August 21, 1848. y
Thomas Ritchie, Esq.
Sir : Several of your subscribers would
much like to know if you seriously and candid*-
ly think that Cass and Buller will be elected.
They cannot think you so very foolislrls to
suppose so for one momentyet, they would
like to know your opinion. We believte it is
utterly impossible that they can YJjhirs,
/
We do not often publish an/nymous com- I
municatious especially when c/uched, like the |
above, in ill-mannered language. We departjj
from our rule in for the
spch.eiT II after
due.enquiry and examination, in declaring, as
’ we have declared of late, that we regard the
election of Cass and Buller as now safe in all
human probability—our friends, of course,
still continuing to do their duty. Our figures
are as follows. We positively claim the fol
lowing States for Cass and Butler :
Maine 9
New Hampshire 6
Pennsylvania 26
Virginia 17
South Carolina 9
Ohio 23
Mississippi g
Indiana 12
Illinois 9
Alabama 9
Missouri 7
Arkansas 3
Michigan 5
lowa 4
Texas 4
Wisconsin 4
Total 153
Being 7 votes more than are necessary to elect
a President. But in addition to these States, we
hold that Cass may now calculate with great
confidence upen receiving the Vote of—
Georgia 10
Louisiana 6
Florida 3
Total 19
As we are now departing from the usual
course of party presses during a canvass, and
making these statements to the public with the
same candor which we should use towards a
democratic friend who might confidentially ask
us for our advice in making up his belting book,
we deem it proper to say that we have not felt
entirely confident of carrying all these three last
named States until quite recently. We are now,
however, in possession of information as to the
state of feeling in each of them upon which we
fully rely; and this information, added to the
result in North Carolina, and the spirit dis
played at Buffalo, leaves little reasonable doubt
on our mind that they will all three vote for
Cass. He, however, will, in all human proba
bility, be elected, as we have said, even with
out one of their 19 votes.
Os the remaining States, we do not con
cede to Taylor—
Tennessee 13
Connecticut 6
New Jersey 7
Delaware ' 3
Maryland 8
North Carolina H
, 48,
In each of these, as we think, the struggle
is to be very close and doubtful. In Tennes
see it will certainly be so. Unless the best in
formed politicians are deceived, Cass has full
as good a chance for this State as Taylor. In
calling the remaining five of these last named
States very doubtful, we state our impressions '
only, formed upon the best information within
our reach. We do not profess to know as
much about them—especially New Jersey
as of the States which we have named before.
Delaware, in 1844, gave Clay less than 300
majority ; New Jersey, with near 80,000 votes,
gave Clay about 800 majority; Maryland,
with about 70,000 votes, gave about 3,000
whig majority; while Tennessee, with 120,-
000 votes, gave Clay a majority of 114. On
the whole, then, we regard the election ofCass
and Buller as sure; and we believe that they
are quite as likely to receive 200 electoral
votes, as to receive less than 175.
The explanation of this is to be found in
the immense blunder made by the whigs wdien
they nominated Gen. Taylor. The whig poli
ticians know perfectly well—and many of
them openly admit—that he was nominated
j solely in the hope of being carried into the
presidency on a flood-tide of military enthusi
asm. Never was there such an utter and to
tal miscalculation. Instead of a flood-tide eve
rywhere, as was expected, there is nowhere
any moving of the waters at all. The utter
deadness and flatness of the whig canvass is
universally observed, and nowhere seriously
denied.
But this is not al'. The capital weakness
of the whigs is, that in not more than four
or five States, if in so many, can their nominee
poll anything like their party strength; and
even in some of these Stales, their party even
at its full strength, is a hopeless minority.—
Nor is the fact to be concealed or denied, that
Gen. Taylor is losing strength by every letter
he writes. His unsteadfastness and vacillation
and apparent desire to play the wholly new
character of the adroit and managing politician,
have surprised everybody, and displeased al
most everybody. We have never despaired
of the republic or of the democratic party; bilt
in the present crisis, with the brave old banner
ofNewYorkso lamentably stained and tat
tered, we confess that if Scott, or Clay, or Mc-
Lean, or Crittenden were in the field against
us as the nominee of the whig convention, we
should feel obliged to make far less favorable
calculations than those which cheer us on to
a brilliant and overwhelming victory now 1
FILLMORE’S LETTERS.
Albany, N. Y. July 31, 1848.
Hon. John Gayle :
Dear Sir : I have your letter of the 15th
inst., but my official duties have been so press
ing that 1 have been compelled to abandon my
private correspondents. I had also determined
to write no letters for publication bearing up
on the contest in the approaching canvass.—
But as you desire some information for your
own satisfaction in regard to the charges
brought against me from the South, on the
slave question, I have concluded to state brief
ly my position.
While I was in Congress there was much
agitation on the right of petition. My votes
will doubtless be found recorded uniformly in
favor of it. The rule upon which I acted was,
that every citizen presenting a respectful peti
tion ought to be received and considered. If
right and reasonable, the prayer of it should
be granted ; but if wrong or unreasonable, it
should be denied. J think all my votes,
whether on the reception of petitions or the
consideration of resolutions, will be found
consistent with this rule.
1 have none of my Congressional docu
ments former residence
jn Bufialo ncr hive I access to mv nr
at some time while in Congress I too
> occasion to state in substance my views on th
* subject of slavery in the States. Whethe
L were reported or not, lam
tOjSfty, but the substaWtfe was, that I regardei
' slavery as an evil, but one with which lite na
* tional government had nothing to do. Tha
by the constitution of the United States, th
’ whole power over that question was vested ii
’ the several States where the institution wai
tolerated. If ‘hey regarded it as a blessing
they had a constitutional right to enjoy it
* and if they regarded it as an evil, they had th
' power and knew best how to apply the remedy
* 1 did not conceive that Congress had any pow
er over it. or was in any way responsible so
J its continuance in the several States where i
' existed. I have entertained no other senti
j mentson this subject, since I examined it suf
' ficiently to form an opinion, and I doubt no
1 that all my acts, public and private, will bi
[ found in accordance with this view.
I have the honor to be, your ob’t serv’t.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
Buffalo, Oct. 17, 1838.
Sir: Your communication of the 25th in
stant, as chairman of a committee appointed
by “ The anti-slavery Society of the county of
Erie,” has just come to hand. You
my answer to the following interrogatories.
Ist. Do you believe that petitions to Con
gress on the subject of slavery and the slave
trade ought to be received, read, and respect
fully considered by the representatives of the
people ?
2d. Are you opposed to the annexation of
Texas to this Union, under any circumstances,
so long as slaves are held therein ?
3d. Are you in favor of Congress exercising
all the constitutional power it possesses, to
abolish the internal slave trade between the
States ?
4th. Are you in favor of immediate legisla
tion for the abolition of slavery in the district
of Columbia ?
I am much engaged, and have no time to
enter into an argument, and to explain at
length my reasons for my opinion. I shall
therefore, content myself, for the present, by
answering ALL your interrogatories in the
AFFIRMATIVE,and leave for some future oc-
more extended discussion onthesub-
ject.
1 would, however, take this occasion to
say, that in thus frankly giving my opinion, I
would not desire to have it understood iu the
nature of a pledge. At the same time that 1
seek no disguises, but freely give my senti
ments on any subject of interest to those for
whose suffrages 1 am a candidate, I am op
posed to give any pledge that shall deprive me
hereafter of all discretionary power. My own
character must tie the guarantee for the gener
al correctness of my legislative deportment
On every important subject 1 am bound to de
liberate before I act, and especially as a legis
lator—to possess myself of all the informa
tion, and listen to every argument that can be
adduced by my associates, before! give a final
vote. If I stand pledged to a particular course
of action, I cease to be a responsibleagent, but
I become a mere machine. Should subsequent
events show, beyond all doubt, that the course I
I had become pledged to pursue was ruinous to :
my constituents and disgraceful to myself, I
have no alternative, no opportunity for repen
tance, and there is no power to absolve me
from my obligation. Hence the impropriety,
not to say absurdity, in my view, of giving a
pledge.
I am aware that you have not asked any
pledge, and I believe 1 know your sound judg
ment and good sense too well to think you de
sire any such thing. It was, however, to pre
vent any misrepresentation on the part of oth
ers, that I have felt it my duty to say thus
much on this subject.
I am respectfully, your most obedient ser
vant, MILLARD FILLMORE.
W. Mills, Esq., Chairman.
THE VETO. .
Upon no subject (says the Charleston Mer
cury) has Gen. Taytor been more explicit than
in his pledges to refrain from the exercise of
the veto should he be elected President. A
mere majority in Congress are to exercise, un
controlled and unchecked, the power of legis
lation, and the whole power of the Govern
ment will be thrown into the hands of the
Representatives of the Free States. With what
justice and moderation this power will be ex
ercised in questions where the interests of the
North and South happen to he antagonistic,
we can readily imagine from our past experi
ence. Os what avail are Gen. Taylor’s opin
ions, or his Southern predilections, if he have
any, when he positively pledges himself not
to exercise his constitutional privilege of en
forcing them. That the surrender of the veto
power is neither more nor less than a surrender
of the South to the tender mercies of the
North, is sufficiently apparent from the follow
ing paragraph from an article in the National
Intelligencer,reviewing the Buffalo Resolutions.
The avowal, considering the quarter from
whence it emanates,is bold and explicit. Pon
der upon it, friends of the South :
“The frst of these six resolves demands
freedom and established institutions for Oregon.
Well, they have got all that they ask for Ore
gon. That demand, therefore, is satisfied.—
They demand also the same for the Provinces
of New Mexico and California. What sort
of government is to be given to those provin
ces, now Territories of the United States, is a
question to be hereafter decided by Congress;
and by the blessing of Providence, we are go
ing to have a President who is pledged, as Mr.
Van BurexN is not, to respect the legislative
authority on that and all other questions which
may arise during his Administration.”
Political.—. A Washington correspondent of
the Baltimore Sun communicates the following
items of political itelligence:
“What he [speaking of Senator Foote’s Fau
quier Speech] says in regard to Messrs. Dickin
son, Douglass, Hannegan, Bright, and Fitzger
ald, may also be implicitly relied upon, for he
assures me, personally, to-day, and authorises
me to make the declaration through your col
umns, that, in addition to what he there states, 1
in regard to thaf‘ fearless, accomplished, elo- 1
quent, statesmanlike, democratic Senator from
Illinois, Mr. Douglass,’ when ‘he rose in his 1
place and avowed his determination and the '
determination of the Northern democrats gen
erally, who had been heartily cooperating with
him, and with the South, in our previous efforts
at compromise, if we should withdraw all
further opposition, and thus permit the Oregon
—at the next session of
*'' : sl J. l ft**' u5 ’ a S a * n ai ld Jieartily,
l in extending the
* the Pacific,and thus settling the vexed question
r forever’— to rep tat, in addition to all this, that
-i su and ohl of the at ed
• it all, and further, ZAaZ it ibas, upon this
t assurance, that the South finally, on Monday,
e withdrew all opposition to the bill.
n “Mr. Foote feels very confident that this
s controversy will therefore be settled next
h Winter—that the present administration will
~ have the credit of settling it in accordance with
e the doctrines of the President’s last message to
• the House, and that Gen. Cass’administration,
- contrary to his own impression, will be relieved
r from all responsibilities thereto.”
t * * * * #
“Mr. Foote leaves here to-morrow for-his
- home in Mississippi, and will make speeches,
t by particular invitation, on his route thither, at
e Petersburg, Va., in North-Carolina, in Soulh-
Carolina, in Georgia, in Mobile, Ala., in New-
Orleans, and after a week passed at the latter
place, in Natchez also, on his return to Jackson,
where he resides.”
* # # # #
“And here al the conclusion of thts long
letter, which, you will perceive, could not
well be made shorter, I will add a curious
fact, viz: That the position of Mr. Van
Buren’s inaugural, on the subject of slavery
in the District of Columbia, contained in his
last letter accepting the Buffalo nomination,
was not part and parcel of the inaugural as
originally prepared, but was added after con
sultation with Mr. Robert J. Walker, and the
subsequent consultation of the latter with Mr.
U. S. Foote, at present the successor of Mr.
Walker in the United States Senate. This also
is stated ‘by authority.’ ” H.
“P • S.—Since the preceding was written,
1 have perused a private letter from Gen. Cass,
to a distinguished U.S. Senator from the South,
of the contents of which I am permitted so far
to speak as say, that he regrets the disagree
ment in the U. S. Senate, on the last days of
the session, between the North and the South,
expresses his unwavering confidence in ths
doctrines laid down in his “Nicholson letter,”
and his determination to adhere thereto. This
private letter is dated Detroit, 21st August.”
We extract the above paragraphs, as im
portant facts, if proved true, and calculated to
attract much attention. It is stated that Mr.
Foote is to address the citizens in several
Southern States, and as South-Carolina is amonw
the States named, it may be reasonably expected
that he will take occasion to express his
opinions before a Charleston audience. On a
question so vital to Southern interests, it is
natural that all snould desire to hear the views
of those who by thei votes or acts are likely
to exercise influence, or give direction to the
action of our National Legislature on the sub
ject of slavery.
As journalists, we have no intention to enter
into any discussion or controversy affecting
the relative positions of the two great parties
that are struggling for supremacy in the Na
tional Councils, but hail with pleasure any
evidence of a prospect that the question of
slavery should be definitely settled, and taken
out of the hands of politicians. Such a con
summation would, we are confident, be grati
fying to all true Southern men, of both parties.
Charleston Courier.
Receipt to Destroy Flies Mix in a sau-
cer, a table-spoonful of cream, half as much
ground black pepper, and a tea-spoonful of
brown sugar. This will attract and kill flies
without danger of poisoning children,
Extract of Col. J. W. Jackson’s Ad
dress to the voters of the First Congressional <
District:
Gen. Taylor’s friends tell ns, that the Veter f
power is a tyrannical thing. I answer, in old 1
fashioned State Rights’ language, that our Gov
ernment is one of checks and balances, wisely,
concocted by our fathers for the wisest purpo
ses. The House checks the Senate—the Sen
ate the House—the President checks then*
both—the Judiciary checks them all—the
Congress check the Judiciary by impeachment
and trial, and the President in the same way’|-=Wi
and the People, their common masters, ’ check ‘
the whole. The -one man power,as it is called, * *
is given by the Constitution. The Federal
Convention unanimously adopted it as it now '
stands. How stands it ? “Every bill which
shall have passed the House of Representa
tives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes ;***
a law, be presented to the President of the *
United States; if he approve, he shall sign it,
but, if not, he shall return it with his objec
tions.” The President takes a solemn oath to
support the Constitution. It makes no dis
tinction between unconstitutional bills and oth
ers—passed with or without haste—all are to ’’
be submitted to the President for his sanction,’
or rejection, under the pressure of the oath he
has taken before his country and his God.—
Washington vetoed -two bills—one of
was “to ascertain and fix the military establish
ment of the United States.” He did so upon
matter of expediency simply. He did nofpre- '
tend a violation of the Constitution. This
was done on the 28th Feb. 1797, only four. .
days before he retired to private life, and after
he had superintended the workings of the Con- in
stitution nearly eight years. The Bill had not >
been passed in haste and without consideration.
When returned to the House, “the Represent
atives of the people voted upon it, yeas 55,
nays 36, lacking only the constitutional - two
thirds for its passage. Was Washington a ty
rant ? The great body of my Whig country
men do not, cannot think so— The Whigscf
the Revolution did not. Madison vetoed six
bills. One of them was “an act to incorpo- ?
rate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United '
Slates of America,” He expressly surrender- |
ed his constitutional objection—and placed his
rejection upon defects in the bill. It had been
debated in both Houses with great considera
lion. What say you ? Was Madison —the
moral, virtuous, conscientious'Madison, a Ty
rant ! The Federalists of 1815 so called him - . ■
—they spoke of Madison’s war as the Whigs
now do of Polk’s war—but I think they did >. ;7 .
not call Madison a Federalist! 1 advise you
to adhere to the Veto Power. You will then
sustain your Fathers’ work, and you will sus
tain the cause of the South, which must al
ways be in the minority. We shall always
need this check upon Northern -
Out of 7000 acts, bnt twenty-five have been
vetoed. Our veto is not like that of the Brit
ish Queen. Ours is suspensive until Congress
can consider the President’s objections, which
maybe overruled by two thirds of both.'.
Houses. Hers is absolute. What if she
does not exercise her power ? She can do
—and the Kings of England frequently do—
is infinitely worse. They, to carry
~ Pariiajnent out of doors,
\ by dissolving home » order
thp Commoners of
cIuCE
If the Commons pass an act ui
the king, he can make a batch of to
swell the vote against it in the House of Lords.
Ministers of Slate sit with the Commons, gen
erally controlling their action. Britain hasnfi f
Constitution. W e have. We
ed beyond all nations by having the first writ
ten Constitution, defining our form of govern
ment and its powers. Ji is above our "Presi
dent, above our Congress,and aJove our judges. ■
All are swdrn to obey it, and to see that it be I
not violated. A State Government is a pure
democracy in comparison with our Federal
Government. If the Whigs so dearly love
Republicanism, why have they not struggled
to extirpate this provision in our Stale Con- |
stitution r It is in word almost the same.— 7J
May they not justly be sheeted o f a desire tO| '
gel command of federal legh>Uqon, and to
enact their measures, heretofore defeated by ,
Democratic Presidents ? If the ‘,‘one mwi W
p power,” as they call it, is a tyranny at all, is ;
’ it not as tyrannical in Milledgeville, as at
. Washington, and could it not be
| with in our State Constitution, with much |
„ greater safety to our interests than in the Fed- JI
, eral ?
, A DIALOGUE WORTH READING,
1 The following dialogue introduced at the "’i
■ conclusion of a recent speech of Mr. Wick, a U
1 democratic Representative in Congress from
the State of Indiana, shews up in a forcible, «
manner, the way in which the Northern and
Southern Whigs played into each other’s hands
in their combined opposition to the' Compro
mise bill.
In conclusion, I sum up the elements by
whose votes the organization of the Territories
has thus far been defeated, and, as I fear, will
continue to be defeated, at least during this |
session. Those elements are as follows: Ist. 1
All the Whig members from the North. 2d.
A part of the Whig members from the South. ...
3d. All the disorganizers, commonly called
“ barnburners,” including the
4th. A few democrats from the North. q?
All of these elements, except the last, ar®
interested, in a corrupt political sense* in pre- J
venting the organization of the Territories.
1 he American people are anxious to see those
Territories organized and, if all measures for
that object fail, they will naturally look to
their representatives here for an explanation
You, whose votes have defeated the bill, (ex
cept the unfortunate gentlemen of the fourth
class,) have one common object to achieve
the defeat of the nominees of the democratic ?
party. You, and the stupid or corrupt pres- -
ses under your control, will all be in a story, 1
or nearly so, A northern Whig will go | O hi s
representative on his return, and the following
dialogue, in substance, will take place : , ‘
Constituent, “ Why did you hot pass a law .
to organize the Territories ? ” - -J
Rep. “Ah! have you not heard ofCass
having become the advocate (not of free ageu- . j
cy—no ! you will not say that) of slavery, and ■
the Democrats fixed the bill so as to establish
slavery in the Territories, and that for tbit rea- -'
son the Whigs voted against the bill*- his •
even so. Only think of old Cass having turned
slavery man ! Some of his own friends got
so ashamed, that they voted against the bill?*
That will sound well in the North! !♦ .
A Southern Whig comes to his representa
tive, who asks “ How did you fail to organ
ise the Territories ? ” ’
J
