Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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