Newspaper Page Text
eu.v-.the constitutional power of Congress to
•liner it. In justice to tint body, we invite your
randiil attention to a brief consideration ot tltctr
vi j ws on thin subject. The cowtitutioual validi
ty or invalidity of an act ofCongresi does not ne-
. <-i-s*ary d ip m.i up m the question whether the
judet-ii departm 'i* "f the goveruieut w ould af
firm the one or toe other of these propositions, ft
may bo t'l u an net will in its operation and ef
fect' he subversive of the principles of the consti
tution, and yet on its face be superior to all just
exception on that ground. Literally and iu terms
it may bo in rxeention of an expressly granted
power; in its operation and effect it may not only
transcend that power, but may directly contra
vene it. finder the pretence of supplying a re
venue, Congress may raise money hpyoud the
purpose to which it can be legitimately applied,
nr may increase the duties to au amount which
will he prohibitory of importation, and conse
quently destructive of nil revenue to lie derived
from that source. Still such an act would pur
port to lie in the execution of tho power to lay
and collect taxes; and courts of justice judging of
its terms, and hy what is apparent ou its face,
would not alBrin its invalidity. Hut the consti
tution is equally obligatory ou every department
of tho government—on the legislator who cuacts,
as well as on tire judge who interprets a law. If
the former shall so veil his unlawful purpose as
to defend it from the scrutiny of the latter, is it
less a violation of his constitutional obligation!
If it be such a violation, can it be .constitutionally
valid?
If, instead of the absence of any express grant
of power to protect manufacture., the constitu
tion had contained an express clause of inhibition,
an act of Congress imposing' duties beyond the
purposes of revenue, mid thereby operating as a
bounty to tlic manufacturers, would be, they insist
admitted to be in violation of the constitution,
and yet. tho repugnance would not lie manifest
upon its face, aud would therefore elude the ju
dicial power.
A numerous and intelligent portion of the A-
tncrican people believe that this view is applica
ble to the tariff of 1828. They admit the posver
of Congress to lay and collect such duties as they
may deem necessary for tho purposes of revenue,
and within these limits 90 to arrange those duties
as incidentally, and to that extent, to give pro
tection to the manufacturer. They deny the
right to convert what they denominate the inci
dental into the principal power, and transcending
the limits of revenue to impose an additional du
ty substantively and exclusively for tl)» purpose
of affording that protection. Th!$ admit that
Congress may countervail the regulations of a
foreigu power which may bo hostile to our com
merce, but they deny their authority permanent
ly to prohibit all importation for the purpose of
securing the home market exclusively to the dom
estic manufacturer,—and thereby destroying the
commerce they were entrusted to regulato, and
fostering au interest witli which they have no con-
titutionol power to interfere. That portion of
our fellow-citizens of whom we speak, do not
therefore hesitate to nffinn, that if the right to
enact the tariff law of 1828 be referred to the au
thority to lay and collect duties, &c. it is a pal
pable abuse of the taxing power, which was con
ferred for tho purpose of revenue;—if to tho au
thority to. regulato commerce, it is as obvious a
perversion of that power; since it may be extend
ed to an utter annihilation of the objects which it
was intended to protect. Waiving, however,
this discussion, wo concur in the opiuion, that if
tho aggrieved party is deprived of the protection
which the judicial department might otherwise
afford, it would strengthen his appeal to the A-
merican people to unite svith him in correcting
tho evil by peaceable and constitutional means.
But there is a view of this subject which may
claim the concurrence of all those who are pre
pared to admit that the tariff is unequal in its op
eration, oppressive and unjust. The Coustitu-
tion of tlie United States had its origin in a spirit
of compromise. Its object is the security of tnoso
rights wltich are committed to its protection—its
principle that of an equal participation in the be
nefits and in tho burtheus of the government. A
system of taxation which is unequal in its opera
tion, which oppresses the many lor the benefit of
the few, is therefore unjust, not merely with re
ference to the great and immutable principles of
right which are applicable to human conduct,
but is moreover in direct collision with that con
stitutional equality of right, which this instrument
was thus confessedly intended to secure. A dis
tinguished jurist of Massachusetts, one who L
advantageously known as such to the people of
the Union, has said of the system of which wc
complain, that “it is calculated to destroy many
of the great objects for which the constitution of
ihe United States was originally framed and a-
dopted." Who will affirm that such a system
can consist with tho spirit of the constitution? Its
enactments may be so veiled as to dude the judi
cial power, and may therefore be obligatory upon
the other departments of thogovernment—but as
between constituent and agent, between tho peo
ple and their rulers, tlie charter will in such caso
have been violated, and it will bolong to them to
correct the evil—Why should we fear to enunci
ate this principle? Is it bccauso of the danger
of those interests which have grown up under the
system? A just consideration of tho subject will
lead to a directly opposite result. If it be con
ceded that the system is oppressive, unequal ami
unjust, can those who profit by it deceive them
selves with the expectation of Its permanency? Is
it prudent to dose their eyes to the consequences,
to which, sooner or later, this conviction must in
evitably lead? Distinguished as this systom is,
by every characteristic which may define a tyran
ny the most odious, why should wc, who are its
victims, not stand upon our chartered rights?
As men and brethren wo appeal to you then to
urnto your efforts with ours in the correction of
tills abuse. A system which is unequal in its o-
poration and therefore unjust—which is oppres
sive, because it burthens the many for the benefit
of the few—grossly, fatally unwise and impolitic,
since it is subversive of the harmony oftho Uuiou
—which is in violation oftho principles of free gov
ernment, and utterly at variance with tho spirit of
justico and mutual concession iu whichthe consti
tution was conceived and'adopted; such a system,
if per severed in, must alienate our affections from
each other, engender discontents & animosities, &
lead inevitably, and with a force which uo human
power can resist, to tho most awful.of all calam
ities. We entreat those who differ from us, se
riously to ponder this view of tho subject. We
entreat them not to misunderstand us. We can
not be deterred from tho discharge of our duties
to ourselves and our common country by the mo-
nance of consequences, and wo arc equally inca
pable of using its languago to others. It is as
men and brothers—in the spirit of an affection
which is still warm and undiminished, that we
would call their attentiou to those inevitable re
sults, which neither they nor wo will have the
power to avert. P,
Examine the subject for a moment in its con
nexion with tho principles of an cnlightcd politi
es! economy, and bee u' the eoiisidcr.itious which
are urged to sustain this system are not fallacious
and delusive. The view must bo necessarily brief
—consisting of hints and suggestions rather than
of an extended argument, or of minute details;
but our object will be attained if these may servo
to awaken a spirit of dispassionate inquiry.
We are the advocates of free trade. The ar
gument which sustains it rests upon a proposition
which may not be denied. It is the unqcustiona-
■We right of every individual to apply his labor
and capital in the mode which lie may cutWBive
best ca calated to promote his own interest. It is
tho interest of tho public that he should so apply
ider-
it, II ■ understand* better thau it can be uu,
stood by the government, what will conduce to
lii< own benefit;—aud since tho majority of indi
viduals will, if properly protected, lie disponed to
lul.ow tlirir interest, such au application of their
in .In-try ami capital must produce in the result
tho greatest amount of public good. Let it be re
membered, that tlie question relates exclusively to
the application of capital. It cannot be generated
by an act of legislation. The power of tlie go
vernment is limited to its transfer from one em
ployment to another. It takes from souio less
f tvored interest, what it bestows ou the one which
it professes to protect. It is equally untrue ’that
such a system gives greater employment to labor.
Its operation is couliued to tho simple change of
its application. Laws which protect by bouuty
any peculiar species of labor, cauuot bo said to
eucoui'ge American industry—that is, directed to
various objects. These laws favor ouly a single
class; and since the bouuty is not supplied by the
government, but taken from the {socket of the in
dividual, the protectiou which is given to one spe
cie* of labor, is so given at the expeuse of every
other. That course of legislation, wltich leaves
American capital and labor to the unfettered dis
cretion of those who possess the one mid apply
the other, can aloue be denominated the “Ameri
can System,"
The interference of Government, with the right
of the individual to apply his labor and capital in
such mode as he may thiuk most conducive to his
owu iutcrcst, thus necessarily operates to dimin
ish tho aggregate araouut of production. In o-
ther words, the amount of the necessaries andcon-
veniencies of life which are enjoyed by the com
munity is necessarily diminished. If ail nations
then were willing to adopt the system of free
trade for which wc contend, which is accordant to
the spirit of Christianity and calculated to unite
nations iu harmony aud peace, it cannot be doubt
ed that the interest of each would be promoted.
The only question which can be raised on this
part of the subject is, whether the adoption of a
restrictive policy by one or more nations, makes
it the interest of others to reciprocate those res
trictions. The answer seems to be sufficiently
obvious and satisfactory. The proposition which
asserts the superior advantages of a free trade a-
mong all nations, rests upon the following princi
ple. Tho universal freedom of action which it
allows, tends most thoroughly to develope the mo
ral and physical cuergies of each nation, and to
apply them to those objects to which they are
best adapted. The proposition must be equally
true iu relation to each nation, whatever Ynay
be the policy adopted by others. The na
tion which resorts to a restrictive policy, legislates
to her owu disadvantage by interfering with the
natural and most profitable employment of capi
tal. To the extent to which she thus excludes
another nation from an accustomed or from a de
sirable market, she occasions, it is true, iu that na-
tiod also a displacement of capital from its natur
al channels. But cau the remedy consistin a re
taliatory system of legislation! ina system of fur
ther restrictions imposed by the latter nation?—
Ifit bo truo that a restrictive system is injurious to
the nation imposing it, does it cease to be so in
regard to the latter nation, because, of tlie .wrong
done hy the former, aud because it is also injuri
ous to such nation? When we apply these views
to the Corn Laws of Great Britain, considered
with reference to their effect upon us, is it not
then obvious that a system of pretended retalia
tion, which enfetters the productive energies of
our own people, whatever may be its effect upon
that nation, must necessarily increase the evils
we ourselves are destiued to sustain?
The question to be determined depends upon tlie
calculation of probabilities, to the.correct estimate
of which, much practical information is obviously
indispensable. Constituted as that body is, it is
difficult to conceive of one less fitted for such re
ference. On the other hand, there is always e-
upughof individual enterprise, intelligence and
capital, to test ally experiment which gives a fair
promise of ultimate remuneration, notwithstand
ing it may he subject to temporary loss. Left to
individual enterprise; the question would be deci
ded hy those who have every motive and every
means to come to a just conclusion—'while the
proposed suggestion would throw upon Congress
those visionary projectors, who having failed to
obtain the support of discreet aud intelligent capi
talists, would play the sure game of securing pro
fit, if, by the rarest accident, profit should arise,
and of throwing the loss upon tlie community, if
loss should ensue.
It is said that a dependence upon other uations,
for those manufactures which are essential to our
want9, is inconsistent with our character as na
tion; aud in this view that the tariff is essential to
national independence. To us the term seems to
be strangely misapplied. It is agreed that a sys
tem of free trade among all the nations of the
world, by securing the application of the highest
cuergies of each, to those objects which it was best
qualified to produce, would enlarge tlie amount of
production, and increase the sum of human com
fort. But such a stale of things would, accord
ing to the argument which is urged, be a state of
universal dependence; and precisely the same
consequence would follow in relation to the com
mercial intercourse of any given nation with the
other nations, of the world, to the extern of that
intercourse, whether a system of free tradeor of
partial restrictions should, prevail. That inter
course consists iu the mutual interchange of com
modities, and it is impossible to conceive the
idea of a dependence ou the one side, without re
cognizing the fact of a corresponding dependence
on the other. But such a state of mutual de
pendence is a source of gratulation rather than of
regret, since it gives to each uation au increased
facility for tlie dcvelopement of its highest ener
gies, enlarges the sum of its enjoyments, aud af
fords the surest guarantee for the peace and har
mony of the world.
If the suggestion bo urged iu its application to
the necessities of our country during a state of
war, aa equally satisfactory answer may be gi
ven. It is unquestionably the duty of every go
vernment to be prepared for those conflicts with
other nations, which it is not always possible to
avoid: but this is most effectually done by the
unrestricted exertion of its peaceful energies. In
a government constituted as ours is and separa
ted .as it it. by the Atlantic from the nations of
the old world, it is reasonable to presume that
such conflicts will be rare. The intervals of
It is strongly urged as a motive to tho continu
ance of tlie existing tariff, that its operation had
been to effect a reduction of prices. Theso have
in fact, fallen since 1816, and our opponents con
tend that this, has been tho result of domestic
competition. A moment’s reflection will demon
strate tho fallacy of this assertion. We present a
single fact in the outset. The diminution of price
has been general, as well in relation to articles
which are not protected by the existing tariff of
duties, as to those which arc. It cannot there
fore have arisen from this cause. Let us remember
now that this diminution of price has occurred
every where—abroad as well os at home—and
not ouly in an equal, but as a necessary conse
quence of the tariff, in a greater degree tliere than
here. Among the causes which have produced
this result, two prominent ones are presented to
your consideration-thc diminished amount of the
circulating medium of the world, and the aston
ishing improvements which havo been introduced
in the modes of production. The cost of produc
tion is less; tho comparative value of money has
become greater. Can we wonder at the result?
Take the case of cotton goods—these havo fallen
in price here since the enactment of the tariff.
But the same thing is truo not only in an equal,
but in a greater degree abroad—aud tbc reason
is obvious. The causes which havo produced this
result—those which havo been before stated—have
elsewhere been left to exert their full influence in
peace will probably be of much the longest dura
tion, and our system of permanent policy should
therefore be regulated chiefly with a view to this
state of our national existence. But the deci
sive answer to this suggestion is, that money con
stitutes the sinews of war, and that its exigencies
are best provided for by enriching the nation iu
time of peace. A system of free trade will main
ly conduco to this object. The resources which it
will furnish will second the services of the neutral
trader, and these, with our own internal manu
factures, which are already independent of legis
lative protectiou, will amply supply our wants in
such au emergency.
It is one and not tho least of the evils of the
system which we deprecate, that it has a tenden
cy to demoralize our citizens, to habituate them
to evasions of the laws, and to encourage tho o-
dious and detestable practice of smuggling. It is
the effect of the protecting duty to raise tne price
of commodities considerably above that at which
they could be imported nt a moderate revenue
duty. Unless this is so, it fails to accomplish its
destined object, and is entirely useless. The in
evitable consequence is, the temptation to clan
destine importation, and the facilities which are
afforded by our widely extended inland and ocean
frontier, give impunity to the smuggler.
On tho several interests of agriculture, navi
gation, commerce, tho mechanic arts, and even
on manufactures themselves, this system operates
with an injurious influence. Speaking with re
ference to that portion of agriculture, which is
employed in the production of articles which
must be exported to a foreigu market, it is obvi
ous that any considerable diminution of com
mercial capital, by its transfer to other employ
ments, must have a tendency to diminish thoir
price. It is in the southern portion of the Uni
on that this will be most extensively felt. The
domestic market will consume aportion of its
effecting the reduction of price. Here their opera
tion has been restrained oy the conflicting influ
ence of the tariff. The reduction therefore with us
has necessarily stopped at a point, which is ascer-
t nineil by adding the amouut of duly tc tile price of
the imported article. Thus tho diminution of price
here has not been produced hy the tariff, but in de
spite of it—and has been retarded by it. Bat for
this law tho imported, which would toko the place
of tho domestic article in the consumption of the
country, would bo obtained at a price greatly be-
lowthatwhichwoactuallypay, aud the difference,
amounting yearly to many millions of dollars,
would be saved to the community. It cannot be
doubted that tho prices of all Commodities, the
domestic production of wltich is forced bp the im
position of a duty on a foreign article of similar
description, are raised by tlie amount of duty ne
cessary to effect the exclusion of the foreign arti
cle, or that this increase of prico is paid by the
consumer, and that tho loss of tho nation which
is occasioned by this system of protection, is
ly equal to suen difference of price.
The success which h^s*tteiulcd the manufac
ture of cottons, is usod to illustrate and enforce
another suggestion in favor of the tariff. It is
said, that by means of the protection afforded by
government, manufacturers are enabled to over
come the difficulties incident to now enterprises,
and that tltis protection is ultimately repaid to the
community, in the reducod prico at wltich the ar
ticle is furnished. We havo already shown Urn
this reduction in prico in tho case referred to, bas
not resulted from the protective system. Lotus
look, however, at this suggestion, apart from that
consideration. If it be conceded for the purpose
of the argument, and only- for that purposo, that
a manufacture might bo established by a tempora
ry encouragement from government, which would
not otherwise, at least at that time, come into suc
cessful operation, & that tho community might ul
timately be repaid in the manner wbicii is suppos
ed, the following considerations seem decisively to
repel tho force of that suggestion. Tho ideaofpcr-
manent protection is excluded by the nature or the
proposiuou. That which is proposed is temporary
merely, & the question whether it is to be ultimate
ly repaid to the community is of course made to du-
pend on the successful operation of tho protected
establishment. It is Congress who are to deter
mine in advance, upon the propriety of putting at
hazard the interests of tho community, by the for
ced establishment of the proposed mwmfacture.
S reat staple, which is comparatively small, and
10 immense residuo will seek in vain for a for
eign market, if the manufactures of other nations
are in effect, aud permanently excluded from our
ports. This state of things may not at once oc
cur.
The necessity of having a supply of the raw
material for tho employment of ner manufacto
ries, may induce our great customerxo submit,
for a time, to a system of purchase instead of ex
change;' but sho will be urgeo by the strongest
considerations to seek that supply from those who
will receive her manufactures in return. If this
system bo rendered permanent, and pushed to
tne prohibitory extent, to which it Seems inevita
bly to tend, tho fate of tho cotton planter is there
fore irrevocably sealed. Nor is he alone affected
by this system of protection. Tho farmer of tho
middle states will feel its influence in the increase
of the prico of labor as well as of every article
which lie buys; and if thoso in the manufacturing
districts should find an improved market for the
produce of their farms, tho consideration* just
statod will operate to diminish their profits—aud
tho benefits which they enjoy from the increassed
investment of capital in their vicinity, will be
purchased at tho expense of thoso interests from
which that capital lias been transferred.
When wo direct onr attention to the influence
of the protecting system on the navigation of the
country, we might give to the subject a peculiar
interest by dwelling on tho fact, that a ship is the
proudest aud most successful of our manufactures.
From an fcarly period of onr history down to the
present hour, wo have been conspicuous for our
skill in ship building. Adverting to it as an art,
wo havo by the elegance of our models, aud the
.minuteness of our finish, raised it from a mechan
ical to ou'o of tho fino arts. We have applied the
principles of a correct taste to nova? architecture,
and havo therefore produced the same masterly
result in this, os the application of the same prin
ciples had produced in the other arts. We might
then with perfect fairness aud propriety press the
inconsistency of that policy, which seeks the pros
perity of manufactures, by loading with burthens
that branch of them which has flourished with
but little aid, and is necessarily suhject to exclu
sion from tho jealousy of foreign nations. We
might connect this topic with our navy and our
naval dory, and thus enlist in our behalf the
sensibilities of patriotism. But wo waive .these
advantages, and without entering into details,
content, ourselves with adverting to the positive
discouragements to ship building, occasioned by
the tariff of 1828. By that tariff, iron, hemp,
duck, aud cordage, are subjected to duties which
would be iu effect prohibitory, if these articles
were not of the first necessity, and their impor
tation indispensible. The quantity of these ar
ticles which enter into the construction of a ship,
with tho labor bestowed on them, constitute ono
half of its value, and the duties npon them impose
upou a ucw ship of fivo hundred tous a dry direct
tux little short of two thousand dollars, which is
iaid in advance. We say a dry direct tax, for
t is not, as iu cases of consumable articles, repaid
by the consumer. Neither is repaid hy the
freighter, for the rate of freight depends on foreign
competition, aud the foreign ship, cheap, bccauso
uiilmniitiied, settles the price.
The effects of the protecting system upon
commerce iu general, can only he satisfactorily
illustrated by details. It is an iiuiiortant task,
aud will be faithfully performed by those to whom
it is confided. Tho diminution of imports—a
total or partial scarcity of some articles—an
increase of price to the consumer, a depression of
the mercantile spirit which, under different circum
stances, would lie animated to new enterprises,
end the consequent check to our attainment of
that height of prosperity to which the freedom of
our institutions guides us, these are results which
cannot be denied. That actual misery is not felt
in a young and free country, where almost every
citizen is, or easily can be, a proprietor, is not an
argument to deter us from tne removal of those
obstructions to that assured and unexampled case
anil comfort of condition to which the American
citizen aspires aud is entitled. If to the easy
acquisition of good cheap land, he cau likewise
add, not only the uecessaries, but also the blame
less luxuries of life, why should ho be churlishly
prevented by a sordid and monopolizing system,
which finds enjoyment in restriction, and profusion
in iirohiliitioii?
Every class of manufactures which is not the
object of the bouuty of this system, as well as
tho mechanic arts generally,, are injuriously af
fected by its operation—nay, even those manu
facturers who experience this protection are them
selves interested in tho removal of these restric
tions—tho enormity of the profits, in man/ inst
ances, combined with the uncertainty of the
continuance of the system, give to this employ
ment tlie character of a gambling speculation,
rather than that of a regular pursuit of industry.
The. high rate of. profits, would occasiou a rm.li
of capital from other pursuits, and competition
would speedily reduce them to tho general level,
if the precarious tenure by which they are held
did not restrain the movement—such of them os
are adapted to the circumstances of the country,
and conducted with the requisite skill and indus
try would continue to flourish, although legisla
tive protectiou were withdrawn. They would
still give a fair return for the capital and labor
which they employ. The rate of profits would
iudeed be less, but they would he certain, or
liable only to those changes which are common
to the whole productive industry of the country.
It is with this view of tlie subject, that the best
iufonnod and most intelligent among tho manu
facturers themselves, cannot resisyhe conviction
that tho abandonment of the promoting system,
and a return to moderate duties, would lie best
calculated to promote tho steady growth, and tho
safe aud permanent establishment of American
manufactures.
There is a remaining suggestion which we
desire to present to your consideration—the na
tional debt, which has annually absorbed from
ten to twelve millions of revenue, is rapildy
diminishing, and will ^speedily bo extinguished.
Ou tlie first day of January, 1883, the available
funds of the government will be adequate to its
discharge. The existing tariff of duties will pro
duce thereafter an immense annual revenue be
yond the ordinary wants of the government, and
the task of providing a system of measures which
' to this now and interesting condt-
shall bo adapted
tion of the fiscal concerns of the natiou, will then
devolve upon the next Congress, llow propitious
tho momeut for the establishment of the princi
ples of free trade! An enterprising and iiiiciiigcu •
people, possessing in abundance the sources oi
national wealth, and perfectly unem umbered bj
debt, many add to their claims upon the gratiut-f-
of the world, for having successfully asserted th.
principles of free government, by being tho firs!
also to proclaim the principles of a free rind
unrestricted commerce,—that genuine “A merican
System," which will reniovo from our borders
every vestige of discontent, will give more value
to the freedom which was wrested from the grasp
of oppression by the valor of our ancestors, mid
perpetuate those restitutions which are destined,
by tho blessing of God, to secure the happiness
of unborn millions.
We have received from Albany a No. of a
paper which is published in that city, and has
reached its Cth No. It is styled the African
sentinel—Its principles and purposes are infa
mous. They are. better suited to assassius and
incendiaries, than to Christians and brethren.
We arc happy to see the strong terms iu which
the Albany Argus denouces it as an’“inccudiary
publication.”
Wo havo also before us a No. of Garrison’s
“Boston Liberator.” It is worse than we had
expected to see it—It i9 a congenial print to the
Aliiany Sentinel.-tVe understand, that neither of
these papers is taken at this Post Office.
- There nre two copies occasionally recoived at
this Post Office, of a similar paper published in
the District of Columbia—It is a firebrand, which
ought not to be permitted to be circulated—It
ought to he known whether at any of tho Post
Othces of Virginia, this “Genius,"fisc, is taken.—
Richmond Compiler.
Tho Corporation of Georgetown have passed
an ordinance [on the 8th October] “concerniuig
free black and mulatto persons." It requires all
such :is then reside within the town, to exhibit
satisfactory evidence of their title to freedom to
tho Mayor, together with a list of the names,
ages, and sex of all persons who belong to their
families. Sic. and tho samo duty is required to be
performed by the like description of persons com
ing to reside within the corporate limits of
Georgetown, within ten days after their arrival,
undor the penalty of $10 for every month they
shall continue to omit tho discharge of such duty.
The Clerk of tho Corporation is to keep a register
of such persons, and to furnish a permit, under
the seal'of the Corporation, free of expense, to
each head of a family, embracing ail under his
care, authorizing them to resido in Georgetown.
Every such person is, within throe days after
they como to reside in Georgetown, to exhibit to
the Mayor satisfactory evidence of their title to
freedom—and they are to execute a bond with
two freehold securities in the penalty of 500 dol
lars, conditioned for his or her good and orderly
conduct, under penalty of being committed to tho
Penitentiary, &c.
The following is the 5th section of this or
dinance:
for the si.
slid Mars
writing, to s
servant, for a
such time to be
his conson as alt
oal with the *01,21,
’ll Web free
■oy time not ex..! l or '"“'n
‘.wprwtedM’SfS
’resaitl.” A ne -"aiort
a y° r hi
TliLMiiUPH.
xvrAC3i.vr. asoRexA,
SATURDAY, CICT. 22. 18,1
"And be it ordained, That if any free negro or
mulatto person living in this town shall boa
subscriber to, or receive through the Post Office,
or in any other mode, or shall, after the lapse of
ten days after the passage of this ordinance, have
in his possession, or circulate any newspaper or
other publication, or any written or printed paper
or book of u seditious and evil character, calcu
lated to exeito insurrection or insubordination
among tho slaves or coloured people, and par
ticularly shall bo a subscriber to, aud receive
through the Post Office or otherwise, a newspaper
called “The Liberator," published in tho City of
Boston, overy such free negro or mulatto person
shall bo deemed and adjudged to bo a disorderly
person aud a dangerous and unsafe citizen, and
upon conviction before the Mayor, shall, for each
and every offence, be fined a sum not exceeding
twenty dollars, or bo imprisoned in the county
jail not exceeding thirty days; and if any free
General S i te tion.
RETURNS l’OR THE l-l'GISLATM
Camden.—Jlrowu Hull, Anidey. "
£ou»ie?cs.—Folsom; Lflicl uliear.
Ware.—Fulwood; fiiln.ird.
H'ayne—Sheppard Wtggi ns.
RETURNS FOR GOVERNOR
. Lumpkin.
Counties before reported, 26254
Camden, 91
?rwiu, 215
M-lmosh, 93
Wayne, 4
Majority 1602 • 266',9
Lowndes, Montgomery, Thomas, anil
-e still to he received.
Strong reasotts exist for believing, tfotJ
last few days, a caucus has been held ;
lcdgeville with the view of expelling fa
and power such leaders of the Troup 1
have dared to express dissatisfaction;
cy of Governor Oijtuer and declined s
to the new ultra principles.
It is currently reported and commonlr 1
ed, that, in acuirdance with the Bat of tbail
clave. Colonel Robert A. Beall, of TiriaiJ
ty, is.a candidate for the vacancy in Co 1
caused by the election of Mr. Lurapldi
Executive Chair; that Lott IVarren „
Twiggs county, offers for the judgeship;
Southern Circuit in opposition to Jucii
aud that Charles Doughrety Esq. has 1
as one of the representatives elect of Ha.
ty, iu order to oppose Judge Claytoa I
judgeship of the Western Circuit. Cl
overt act of mutiny is understood to be li
ing, on the first Monday of tho curreatE
voted a blank ticket for governor, 1
called on some of bis {iplitieel nssi
ness that he did not vote for Gilmer,
said that Judge Harris,/of Walton«_
compete with Clayton and Dougherty.
In addition to the foregoing, it is a
what wo deem good authority, that 1
E. Ilayucs, of Hancock couoty, hi
for the vacancy in Congress, and f
C. Dawson Esq. of Greene county, t
offer for tho same station.
It is surmised, that Governor Gil
brought forward in opiiositiun to the 1
W’illiam II. Crawford and Colonel!
Sayre for the judgeship of the NonheruC
Should tlie preceding intelligence bee
C't, the eaudidates will be for
Congress—Dr. Charles E. lla
<{ A. IS- ill, ami WilliamC. 1
S ’uU'ern Circuit—Howell Cobb,’]
Holt, nd Lott Wstrrca
If'est-.rn Circidt—Augustin 8. Clay
mas V* . Harris, and Charier !>oiightrl
Snrthtm Circuit—Mon. Wiiii.no II.i
Colonel Nathan C. Sayre, and iion. I
Gilmer. w' .
TAe Fire-King.—Monsieur Chabertti
iirnted fire-eater, swallower of prussicr
md w ho created so great a sensation b
hits lately reached Nciv York. He hi
in possession of an infallible remedy for a
vegetable ami animat poisons, We sir
fore advise him to visit Georgia sad P
rolina, m both of which States he n»
specific to good account, by reslurhg *
many of our illustrious men who have b
ten by tho snake nullification and are«
tured by its virus, lie would be wril
his trouble, aud might learn much uJ
ngemeut of calorie from hi* patient*. r
low ballot-boxen, jury-boxes, taitsr'
muskets, bayonets, swords, cannon, b
cabbage-trees, aud rattlesnakes by
and yet, without apparent injury, «• .
firo in nil sorts of weather. FerfuitwJ
lors Monsieur Chabcrl will please
editors of the Milledgeville Joints!
bus Enquirer in Georgia or the ?JL
Charleston and Governor Hamiltonw»
rolina.
The New York Journal ol Cominejjl
following as the partizan character "T
States’ Senate. J
For Clay.—Holmes and _8prsgM«
Bell of Now Hampshire; Webster 'i**
MoAachusetts; Robbins and Knf™"
Island; Foot and Tomlinson of C01
mour and Prentiss of Vermont; rie
New Jersey; Clhytonaud Naudata
Chamber-, of Maryland; Ruy*ln * ‘
Ohio; Johnston of Louisiana;
na of Indiana.—SO, „
For Jackson.—Hill of New H*^
ley audfllarcy of New York; Ih»
Jersey; Smith of Maryland; Hen**",
of Pennsylvania; Mangum of b
Forsyth and Troup of G corgis
tucky; Grundy and White of l«
Mississippi; Kano of Illinois; Ue nt
~For Calhoun.—'Tazewell aud’]
ia; Ilayuo and Miller of South <
dexter of Mississippi; King of Al
Doubtful.—Brown of Norths*
son of Illinois; Moore of Alab
Missouri.—4. . ,
Tlw Journal add*, “it wdl be«
will require a combination 01 ,
burnt and doubtful meu, to saw**,
of tffo present administration.
Matters are not quite »° o«
nal believes them. Tho mur
doubtful are decidedly J**¥°*L
Poindexter ond King—wb"*
tration twenty-two instead 01 »
number may be added tho two
giuia, who, however they "
dent on a few points, are c
pie nud the will of their
the main sustain hint. „ rt ,
Carolina delegation, we «
ciples and fccliug would arnj^gi
too. wan they sat appr****?^ *11
sition would prostrate b0 TjzLwp]
But however VWj,..^*1
Ch
’(
the
Ac,
1.1
C.
1
buil
truo
voi
tion
C
mitt
tent
Priu
«m
. 0
mg,
•he (
tion
C.
»b«
•otni
°r sel
duai
•o be
four |
Oci
1 the
at home. .
certain of ticenty-fiur iu' „g(fi
and the Nullificrs untied c 11
two. ''
to*
•tion.
!®or4
Si,
mgi