Newspaper Page Text
2
MR. HCHOLSON»-THE NASHVILLE
convention address.
Nashville. June 15.
the Editor of the Nashville Union :— Sir.
| t jjag been announced in your paper that as
a member of the committee on resolutions in
the late Southern Convention, 1 presented to
that body a minority report, in which my dis
sent from the Address recommended by the
majority was stated in general terms. It was
my parpose to state in the Convention in de
tail the objections which I had to that portion
of the address which discusses the plan of ad
justment of the slavery question now pending
in the Senato of the United States. This pur
pose was abandoned upon the agreement of the
Convention to incorporate into the address the
amendments showing that the delegates were
not unanimous in approving the argument a
gainst the plan of adjustment referred to. Al
though the amendmt nts agreed to by the Con
vention made the address less objectionable
than it was in its original shape, they did not
reconcile me to the reasoning by which the
plan of adjustment recommended by the Com
mittee of Thirteen was condemned ; butas this
fact was announced on the face of the address,
I was content to let it go forth without any
further discussion of my objections. I am re
quested, however, by several friends to desig*
nate those portions of the argument oi the ad
dress to which my exceptions in the minority
report were intended to apply* and to state the
grounds on which I dissent from them. I
readily yield to this request, aud know of no
Letter mode of doing so than through your
columns. Ido this the more cheerfully as it
will enable me to make known the course
which I felt it my duty to pursue in the de
liberations of the committee on resolutions.
I entered the Convention with views ar to
the best line of policy to be pursued in its
proceedings widely different from those
entertained by many others. As the whole
scheme of a Southern Convention had been
assailed, even in the South, as having had its
origin in a spirit of hostility to the Union, and
as this suspic on was known to prevail exten
sively, I was satisfied that no good could re
sult unless the entire action of the assembly
should be so clearly conservative as to dissipate
forever all such unjust and unfounded appre
hensions I never doubted but that there would
be individual delegates who would advance
sentiments looking io ultimate disunion ur se
cession as a last resort; but my confidence
was strong that the large majority of the Con
vention would see and feel the necessity of re
lieving the assembly from all odium by a clear
and unequivocal manifestation of their contin
ued devotion to the Constitution and to the
Union. That such was the prevailing senti
ment was easily seen at the very commence
ment of the session. By genera) consent it
seemed to be conceded on all sides that as the
subject of our grievances was now under the
deliberations of Congress, it would be impru
dent in us to assume that our wrongs would
__ - not be redressed, and upon that assumption to
consider of remedies for anticipated violations
of our rights. There was, therefore, a verv
general if not a universal acquiescence iu the
propriety of limiting our deliberation, and ac
tion to a firm but temperate enumeration and
assertion of our constitutional rights, and an
equally firm and temperate expression of our
fixed determination to resist any further ag
gressions upon them. It was believed that it
would be unwise and premature in a conven
tion, in which only nine of the fourteen slave
holding States were represented, (and most of
these nine but partially represented,) that the
question as to the best mode of resistance of
aggressionsjnotyet consummated should be dis
cussed, much less considered and acted upon.
In this sentiment I fully concurred, aud I car.
ried it with me into the committee on resolu
tions. 1 believed then, and I believe now, that
the greatest obstacle to the successful mainte
nance of our rights exists in the want of union
in the Southern States, and that the most
important duty resting upon every friend of
the South is to exert all his influence in produ
cing such a union. 1 hesitate not to declare
that if there was now acordial unanimity ofsen
timent and purpose in the southern Stales, and
this fact were known to the world, all the rights
secured to us by the constitution would be im
mediately conceded. With this conviction I
looked upon a Southern Convention as im
portant as the first step towards harmonizing
and uniting the southern mind. I had no hope
that this result could be attained by the action of
a single convention, but I did believe that the
Convention at Nashville could be so conduct
ed as to be followed up by others, year after
year, until the final result would be an undi
vided southern sentiment on the slavery ques
tion. Ido not regard the question of slavery
the only great practical question at issue be
tween the North and the South. In my views
the question in which we are most interested,
is, whether we shall be permitted to enjoy our
constitutional rights on the subject of slavery
in the Slates where it now exists. In refer
ence to the newly acquired territories, all that
we can demand or desire, is that Congres
shall nei: r force slavery into them nor keep
it out of i. um by an assumption of unconstitu
tional powers, but give to them governments
for their protection whilst in a territorial condi
tion, leaving to the laws of nature the settle
ment of the question whether slavery shall or
shall not exist, when they seek admission into
the Union as States. 1 agree that this is an
important question, and as the Northern view
of it not only involves a violation of the consti
tution but also carries with it insult and degra
dation to the South, its consummation calls for
determined resistance. But if the North would
yield all that we demand as to the territories,
the question in which we are most immediately
interested would remain unsettled. To have
peace, quiet and security in the South, the doc
tiine of non-interference with slavery in the
States must prevail and be recognized in the
northern States, and especially iu Congress
The Union of the South therefore, not
merely as to the settlement of the territorial
question, but as to the settlement of the whole
question, is absolutely necessary. 1 regarded
the Nashville Cpnveufiouaa a memimtairinK*
ry or pioneer movement in gfCFfi* •*** ft*'
ble scheme ft>f the preservation of Southern
rights, and through their preservation the per
petuation of our Union. I therefore felt that the
first great business of the Southern Conven
tion would be by the moderate and conserva
tive character of its proceedings and action,
to putdowu forever the fears, suspicions, and
insinuations or calumnies which it had to en
counter. I regarded its next most important
duty to be, to confine its deliberations aud ac
tion to those subjects on which the Southern
mind could be harmonized and united, and
scrupulously to avoid all topics which would
have a necessary tendency to divide and dis
tract the South I cannot but Hatter myself
that the Convention has effectually performed
its flint duty, and that in die South at least a
gmetus is given to the idea that it assembled fur
treasonable purposes. But 1 fear that we
have uot been equally successful in the dis
charge ot the duly of avoiding topics calculated
to divide and distract the South.
As a member of the committee on resolu
tions I was desirous of carrying out the views
here expressed. On this ground I yielded a
reluctant assent to the resolution in which the
convention expresses a willingness to compro
mise the question upou the line of 36° 30'
north latitude. It seemed to me. and Iso said
to the committee, that our true policy was io
lay down clearly and specifically the princi
ples on which we rested our constitutional
rights, and to declare to our northern brethren
that we will submit to no further aggressions
on these rights ; but it did uot seem to me to be
either entirely consistent or proper that, at the
same time we are asserting our rights, we
should volunteer to them a notice that if they
persevered in making assaults upon those
rights we would back out, so far at least as to
let them take all the territory north of the pro
posed line and still have an equal chance for
the portion south of the line. Perhaps my
aversion to this resolution was the result of a
long cherished conviction that the true mode
of securing our rights is to ask for nothing
that is not dearly right and to submit to noth
ing wrong. A compromise which involves a
concession of principle is almost sure to be
regarded by our adversary as a mark of pusil
amuiily, and in this light I cannot but fear the
ofler of the Missouri compromise will be
viewed. That compromite if adopted is this :
That north 0f36 deg. 30 min. slavery shall nev
er elint—but south of it slavery may exist or
may not, as the people shall determine—it is
emphatically Congresnonal intervention on ths
uae side of the line and non-interr ention on the
other. The South has been standing or trying
to stand on the doctrine oi non-intervention,
and yet a southern convention expresses* its
willingness to surrender the doctrine for the
purpose of buying peace! if the North had
proposed such a compromise, the South
ern convention might with some propriety
have considered and assented to it—but I shall
be agreeably disappointed if the North does
not conclude from onr readiness to compro-
• tnise on 36 deg. 30 miu., that we are not so
much in earnest in the assertion of our rights
as we profess to be, and as I am sore we are.
in deference to the strongly made up senti
ment of the committee. I surrendered my ob
jections. and consented to report the resolu
tion, but to avoid any erroneous inference as
to our object. 1 proposed in committee that we
should add another resolution expressive of
our just appreciation of the efforts of those
members of Congress who were laboring to
secure an adjustment of the slavery question
and expressive of the hope that a persever
ance in their efforts would result in a plan of
adjustment that would be consistent with the
honor and interests of the southern States h
seemed to me that if there was any propriety
in declaring our readiness to accept the Mis
soun Compromise, there was at least equal
propriety in declaring our readiness to acqui
esce in any other plan of adjustment that
would secure the honor and interests of the i
South. The proposition was not acceptable 1
to the majority of the committee, and 1 there- '•
tore withdrew it. I did so the more readily as |
•’Opposed even lhen that it would be the poli
cy ot the committee not to allude in any form
to the compromise now pending in lhe Senate.
I supposed that the Missouri Compromise was
proposed only because the South had twice
acqiukaced iu iu adoption and three time* pro
posed it uusuc 'essiully, .nd becau* bv these
repealed recognitions of (t we might fee! that
we could again not only accepi but even pro
pose tt without dishonor. But as the compro
mise proposed by the committee of thirteen
wa. not alluded to in our resolutions, I took it
for grained that it would not as 1 certain!,
thought it should not form the subject of dis
cussion in any address that might be prepared.
The objections to any discussion of lhe
compromise of the Committee of Thirteen
seemed to me so palpable and conclusive that I
did not suppose the proposition could be en
tertained for a moment. We had convened to
consider the aggressions on our rights by our
Northern brethren, and to produea union and
concert amongst Southern men in their deter
mination to resist these aggressions. It had
not occurred to me that any man would sup
pose either ot these object, could be accom
plished by any discussion of the Compromise
Bill tn the Senate, whether in its favr or
against it- The oleisure, embraced in it were
not presented or urged by Northern men more
then by Southern men, and most clean, could
not be regarded as * northern aggrewn-ou. Os
i the right of iho convention to discuss that or
any other subject. I have no doubt, but, tho
impolicy of doing so was to my mind so obvi
ous that I was greatly astonished when the ad
dress was read to the committee to find that
nearly one half of it was devoted to a most
elaborate discussion of the measure constitu
ting the compromise.
My obections to the policy of discussing the
measure at all were not more decided than
my objections to the manner in which it was
discussed. Tn my mind there was not that
fairness and liberality in staling the objections
to the Compromise which ought to character
ize a paper emanating from such an assem
blage. As I propose to specify the objections
to the address which induced me to present a
counter report, I must refer to it in the shape
in which it was when first reported.
After closing the argument against the seve
ral measures embraced in the compromise,
and acquitting those who have supported it
from all improper motives, the address pro
ceeded :
“ But if our view of its provisions are cor
rect, instead of a 1 compromise ’ it is a com
prehensivc scheme of emancipation; aud if
passed by Congress will only heap new indig
nities upon the south. So far from pacifying
the people of the siaveholding States, it should
arouse them to renewed efforts to vindicate
their rights and institutions.”
This portion of the address was stricken out
on the motion of Gen. Pillow, but it constitu
ted a part of it when lhe counter-report was
made. I refer to it now for the purpose of
expressing my regret that any portion of the
convention should have been wiiling to char
acterize the friends of the compromise as sup
porters of a “ comprehensive scheme of eman
cipation.” Every supporter of this measure,
no matter whether he lives in the north or the
south, is embraced within the terms of the de
nunciation of the scheme, and these terms are
as offensive as if they had been intended to
characterize a body of northern fanatics. Who
are the supporters of the compromise in the
Senate? Who is its real originator? The
south never had warmer, truer and more de
voted friends than most of the Senators who
are sapporting the scheme —I am sure the
sou'h never had a more true hearted advocate
than Gen. Foote, who is the originator of it!
Yet, if the view of the measures taken by the
author of this address is correct, these well
tried and devoted friends of the south are gone
over to the abolitionists, and are advocating a
comprehensive scheme of emancipation ! Be
fore such an imputation was attempted to be
fixed upon the supporters of the compromise,
it would have been prudent in the author of
the address to be fully satisfied that his views
were correct. Most men will be slow to be
lieve that more than one half of the southern
Senators (to say nothing of distinguished
northern Senators who have no sympathies
with abolitionists) are so dull as not to have
discovered that they are supj^mingk*-•<»>■* pro*
■4w»siriT‘WC!l»Hie fir Tt would
require an argument infinitely more powerful
and conclusive than that contained in the ad
dress to satisfy most men that such shrewd, in
telligent and watchful abolitionists as Hale,
Seward, Corwin, and their followers in the
north, have overlooked the fact that a compre
hensive scheme of emancipation has been pre
sented by southern men and rejected with dis
dain by abolitionists! This singular fact press
ed upou the mind of the author of the address.
The question forced itself upon him: If these
views be correct how does it happen that the
abolitionists do not support the compromise ?
He could give but one answer—and that was,
that a haughty fanaticism, inflated with suc
cess, disdains accomplishing its objects by indi
rection. Does that answer explain the strange
fact? When before has it been discovered
that lhe abolitionists disdained to reach their
ends by indirection? Much of this very ad
dress is taken up in showing that it is exactly
in that way — by indirection— that they are seek
ing to accomplish their objects. To relieve
himself from a stubborn fact which knocks his
conclusion on lhe head, the author of the ad
dress contradicts the whole tenor of his argu
ment as to the mode by which the abolitionists
seek to abolish slavery. The tact is indisputa
ble that lhe abolitionists denounced the com
promise with as much bitterness as the address
does—it is between two hot and heavy fires—
one from lhe north and the other from the
south. This fact crushes to death the conclu
sion to which the argument of the address ar
rives, and necessarily throws doubts over the
correctness of the views which led to the con
clusion. If this explanation is satisfactory,
then the south is indebted to the magnanimity
of the abolitionists for saving us from a com
prehensive scheme of emancipation, devised
and pressed upon us by our southern friends,
and it would not have been inappropriate in
the southern convention to have passed a vote
ol thanks to the magnanimous fanatics who
have averted from us so great a catastrophe !
1 prefer to relieve our southern friends from
the imputation of supporting a comprehensive
scheme of emancipation, by showing that the
views which have led lhe author of the ad
dress to his conclusion are no correct. 1 pro
pose then as briefly as I can, to examine the
views set forth in the argument.
As to the admission of California the address
states lhe argument as follows:
“ California belongs to lhe United States,
and all action by the individuals in that territo
ry, whether from the United States or from the
rest of lhe world, appropriating the soil to
themselves or erecting a government over it,
is vs no validity. They constitute a people in
no proper sense of the term ; but am citizens
of the States or countries from which they
have come, and to which they still owe their
allegiance. When, therefore, Congress at
tempts to carry out and confirm the acts of
these individuals, erecting California into a
State and excluding slavery therefrom, it is
the same thing as if Congress had originally
passed a law to this effect without the inter
vention of these individuals. The exclusion
of slavery from California is done by the act
of Congress, and by no other authority. The
constitution of California becomes lhe act of
-Cough'". •••’I »»•*» Y* >ll visn II onjltalPlfe'
mln MMwrofplU V Nil p«»Ase<r imhT to rood by
the legislation of Congress.”
According to my understanding of (his argument it
is intended io establish two propositions; First, that
the admission of California would be unconstitutional
beeaufo the persons who formed her constitution did
not constitute a people capable of forming a govern
ment : And Second, that the admission of California
with her constitution prohibiting slavery is the same
thing as if Congress had originally passed a law pro
hibiting slavery m California. In icgard to the first
position 1 i.ooy not have construed the argument cor
rectly. Judge Sharkey in commenting upon this
part of the address in the Convention put the same
constructi<<n upon it that a do, but he was interrupted
by Mr. Campbell, d distinguished lawyer who pre
sented the adurvssfo the committee and informed him
that bis construction was an assumption—by which i
supposed he meant that he did not understand the ar
gument to deny the constitutionality of the admissi >n
of California. When two such legal minds as those
of Judge Sh »rkey ami Mr. Campbell differ as to the
meaning of the argument, it furnishes a sufficient
ground to say that there must be some obscurity and
consequently some wa.ikness in the reasoning. W iih
due difference to Mr. Caiupt-eli’s intimation I think
Judge Sharkey’s construction clearly the true one,
and that the author of tho address (who is not Mr.
Campbell) intended to be understood as denying tho
constitudonatily ot the proposed admission of Califor
nia. The argument rests upon the position that to
amhorisa Congress to admit a new State into the
Onion, the individuals who constitute the people of
the State must have the capacity of erecting a govern
ing it over tho soil which is to be as a State. To this
position 1 see no objection, unless by erecting a go
vernmeut is meant erecting one with all the attributes
of sovereignty. If this be the meaning it amounts
virtually to a denial of tlie power of Congress to ad
mit new States at all composed of territory belonging i
to lhe United States. Such a position falls of its own
weakness. 1 suppose that it was meant to assert that
the individuals in California could not erect a govern
ment over their soil either because they could not
shake off their former allegiance upon settling in a
territory or because* they were transient sojourners
and adventuiers whose purpose was to return to
their former homes. 1 cannot suppose the author of
the address intended to assert a profMksHiou so untena
ble as that any citizen of the States may not lose his
rights of citizenship in lhe State from which he re
moved by emigrating toaftd settling permanently in
a territory. I roochid< d that he intended to convey
the idea that the individuals who made the California
constitution were mere sojourners and adventurers
and on that account incapable of erecting a govern
ment over the soil. But this makes the argument to
rest upon a fact the truth oi which is assumed. Ido
not know that these individuals were mere sojourners,
and therefore I am uot prepared to assert that Con
gress will violate the constitution in the admission of
California as a Slate.
But tn the second place, the argument is, that fur
Congress to recognize the constitution and runty it
by her admission as a State, is the same thing «s if
C ongress had originally passed an act adopting and
enforcing the W iltnot Proviso. This conclusion is but
a sequent Io the first proposition, and if that has fal
len, this necessarily falls with it. All will concede
that if the people oi California bad been untier a ter
ritorial government they could rightly have formed a
cousin ition containing the Wilmot Proviso and have
property sought admission into the Union in that
ease her constitution with its Wilmot Proviso would
be invalid until Congress breathed lite into it by ad
mitting her into the Union. Would the author of the
address stigmatise that as the enforcement of die
Wilmot Proviso by the legislation of Coffgress? I
suppose he would readily answer in the negative.
In what consists the difference between that case and
her present application. Congress refused to give
the people territorial government, and for their own
preservation and protection they formed a voluntary
government for themselves. In order to secure an
admission into the Union they formed a republican
constitution, and to make their admission m<xe certain
they inserted into it the Wilmot Proviso. Until she
is admitted by Congress her consuluiou is invalid.
If Congress admits her, whose Proviso is it ? That
of the Californians, or that of Congress? This de
pends upon the question whether the Californians
were a people pwesring the capacity to erect a go
vernment for their own preservation and protection.
The adoption by the inhabitants of a constitution is
the most solemn form of declaring their intention to
remain there as permanent citizens, and I know of no
principle which would require of Coogresa to look
behind this declara ion to ascertain whether it was
their real parpo e to be permanent citizens or mere
ly temporary sojourners in the country. In this re
scH-ct I think we are boun 1 to regard them as a peo
ple. But what right and powers as a people could
they exercise? They wore entitled to the protection
of such government as Congress could give them.
But Congress would give them none. What Then
wisto be done ? They were entitled to some rule
of government aiui upon the eternal principle of self
government they had an inherent right to erect for
themsetves just such a system of government as their
nece.'vity demanded, but not such a government as
would assume exclusive jurisdiction over the soil or
as wou-d interfere with the rights us property rested
ia the peop’c of the latest, to all of whom ths soil be
longed. they could not prohibit other* from earning
to the territory with their property nor interfere with
its enjoyment when then’. They could exercise
no powers inconsistent with those which Congress
•e ud exercise, an i therefore they could neither ex
elud- slave-owning eui crxxiis oor a&oiish the relation
of master and slave. But they could erect a govern
mn.v to protect tbe.r own pextKxw aad lbeif o^a
penv. alfcl wiuw aod wi!h
toden.u.hra.ltenjbum wltgowMea, wouil
to dray itw fuo.lsmeni.l prme.pfe of Uradra.
Whvn they up.x> « erawiturioo, urfiwk,/
nwn inwtbv V.fea, e„ , hra ’
■kA «d tt»» »re uimiued the, corn- in wll th*
rwoim, .ud if th.,
WiioHM it wthe.rowa
IcoOctaJeiherwixe, th,,.
<x <h» address w ura.urf.eur, .ndj. 4 ,
etasknu uucenatde.
I am fortified :n lbw opinion by the foct sha: th'
adders* express a wdhngunaa'to acquiesi i-f/,
admioM of California if her southern
iuiwted to the puraUelaf 35 deg. 3Q mio. if if h .
unconstitutional to admit the whale of California
cause the hmm of the constitotioa are one a people*
1 I am unable to see how it becomes constitutional to
admit onlv a portion of California.! f the adoption by
I Congress'of the California constitution with the Wil-
I mot Proviso bo the enforcement of the Wilmot Pro-
I visa by Congress, I cannot understand why the ad
j mission down to 36, 30, with a constitution contain
ing the Wilmot Proviso is not equally an enforce
ment by Congress of the Wilmot Proviso. If lam
told that it is only as a compromise that it is proposed
to admit California with the Missouri line as u boun
dary, I answer that this is piling up constitutional
concessions in away to make the impression that we
use our constitutional position with exceeding loose
ness. We claim a constitutional right to much more
of the territory than that south of 36 30—we propose
to surrender a large portion of that right. We assert
that Congress has no constitutional right to exclude
slavery in any territory—we propose to surrender
(hat in the territory north of 36 30. We assert that
Congress has constitutional right to admit California
because her inhabitants are not a people, and we pro
pose tosurrender that! I cannot acquiesce iu an ar
gument which in my view weakens rather than
strengthens our cause. The objections to the admis
sion of California are so abundant and so overwhelm
ning, on the score of expediency, that Congress should
be justified in any means short of absolute faction in
excluding her. But when all these impregnable
grounds are overlooked, and her cxc'usion «s attempt
ed to be justified on constitutional grounds which
cannot be clearly sustained, I am bound t » dissent
from the argument. ’.V ith these views, 1 voted in
committee on the substitute afterwards offered in
convention by Mr. Mcßea, of Miss.
The address next discusses that feature of the com
promise which provides for a settlement of the boun
dary between Texas and New Mexico. After assert
ing the right of Texas to claim the Rio Grande as her
western boundary, and urging the fact that the United
States Government is precluded by repeated recog
nitions of that boundary from now disputing it, the
issue is stated in these words :
“ Texas is the only State in the Union which has
the solemn guarantee of the Government of lhe Uni
ted States in every possible form to her boundaries.
Yet this is the Government which disputes them ;and
under the pretext that they are very doubtful, pro
poses to take from her nearly one half of her territo
ry. It is by virtue of such pretentions, that by the
bill two States are to betaken from the southern and
given to the northern States; and thus wrong is ag
gravated by compelling us to pay for it, through the
treasury of the United States.”
1 submit to every frank and impartial mind if this
is such a statement of the issue as ought to have em
anated from the convention. Is it true that our gov
ernment proposes to lake from Texas nearly one
half of the territory? And, especially, is it true
that by the compromise bill, two States are to be ta
ken from the Southern’and given to the Northern
States ? Ido not understand that our government
proposes to take any thing from Texas, and it strikes
me that it would have been much fairer to have stated
the issue as it really stands. Texas claims a large
scope of territory as belonging to her, which is also
claimed by New Mexico, as falling within her limits,
and therefore belonging to the United States. To
settle the dispute, the United States, proposed to Tex
as that if she will cede to the U. S. her claim to so
much of the disputed territory as lies west of a de
signated line, the United States will cede to Texas
ail her claim to so much of the disputed territory as
lies east of the line, and in addition, will pay for her
claim
“ winch Texas may accept or
reject as she pleases. How unfair then to say that it
is a proposition to take from her nearly one half of
her territory ! The unfairness of the statement of
the issue, is aggravated by the assertion that the bill
proposes to taice two states from the Southern and
give them to the Northern States. The bill proposes
to make the territory so ceded by Texas a part of New
Mexico, and to give to all New Mexico a territorial
government without any prohibition against slavery.
Ft was fair in the address to argue that the result of
tho arrangement might be to create two free States
out of a territory which is now believed to be slave
territory ; but it is not fair to assert as a fact that the
bill takes two States from the Southern and gives
them io the Northern States. But there is another
portion of the argument which does not seem to
me totally well with these positions. The portion to
which 1 allude is as follows.*
“ But any arrangement concerning her territories,
which leaves a shade of doubt as to the right of this
people of the South to enter any portion of the terri
tory, which according to the terms of annexation
are now free to them, neither Texas nor the General
Government have any right to make. The terms of
annexation constitutes the compact of jUnion between
Texas and the other States of the confederacy—and
i his compact secures irrevocably to the people of the
slavehoiding States the right of entering with the r
property all her territory lying south of 36 deg. 30
miu. north latitude—whilst from all her territory ly
ing north of that line, they are excluded.”
If it be true as here asserted with entire confidence
that neither Texas nor the Genera! Government can
make any arrangement which wilt deprive the peo
ple of the south of the right to carry slaves inlo
the territory proposed to be ceded to the United
States, it follows that the compromise bill does not
take two States from the south and give them
to the north. The bill simply proposes to Texas that
she cede her claim t > the United States for a s|»e
cific sum of money, and it goes no further. If the
terms of the compact between Texas and the United
States continue in force after lhe cession, as maintain
ed by the address, there is no foundation for the
complaint that our govennent is about to take slave
territory from Texas to give it over as free soil to
the north; nor for the apprehensions that the In
dian Territory will be converted by the operation of
die bill into free soil territory. I incline strongly to
the opinion that the United States would take the
ceded territory subject Io the terms contained in lhe
Texas annexation resolution, but my conviction is
not so strong as to induce me to accept the bill with
out a clear and explicit recognition of the continu
ance of the co idi’ions contained in that resolution.
I should regard Texas as wanting in fidelity to the
south, if she accepted any terms of settlement that
did not plaec this matter beyond any doubt.
As the compromise nil! stands, the United States
projioses to buy the claim of Texas to the territory
west of the designated line, but it does not establish
where the true tMXindsry of Texas is, and this fact
leave’ it uncertain whethe the ceded territory will
be held by the United State as a part of Texas, and
therefore subject to the condition of the annexation
resolution, or whether she will hold it as a part of
New Mexico, and therefore subject to the Mexican
law against slavery, if that law continue in force,
it may be well doubted whether Congress could con
stitutionally purchase the territory if the Texas
boundary was known and established, but as the
true boundary is uncertain, a compromise fixing a
boundary may well be made. But in doing this, it
woul.i be but just and proper to apply to the ceded
territories, the condition contained in the Texas an
nexation resolution, and because this is not explicit
ly dene in the compromise bill, 1 object to it. At
the same time, I am free to declare that my convic
tion is so strong that the Mexican law does not con
tinue in force in the territory acquired..-firnm
**»*♦*< fcuuiHu h ter trie supreme <;aurk
"opmtm? r the Unite.! States is
estopped from disputing the title of Texas to the
boundary claimed by,her, I do not think that any
doubt ought to bo suffered to continue as to tho right
of southern men to carry slaves into the territory
proposed to be ceded by Texas. Ido not concur in
the construction put upon the Texas annexation reso
lution when it is said that by those resolutions, the
southern people arc forever excluded from carrying
their slaves north of 36 deg. 30 min. My under
standing is, that the whole ofTexts is slave territory,
and slaves may be carried into any part of it, but
if Texas ever consents ’o the erection of a State
north of 36 deg. 30 4 min., such State shall be admit
ted into the Union ns a free State.
I t-hall be very brief in regard to the other two
subject* discussed in the Address. The objection
taken to the bill f.r abolishing lhe slave trade in the
District ot Columbia, is, that by this hill Congress
claims and exercises the power to emancipate slaves
in lhe District of Columbia. I regard this as a
strained aud unwarranted construction of the bill.
1 understand the bill to be a copy of the Maryland
law existing when the cession was made by that
State. It prohibits the introduction of slaves into
lhe District lor the purpose of sale, and as a penalty
forth a violation of the law, lhe owner forfeits Ins
slave, and whilst the forfeiture results in the loss of
the of the slave by the owner, the slave him
self becomes free. Instead of assessing a fine by
way of penalty for the violation of the law, and al
lowing the owner to pay lhe fine by selling the
slave, it is provided that by the very fact of violating
the law, lhe title to lhe slave is forfeited and he is
set at liberty. I cannot regard it as an exercise of
power of emancipatiin by Congress, but a mode of
punishment fora voluntary breach of a penal law
which results in the freedom of the slave.
Os a like character h the objection urged in the
address against the Fugitive Slave Bill. It is pro
vided that when the owner has arrested his slave in
a free State, if the slave claims that he is a free
man, the owner shall enter into a bond without se
curity to give him a jury trial when he returns
home where his claim to freedom may be fairly
tested. This is said in the address to be the as
sumption by Congress of a power over slavery in the
States. The improbability of any attempt ever be
ing made to arrest a free man under pretence that he
is a slave, is so great that the provision in the bill
was wholly useless and will prove a dead letter. I
should therefore have preferred that it had been
omitted, but nt the same time I cannot assent to the
reasoning by which the conclusion is arrived at, that
it is an assumption of power by Congress over
slavery in the Stales. The constitution expressly
confers on Congress the power tv provide for owners
the means of recapturing their fugitive slaves. This
express grant of power carries with it all the inci
dental powers necessary and proper to execute the
express grant. Hence Congress may prescribe the
species of evidence on which the recapture may be
m? e; and (o avoid any possible abase of the power
in its execution and to restrict the right of recapture
strictly to slaves, the person making the recapture
may be constitutionally required to try his right of
property in his own courts, in those cases in which
his right of property is disputed. 1 presume that in
every Southern State the laws enable slaves who
claim their freedom to test tbe question by jury trial
with their owners. This is the right which the bill
secures to fugitive slaves who upon recapture claim
(hat they are not slaves, and I am unable to see any
just reasons for characterizing this feature in the bill
as an ass aid ption of power by Congress.
These are the leading objections to the argument
tn the Address which induced me to present to the
Convention a Minority Report. It will be observed
that although the author of the address undertakes
a discussion of the matters embraced in the compro
mise report, yet he has strangely omitted any allu
sion to that portion of the compromise which provides
territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah,
upon the principle of non-intervention as to slavery.
If the argument was intended tobe full and fur why
was this important matter entirely overlooked ?
The South has been contending strenuously for years
for the doctrine of non-intervention as the only con
stitutional doctrine. Upon this point the great bat
tle has been waging between the North and the
South, and its violence has been such as to ehake
’.he very foundations of the government. But wbeu
a measure is brought forward containing an express
recognition of the non-intervention principle, an ad
dress from a Southern Convention proposing to dis
cuss it, makes uo menti on of tbe important conces
sion’ It the author of the address had directed his
attention to this feature of the compromise bill, he
wo dd have discovered the true reason why the
abolitionists are opposed to it. This omission, in
my view, stamps the argument as incomplete and
one-aided,
• have stated that in my judgment it was bad pol
icy to introduce iuU the convention, any discussion
as to the merits ot oUimb ot compromise pending in
Having been overruled in this opinion
b) tbe determination of tbe committee to recommend
tbe acceptance of the Missouri Compromise line, I
(hea insisted that we should also express our willing
ness to acquiesce in the plan of adjustment proposed
by the committee of Thirteen with such modifications
as might be satisfactory to our Southern friends in
Cengress. I made this proposition because I did not
desire the convention to havethe appearance of mak
ing war upon a measure which was brought forward
an 1 sustained by as tree triends as the South can
boast; and because I could not see sc wide a differ
ence betwixt the two plans ot* adjustment as to justi
fy us in recommending the one and ruddy rejecting
‘be o;her. To this last point I deem it proper now
to address afc w words. What is tbe real difference
between the two plans us adjustment? The answer
to this question brags us to the consideration of a
practical subject.
1. As to tbe Texas disputed territory : in the view
of the compact between the United States and Texas
Ukea by the address, the result ns to tbe slavery
quesi;o<i will be the same under both plans. But to
avoid any duubt ou this point, 1 have suggested that
the bill should be so amended as to recognize the
continuance of*tbe Missour. Compromise Line, this
being d ne the tw? duns will Lhs identically the same
in their operation.
2. As i? Utah and New Mexico—the Missouri
Compromise will divide the territory, making all
north of 3b deg. 30 rein, free soil, and all South of
that hue either free soil or slave territory as the iu-
habitants choose—in other words, it is congressional'
intervention on one side of the line and congressional
non-intervention on tho other side. By the plan pro
posed by the committee of Thirteen, the whole of
Utah and New Mexico arc to be open to become free
soil or slave territory as the inhabitants may decide
when they seek admission into the Union—in other
words, it is non-intervention in the whole territory.
The first plan applies the Wilmot proviso north of
36 deg. 30 min ; the other excludes the Wilmot pro
viso from the whole territory. If it be said that the
Mexican laws will exclude slavery from the territory,
the answer is, that under either plan the Mexican
laws will be the same, and under either the question
of their existence must be determined by the Su
preme Court.
3. As to lhe admission of California —by the Mis
souri compromise all of California north of 36 30
will be admitted as a State with her present constitu
tion, and all south of that line will be erected into a
territorial government without any prohibition a* to
slavery. By the other plan, California with her pres
ent boundaries and constitution will be admitted.
As to the surrenderef all objections to her admission
whether based on constitutional grounds or mere
grounds of expediency the two plans are the same.
The only substantial difference is that one plan makes
one free State of the territory north of 36 30 and
leaves the territory south of the line under a territo
rial government, whilst the other makes one free
State of the whole territory. Looking at the subject
in a practical point of view what difference does it
make to the south whether lhe whole territory is ad
mitted as one free State or a pait admitted as a free
State and the residue left for future admission as a
State. If we could now know that the residue
would soon be admitted as a free State, lhe south
would be benefitted by admitting the whole at once
as one State, because this course would add but one
free State whereas the other would add two. It
must be borne in mind that the harbor of San Fran
cisco and the gold mines are north of 36 30, anil
would be embraced in the State admitted under the
Missouri line. It is a controverted fact whether
there is any considerable quantity of gold South of
the line, and it is well known that there are no har
bors comparing in importance with that of San Fran
cisco. What then are the probabilities as to the in
troduction of slavery south cf the line of 36 30. I
think the prevailing sentiment is that whilst slavery
might be introduced north of the line on account of
its value in mining operations, that south of the line
it will not prevail. hat then would be gained by
the Missouri line applied to California? Unless my
information is incorrect lhe nonh wilt gel two free
States instead of one !
What then are the differences between the two
compromises—as to the Texas dispute they are the
same; as lo New Mexico and Utah the plan of
the committee of thirteen secures the non-interven
tion by Congress, and on that account is preferable to
the other plan ; and to as the admission of California
it is a matter of doubt which plan is lhe better one for
the south. With such views of lhe two plans I was
unwilling to recommend one and denounce the other.
It is proper to remark tint 1 have been referring to
the Missouri compromise line as it was originally
adopted in 1620 and subsequently renewed in the
Texas annexation resolutions in 1815 and as I under
stand it now to be proposed in the U.S. Sena’e by
Mr. Soule. It is the Missouri coinpronrse without
modification that 1 have been comparing with the
plan proposed by tire commiqee of thirteen* Ruvn"
.amUi ttimwfcd tint whilst -tbu eiSventh resolution
adopted by the convention expresses our readiness to
acquiesce in the adoption of the line of 36 30as the
line of division “as we did on a former occasion,”
the address proposes to acquiesce in that line, provi
ded there is an express recognition of the rights of the
southern people to carry slaves inlo :he territory
south of the line. This proposed modification cf the
original Missouri compromise is intended to remove
all doubt as to the non-existence of the Mexican law
against slavery in the territory, and in that point of
view it is an important modification. If all were
agreed upon the point that in acquiring Mexican
territory we did not acquire the Mexican law against
slavery, this modification or declaration of our rights
to enter the terri'ory with slaves would be wholly
unnecessary. But some are supporting the compro
mise of the committee of thirteen under the belief
that the Mexican law is in force, and others under a
contrary belief, and without undertaking to decide ;
lhe question the compromise bill leaves it to be settled
by the courts. !f lhe bill contained a declaration
that the Mexican law does not continue to operate in
the territory the measure would undoubtedly be
more acceptable to southern men. Such a declara
tion might not. and as most southern men think,
would not make our right to enter the territory with
slaves more certain than it would be without such
declaration, but it might be beneficial in quieting the
apprehensions of such as might be disposed to carry
their slaves into the territory. Bat it seems to me
that there are good reasons why southern men
should not insist <m such a congressional declaration :
First, it is the opinion of most southern msn that the
Mexican law ceased to exist upon our acquisition ol
territory. Second, the south has twice agreed to
submit the question to the supreme court by voting
for the Clayton compromise. 'Ehird, such a clause
in the bill would bean abandonment of the principle
of congressional non-intervention and a violation of
the constitution. These reasons apply with equal
force to the modified form in which the address re
commends the Missouri compromise, and in my judg
ment they show that we cannot with consistency and
propriety insist on express recognition by congress of
our right to enter lhe territory with slaves. In do
ing this we surrender lite solid constitutional ground
of non-intervention on which we have stood and
fought for years. We cannot have permanent peace
and safety until this principle is acknow>elged and
acted upon at the north. Every high consideration
connected with our property, our lives and our honor
bids us to maintain this principle until its truth and
justice shall be no longer disputed. There can be
no safety to the Union until lhe northern people shall
heartily acquiesce in congressional non-intervention.
If the northern pt -pl-- will not interpose to stop
aggressions of fanatical abolitionists and political free
sellers upon our rights, the Union cannot be preserv
ed. The. south can have no peace until the shivery
agitation i< excluded from congress and this can only
be effected by the northern people. If they value
the Union as wor'h pieserving they must adopt the
principle of non-intervention. But to make them do
tins the south nm.'t stand firmly and unwaveringly
on lite same platform. To obtain a temporary bene
fit or to make an issue that will be strong in the south
it will not do to surrender or even appear to surren
der our ationg hold of non nterveution. This is
the feature, iu the plan of adjustment before the
senate that reconciles me to its adoption. 1 should
appreciate it much more highly if it stood distinctly
upon non intervention because congressional inter
vention is unconstitutional. But even as it is, its
adoption would be a triumph of that doctrine and it
is precisely that fact which causes the abolitionists
to oppose it. 1 have no hope that its adoption would
quiet the mad spirit of fanaticism or restrain the
wicked course of politic*! free ooiifem. These have
yet to be met and rend- red powerless by a combina
tion of the patriotic tuen of all parties at the north,
and in thin ii.rt.r ...;u i. ■■*♦**»-upon me
A U1 : 4 should be roccnoikd
justmeut because I believe it would give strength
and support to the doctrine on which alone I believe
lhe Union can be saved. With these view’s 1 inode
an unsuccessful effort in the committee to strike from
the address so much as makes our acquiescence in
the Missouri lino to depend upon an express recogni
tion by congress of the right of the southern people
to carry slaves inio the territory south of the pro
posed line, 1 regarded this amendment as neces
sary not only to make the position in the address
harmonise with the position in the eleventh resolu
tion, but also to avoid tn iking a proposition which
had the appearance of abandoning lhe principle of
congressional non-intervention.
It will be observed that rhe addroes was so amen
ded in convention as to show that the plan of the com
mittee of thirteen would be accepted if so amended
as to secure s ibstantially to the south the rights as
serted in these resolutions. 1 have given a compara
tive view of the two plans pioposcd and as I consider
the plan of the committee of thirteen, with the modi
fications suggested as securing the rights of the
south asserted tn the resolutions as effectually ns the
Missouri compromise ; I see no reason why those
who are ready to acquiesce in this latter may not
acquiesce in the former.
It is a mistake to construe the resold*ions as pro
posing the Missouri line as an ultimatum. The
committee expressly declined to propose the line of
36 30 as an ullimaium and the resolutions fully and
explicitly assert the doctrine of congressional non
intervention on which doctrine the compromise re
ported by the committee of thirteen was founded.
Very respectfully, A. O. P. Nicholson.
Augusta flour.
Our contemporary of ths Savannah Repub"
lican has recently been luxuriating upon the
New Flour of Messrs. Lintom & Co., where
upon he grows most eloquent. Hear him:
Augusta Flour Mill.—We have been favored
with a sack of the Flour made in Augusta at
the Cunningham Mills, from the pure Georgia
Wheat of this year’s crop. It is superfine, and
makes as exquisite rolls and loaves as any that
ve have ever seen Families need not desire a
better article, and it is important to know that
these mills make the different offlour,
varying in quality according to the quality of
wheat used. Mine host of the Pulaski, to whom
a specimen of this tlon r has been sent confirms
the good opinion which we have expressed of
the article. Our friends, Messrs. Linton &.
Co ,of Augusta, write to us that they are al
ready beginning to grind the new wheat in con
siderable quantities. The crop, they say,
comes in well, saving the occasional appearance
of rust which has touched the article in certain
localities. Last year they were all ready for
the most extensive operations, but the untimely
frost nipped their hopes in the bud. Now the
promise is good, and we are glad to hear it
Heaven send that the high prices of cotton may
not divert any of the labor now directed io the
cultivation of wheat. But then we have the
Tennessee within reach. We wish our friends
all the success which their enterprise deserves.
We understand that F. Sorrel, and probably
other houses, will keep a constant supply of this
Hour on hand
Spanish Insolence.—The schooner Gen
Taylor, Captain Wright from Chagres, bound
to Turks Island, 30 days out, put into this port
yesterday for water and ballast. The Captain
states that when off Capt. Antonie, he was
boarded by a Spanish man of-war (name not
given) whose commander sent aboard two
officers and eight men who searched the ves
sei thoroughly, and insolently demanded his
crew list and other papers, not being satisfied
with the report which the Captain gave. The
senooner was in company with the brig Nevius
of Beverly, Mass, bound from M insanello.
(Cuba,) to Boston. This brig was also search
ed.
It is readily granted that Lopez and his fol
lowers committed a great outrage against
Spain, by which they exposed themselves to a
severe penalty in the event of their capture.
But that has all passed by. The invasion has
been abandoned and quiet restored. There is
no longer any excuse, if there was any right
under me law of nanons, for boarding and
searching American vessels under our flig,
and pursuing the legitimate objects of com
merce. It was for this very thing, among
others, that we went to war with Great Britain
in 181*2. We hope, therefore, that our Gov
ernment will take this matter into immediate
consideration, and at once suppress this inso
lent searching of American vessels. Spain
should be made to understand that, notwith
standing one of her renegade sous, at the head
of a few infatuated followers, has outraged
her soil and her laws, she cannot therefore
with impunity stop our vessels upon the high
seasand cast insuit upon uur flag. This is
one of the greatest indignities that one nation
can offer to another, and we have very much
misunderstood the character of President
Taylor, if he submits to it.— Savannah Rrpub
hcan.
The High Water ik Arkansas.—ln speak;
ing of the crevasse at Grand Levee, the Frank|
lin Planters’ Banner of the *2oth inst , says:
The Atchafulaya and Teche are rapidly ri
sing, and already much harm has come upon
the planters in the lower part of St. Mary par
ish. and on the north side of the Teche. With
such a tide of water rolling upon this and neigh
boring parishes, with nothing to prevent great
numbers of our finest plantations from being
covered by the overflow, there is every reason
to believe that many of our planters wiH be o
bhged to suffer immense sacrifices, and some
of them wilijbe nearly or quite ruined.
THL UirriTT V
X JcXM W JuJulxXt X
CHRONICLE & SENTINEL.
BY WILLIAM S. JONES.
TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
tNVAREABLY IN ADVANCE.
DAILY, TRI-WBEKLYA WEEKLY.
Officein Railroad Bank Buddings.
TRIAVHEKLY I 'I “
WEEKLY PAPER •• IIIIIIII”
AUGUSTA. GA. =
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 3.
Debate iu Congresa.
It is a matter of exceeding regret to us that
our space has not permitted us to give the ve
ry interesting fire minutes debate which has
been going on in Congress for some days on
the California bill, involving the slavery ques
tion It is altogether the most interesting dis
cussion of the session, and as each member is
restricted to five minutes, it is the moetjracy.
As however wo could not find space for the en
tire debate, we have culled tho speeches of
several gentlemen delivered on the 15th inst.,
which we publish to-day. The marked im
provement in the tone of Mr. Bissell, as com
pared with his famous speech some time since,
in which he threatened the South with Illinois
regiments of free-soilers, will attract lhe read
er’s notice, not less than the silence of Mr.
Vintok to respond to the direct questions of
Mr. Stephens. There can be no disguising
the fact that some of those to ad
mire so much the President’s plan are dispos
ed to act in bad faith toward that plan. For
while they urge with great earnestness the im
mediate admission of California as a State,
-heir purpose to attach the Wilmot Proviso to
the Territorial bills is ill concealed, by their
refusal to respond to the inquiries of Southern
men. The manly course of Messrs. Toombs
and Stephens will eicite admiration, and
meet a cordial in every Southern
heart.
The Tariff —A Washington correspondent in
the N. Y. Journal writes : 1 find that
the friends of a the-WEi&with a view
i.. -.. nnJ vS’esturatldn oT
the specie inetcaaort he ad valorem system, are
very confident of succere. But it ia admitted that
their success must depend upon the passage of the
Adjustment scheme. Without that, there will be no
legislation on that subject.
Earnestly as we desire such a modification
of lhe Tariff as shall afford adequate protection
to American labor, capital and enterprise, we
trust the Whigs of lhe South 'will defeat] the
passage of any bill looking to that event until
the slavery question is definitely settled. To
use not a very elegant phrase, hold the nose
of the Northern free-soilers to the grindstone
a while longer, let them luxuriate upon the
Tariff of’46 for a season, and they will per
haps be taught through lhe pocket nerve the
principles of the Constitution and tho rights of
the South. That is a most approved method
of teaching some men their duty toward others,
and impressing upon their minds the laws of
’mine and yours.” and most men are rather
apt scholars tinder its operations for it is not
uofrequently quite sensitive, and Its influence
upon the perceptive and discriminating facul
ties of the mind is universally acknowledged.
Let the Whigs of the South unite on this
position, and they can defeat the passage of
any Tariff bill which proposes to increase the
rate of duties, and we doubt not the free-soil
gentry of New England will readily y ield their
‘ conscientious higher power” convictions to
the necessity of admitting slavery into any and
all territory. Some of them would be even
willing to take a little ol the ‘‘infamoussin” into
Massachusetts herself. Massachusetts is rather
too much straightened in her financial affairs to
try the experiment long, and we think little
Rhody would not long bear the pressure
without writhing under its burdens. There
fore let tlie experiment be tried.
We of the South want the Tariff modified,
but we can stand the Tariff of'46 without in
jury.
Public Sentiment in Georgia.
“ As far as we have been able to ascertain, at least
seven-tenths of the people are in favor of the Ad
justment, and lhe action of the Nashville Convon
tion is increasing the number rapidly.”
Such is the evidence of the Journal Sf Mes
senger, in regard to the slate of public senti
ment in Georgia on the Compromise question.
That there was a very large majority in favor
of the measure prior to the assembling of the
Nashville Convention, and an equal, if not
greater majority now, we do not entertain a
doubt. The people of Georgia are rather too
intelligent, too well informed as to their rights,
aud too conservative to be led by the Nashville
Convention—however Governor Hammond
may have proclaimed ’fat (I) the
.“.leaders of the peopled’ Such an in«<>l>in« ««-
■ wen lor the meridian
of South Carolina, where the people have been
so long accustomed to the use of a labor-saving
machine to think for them, and to look up to a
leader; but the people ol other Southern
States will teach tho ultraisls of that State that
they “follow ” no such “lead."
Important to Americans.—An American,
writing from Paris to lhe Newark Advertiser,
says:
‘‘To Americans about to visit England for lhe
first time, it may be of some importance to remark
that no books, not English, which they may take
with them, for their own personal use, are exempt
from the enormous duty which she imposes; and al!
English works, reprinted in any other country, if
brought within the reach of her custom-house, with
out reserve, arc taken and destroyed. It would
have been important to me, had I bad this informa
tion before I left America. But thinking that a tew
books for private use would be allowed to pass as
freely as personal garments, I brought a number with
me, many of them reprints, Having, however
learned in time what their tale would be, if they
were brought on shore, I avoided their confiscation
or rather tiicir destruction, by giving them in charge
of one of the officers of the vessel, to have them re
turned to America.”
The above, adds the New’Orleans Bulletin.
is only another specimen of the “ free trade
system ” of Great Britain, than which a greater
humbug never was practiced upon the world.
Her free trade, as regards all description of
manufactures, is to admit nothing which she
knows can come into successful competition
with her own, and hence she allows the imnor-■
tatiou ofcotton goods, iron and other minerals,
aud articles which she does not produce at all,
at low or nominal duty, or even free, for
which she is entitled to about the same credit
as we should be, by repealing the duty on In
dian corn or cotton, well knowing that no pore
tion of the world Could send a grain of one or
a pound of the other into oar own markets.
John Bull finds that we can print cheaper
books, and they are therefore saddled with a
heavy duty, as he would in like manner do
with lead or iron, cotton or woollen goods, the
moment he found we were able to undersell
him in his home market. Free trade! fudge!
Chagres and New Orleans Link. The
steamship Gaudalquiver, Capt Ed. Auld, will
hereafter run in connection with the steamship
Alabama, forming a semi-monthly line, leav
ing New Orleans and Chagres the 10th and
25th of each month.
The Revolt is Guadeloupe.—Later ad
vices from Point Petre, Guadaloupe, received
at New York, confirm the rumor published
some days sineo of the burnrxff of Point Petre.
It is said the negroes were put down, but not
until several of the ringleaders had been shot.
A proposition has been made in New York
to employ some of the inmates of the Deaf and
Dumb Assylum as telegraph operators. There
are said to be many highly accomplished and
industrious young men in the institution, ad
mirably fitted fur this service, and the depriva
tion of lhe power of speech will prove no ob
stacle to their successful performance of their
duties. They are remarkable for their indus
try, perseverance and attention to business.
The thunder storm of Thursday afternoon
was very violent in New Hampshire. At Wal
pole there was a tornado with a deluge of rain,
followed by damage of property to the extent
of SIOO,OOO.
Drowned in a Tub.—We regret to learn
thata childof John W. Heard yesterday af
ternoon. tell into a tub of water in the yard and
was drowned before it was discovered.
The Pacific.—This splendid steamer, No.
*2 of Collins s line, seems to have made a fine
trip out. She was off the dealing light at
Liverpool in eleven days, but did not get into
dock until some hours afterwards. It « slated
in the Liverpool papers that the Pacific en
countered heavy head winds'on her passage,
and that she proved herself, in every respect,
a very superior vessel. The passengers speak
of her in the highest terms of praise, in which
Capt. Nye and his assistants came in for a full
share of commendation. She was to have
sailed last Wednesday for New Yotk.
At the latest accounts from Cleveland two
hundred and twenty one bodies had been re
covered from the wreck of the ill-fated steamer
Griffith. In consequence of the destruction
ot the wooden boats on board the G. die pro
prietors of many of the steamers on the
Lakes have ordered galvanized Iron Lif®
Boats.
The New Orleans Bee concludes a synopsis
of the Resolutions adopted by the Nashville
Convention, with the following remarks :
** The resolution#, considering the assemblage of
Hotspurs which put them forth, are by no means
violent. They are only impossible. The extension
of the Missouri Compromise line by Congress will
meet neither the sanction of the North nor of the
South. The moderate men on both sides have re
solved to abide by Mr. Calhoun’s great principle of
non-intervention—a safe, constitutional and eternal
guarantee against Congress intermeddling with sla
very. Tins is the marrow of the Compromise now
before Congress, and which will be adopted, or if
defeated, will leave the South nothing, and re-open
the door to renewed assaults by the abolition fanatics.
Fortunately the circumstances under which the
Nashville Convention assembled, and the imperfect
manner in which it represents public opinion in the
South, disarm its edicts of all malign influence.
We do not think a single vote in Congress will be
changed by the resolutions.”
We concur with the Bee that the resolutions
are not violent, yet taken in connexion with
he recent declaration of Mr. Rhett, that
“the idea of effecting an adjustment on the
basis of the Compromise line, wan
utterly hopelessit would seem that, so far
at least as he and those who act with him are
concerned, the suggestion of that line as a
basis of compromise, was not made in good
faith. On the contrary, the deduction is per
fectly fair, that it was made not only with a
belief, but a hope that it would not be accep
ted, and thus afford Mr. R. and his disunion
associates an opportunity the better to succeed
in inflaming the public mind of the South with
the hope of accomplishing a dissolution of the
Union.
With such a declaration as we have quoted
above, from the lips of the reputed author
of the Address of the Convention, it is appa
rent to every reflecting, intelligent mind, that
Mr. Rhett, and those who concur with him
in sentiment, do not desire a compromise of
the questions, but rather a dissolution of the
Union. For with his avowed conviction, it
was not offered in a spirit of compromise, and
could only therefore have been suggested
with the hope of distracting Congress, and
delaying an adjustment, till they could have
time to act on the public passions—to test the
sentiments of the Southern people on the
subject of disunion.
The public should feel under obligations to
Mr. Rhett for his open avowal of hia pur
.poses mm! wjshda- to.) duwaLvs.-thaUJwion. It
will open the eyes of conservative men to
the hollowness of the professions on the face of
the resolutions, for compromise, and prepare
them for the issue which is now sought to be
made. Forewarned is forearmed. Let then
the conservative and patriotic men of all par
ties be careful how they commit themselves to
the platform of the Nashville Convention, lest
they thereby contribute to embarrass the ques
tion, and prevent an honorable and equitable
adjustment of this grave question.
The Hon. R. B. Rhett.—The Charleston
Courier of yesterday contains the following
note of Mr. Rhett, which in justice to him,
having published the report of his-i speech by
“Curtius,” we insert. To escape the odium
of that report, however, Mr. R. must enter in
io a more specific denial—this is altogether too
indefinite :
To the Editors of the Courier—Gentlemen: —
My attention has been drawn to a communication in
your paper of this morning, signed “Curtius,” in
Which a synopsis of the speech I delivered on last
Friday, at Hibernian Halt, is attempted. The wri
ter says—concerning his synopsis : ‘ In the forego
ing hasty and feeble sketch of the spirit-stirring and
revolutionary speech of Mr. Rhett, we have made no
effort to report his burning words, and perhaps have
but faintly succeeded in conveying their substance or
purport.” I wish merely to say that the confession
of this writer is correct. He has not only made “no
effort” to report my words, but has very “faintly
succeeded in conveying their substance or purport.”
To correct errors, under such a confession, is mani
festly superfluous.
Believe me, gentlemen, your most obedient ser
vant, R. B. Kmett.
Curtius to Mr. Rhett.
The Charleston Conner, of yesterday, con
tains the reply of “ Curtius” to the Hon. R-
B. Rum's note, affecting to deny the correct,
ness of the report of his speech by that writer
It will be seen that C. makes good the several
counts in the indictment with interest, the cor
rectness of which no man familiar with Mr.
Rhett’s political history for the last few years
will question.
'Co the Hon. R. B. Rhett: Sir, —Your remarks,
in yesterday’s Courier, in reference to my synopsis
of your inflammatory and revolutionary speech, at
lhe meeting, on Friday night last, exhibit very little
of the candor and boldness, which distinguished your
advocacy ol revolution and disunion on that memora
ble occasion. You repeat my admission of the haste
and feebleness of my synopsis or sketch of your
speech, and my doubt of my entire success in con
veying its substance or purport, and endorse the cor
rectness of that admission, without condescending to
point out wherein my errors consisted. You had
seized an opportunity, Sir, to speak to the people of
Charleston, on a subject, by your own confession, of
startling and momentoua interest and consequences,
neither more nor Jess than the formation of a South
ern Confederacy, or even the erection of South Ca
rolina into a separate and independent sovereignty or
nation ; and, 1 deemed it important that the people of
the City, of the State, and of the Union, should
know the fact, of which, by the way, the newspaper
. I CXMMIA meeting ie tpnrtron gave not the slight-”
estintitnation. Hence, Sir, my aF***’*'* . w
J p»eventing your light from
being hid under a bushel. In making the attempt,
however, justice to you and to the country equally
required that you should be reported fairly, if not
literally, and therefore, with a proper, and, I trust, a
becoming distrust o r the accuracy of both ear and
memory, I qualified my sketch as hasty and feeble,
and perhaps as failing to convey with precision, even
the substance or purport of your remarks, and, with
the like view, I invited you to do justice to yourself,
by a p-.blication of your speech in full Under such
circumstances be assured, Sir, it is but a poor come
off, especially for one of your boldness of character
and speech, to shelter yourself under the allegation,
that my own confession of possible, or even probable
errors, renders their correction by you superfluous.
Depend upon it this is very like taking a step back
wards, and the sooner you face the music, the better.
I feel abundantly satisfied that I, at least, gave, with
perfect fidelity, the spirit and the main purpose of
your speech, viz: to unfurl the flag of disunion
and set in motion the ball of revolution. You, too,
Sir, have failed to be literal, in your reply to my
frank admission--! did not say that I made no effort
tn report “ your words but my expression was “ I
had made no effort to report your burning words”—
some of your words 1 not only attempted to report,
but did actually report, and, believing that I had
them accurately, I even enclosed them in inverted
commas. One omission, however, Sir, 1 will take
occasion now to supply. I omitted to state your-com
placent comparison or contrast of your own sagacity
and foresight with that of the illustrious Calhoun.
You informed us not only that you regarded the
scheme of Federal Union, under our present Consti
tution, as a failure, but that you had entertained that
opinion and broached it ever since 1844. That you
then told Mr. Calhoun so, but he replied or thought
that the Constitution had within it a recuperative
power and would ultimately right itself; but that Mr.
Calhoun’s last speech, in which he allowed that new
constitutional guarantees were necessary to protect
the rights of the South, was an admission, on his
part that he had been wrong and you right.
With a renewed call for the publication of your
speech, to correct my errors, if any, to do justice to
yourself, and above all, to do your duty to your coun
try aud to the South, I am, Sir, yours very respset
fully, Ovaries.
Mr. Rhett has a veryi ame apologist in
the Courier of yesterday under the signattire
of “Charleston.” He admits the correctness
of the report of lhe speech by “Curtius,” but
concludes that Mr. R. only made his speech
for Charleston, and that it was unjust and un
manly in “Curtius” to report it, especially as
Mr. Rhett’s revolutionary movement was
only prospective, and not designed to be im
mediate. After this powerful defence, the anx
ious mother of “Charleston” has doubtless
admonished him of the propriety of retireing
under the maternal roof, and taking a seat in
the little arm-chair by his mamma. Well may
Mr. R. exclaim, “save me from my friends.’’
Lead Mine in Maine.—A lead mine has
been recently discovered in Prospect, Me.
The Belfast Signal says that lhe vein of ore
wakes its appearance in a ledge beneath low
water mark, on the shore of Penobscot river,
and from thence runs underground, following
the direction of the ledge, An analysis of
several samples, differing from each other in
value, has been made by Dr. Jackson, of
Boston, which gives as a mean, seventy
five per cent jof lead and thirteen of silver.
Accounts from Washington state that the U.
3. Senate has confirmed the nominations of
Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Peyton and Mr. Marsh
for the several Foreign Missions to which
they have been appointed, and also, the Sec
retaries of their several legations.
The Charleston Mercury says: We are
highly gratified to learn that the Charleston
Cotton Manufacturing Company, at their
meeting yesterday, resolved to increase their
capital stock from its present amount of s>loo,-
000, to $500,000, the extent allowed by their
charter. The additional capital is to be employ
ed in the immediate erection.and furnishing of a
large Cotton Factory of 15,000 spindles, con
tiguous to the present Factory in Hampstead.
Gen. James, the celebrated machinist, has ta
ken one half of the additional capital, and the
remainder has been taken by our citizens.
Accounts from Jamaica to 17th inst, state
that the British Admiral in command of the
Gulf Squadron, has received orders to have
every vessel under his command ready for
active service at an hour’s notice. The is
land ofTrinidad is the rendezvous, where one
ship-of the-line, three frigates, one sloop, and
fourteen gun boats are now ready for sea. It
was expected that they would sail thence to
Cuba.
Thos. H. Perkins, Esq., of Boston, has offer
ed to subscribe one thousand dollars towards
the erection of a monument to the memory of
Gen. Warren.
VsivenstTY or Pkxnstlvasia.—Dr. Joseph
Carson has been elected to the chair of Materia
Medica, vacated by the transfer of Dr. Wood
to that of the practice of Medicine.
Testing their Faith.
It appears by the proceedings of the Senate
of Monday, (published yesterday) that Mr.
Douglass, of 111., proposed by his amendment
then offered, to test the sincerity of those who
at the South have been objecting to the admis
sion of California, because of her great extent
of territory. When that amendment comes
up for consideration, those Senators who have
made this objection will have an opportunity
of showing their faith by their works, and we
shall see whether they will take the responsi
bility of seperating California and forming
two additional States, thus giving the free soil
ers six United States Senators, instead of two.
This is a question in which the South has a
deep interest, and they should watch its pro
gress closely. The object of Mr. Douglass is
to defeat ths passage of the bill if possible, and
this is the snare set by him to entrap the South
ern ultras. It differs, however, very little from
the plan proposed by the ultras themselves,
the Nashville platform; indeed, the only diffe
rence is, they propose the partition of the
State by the line of 36° 30', which would
make two free States, while Mr. Douglass
proposes to make three. But, say they, we
require the recognition of the right to intro
duce and hold slaves South of that line.
Well, to say nothing of their abandonment of
the great principle upon which the rights of
the South are based, the power of Congress to
legislate on the question. What does this
boasted recognition amount to ? Nothing—
nothing in the world. For as soon as the peo
ple organise a State government, they will, as
they have a perfect right to do, exclude slavery,
and the recognition by Congress evaporates
into thin air, and instead of one free State,
we shall have certainly two. So much then
for the recognition of the right by Congress to
introduce slavery south of the Missouri line.
The compromise therefore of Mr. Clay, is
infinitely preferable to either plan, because it
proposes to admit California as one State.
Democracy*—A New Phase*
The Hon. J. W. Jackson, representative
from the first Congressional District of Geor
gia, having what he regards very conclusive
evidence that his opposition to (he compromise
bin ur doen not rqfie£uhe sentiments
of his constituent, has intimated his purpose
to resign his scat unless the bill be so modified
that he can yield it his support. “ Obedience to
the will of the constituency or resign” has been,
when it suited their purposes, a cardinal point
in the Democratic creed, and only in such
cases has the party enforced the principle.
Thus the Charleston Mercury demurs to the
resignation of Mr. Jackson in the following
truly democratic strain:
Public Opinion.— We observe that the Hon. Jos.
W. Jackson, of the Savannah District, in his recent
speech in the House, intimates the opinion, or the
suspicion at least, that his constituents have changed
ground and are disposed to support the Compromise.
He also says that if he is satisfied of this he will re
sign bis seat. We trust he will hold on bravely, and
vote as his convictions dictate. If he will believe the
Union, nine-tenths of the people cf the South are for
Mr. Clay’s Compromise. If he will believe the
Republic, nine-tenths arc for Gen. Taylor’s scheme.
If he will believe us, not one-tenth are conscientious
ly attached to both these devices. The South will
sustain the Missouri Compromise Line. Anything
short of that will, in our opinion, blow up the Confe
deracy.
This is a beautiful commentary upon demo
cratic professions and practices. The Colum
bus Times, not to be behind his vascillating,
time-serving contemporary, copies the article
of the Mercury and thus most beautifully
chimes in:
“ Wc earnestly add our counsels to that of the
Mercury, and implore Col. Jackson to acton h'sown
convictions in the responsible votes he has to give.”
Such is modern progressive democracy,
such its professions and such its practices ’
State Government in New Mexico*
By reference to a Te'egraphic dispatch to
the Baltimore Sun in another column, it will
be seen that the Convention called lo organise
a State Government in New Mexico, have
formed a Constitution and were at the latest
dates proceeding to carry out its provisions,
by the election of the necessary officers. Such
a movement as this, on the part of a territory
with no greater population than New Mexico
possesses, is simply a ridiculous farce, and will
be so treated by Congress, unless that body
has lost all self-respect and dignity of charac
er.
“Seven Members out ol near two hundrd dissent
ed from the Address, and of these five were from Ala
bama.— Char. Mercury.
“Near two hundred 1 '! The Mercury’s idea
of“wear” is not very near the correct import
of ihe term. There were, we believe, just one
hundred and fifty six-delegates in tne Nashville
Convention, of whom one hundred and one
were from Tennessee ! and the remaining fifty
five from eight other Southern States. The
Mercury, however, is not very particular as to
numbers, except to be certain never to make
them too small where
F ... to numoug tne people.
Pure Water for Savannah.—The sub
ject of supplying lhe city of Savannah with
pure water for drinking and other purposes
is just now engaging the attention of the citi
zens. The Republican says : There have
been two plans agitated : one to pump the wa
ter by steam engines from the Savannah river
into reservoirs on the bluff, and then distribute
it through the city ; lhe other, to turn a part
of the water of the great Ogeechee river into
the canal, and create a water power at the
Springfield place, to pump a supply into reser
voirs, and thence distribute it by iron pipes
through the city. This latter plan would re
quire perhaps a greater investment, but it
would also produce other and highly valuable
results, besides the supply of water.
Free School Examination*
The examination of lhe pupils of lhe “Au
gusta Free School,” which was postponed on
Thursday in consequence of the weather,
came off Friday afternoon, at lhe City Hall.
Although we have attended many exhibitions
of a similar nature, we have never been more
pleased, than with the evidences of proficiency
which the promptness and accuracy of the
answers of the pupils displayed on this occa
sion. The zeal and fidelity of the teachers
seem to have been attended with the most hap
py results, and though few of the pupils were
sufficiently advanced to be occupied with such
studies as are always most pleasant to an in
structor, yet we observed a commendable em.
ulation, which, whilst it gives promise of lhe
highest attainment in the scholar, affords un
mistakable evidence of a proper degree of
qualification and interest in lhe Teacher.
VVe could have wished to have seen this ex
hibition more generally attended ; for too
much encouragement cannot be extended to
institutions of this nature. “Educate that you
may be free,” is the proper motto of an en
lightened people, aud all assistance given to
the cause of education, either by encourage,
ment or otherwise, is evidence of public virtue,
and a vindication of public liberty. The per
petuity of free institutions depends upon the
intelligence of the people ; and in proportion
as education is sound, solid and moral, public
opinion will be just, correct and rational,
espotism is the daughter of Ignorance, and
always supports and protects its parent, whilst
Intelligence crushes both, by infusing into the
public mind the habit of independent reflec
tion. Ignorance must consign man to mora ]
debasement and fit him for no higher purpose
than to pander to the vices, or enlarge the pow
er of the accidental pre-eminence’of his fellow;
and if you would be free, if you would no
have the history of your commonwealth de
generate into a chapter of the almost change
less history of Despotism—if you would have
private wrongs redressed by the peaceful and
effective power of civilized law, withont find
ing their cure in the red valour of the battle
field; if you would have your institutions rest
for their permanence, not on arbitrary statue,
nor die iron arm of military force, but in the
hearts and affections of the people, you must
educate. •
The Compromise in Alabama.—The Mo
bile Advertiser sums up a classification of the
position of the several newspapers of that
state on the compromise thus : In the aggre
gate. 14 Whig and 8 Democratic papers are in
favor of the compromise of the Senate, and
nine Democratic papers in favor of the Missou
ri compromise line, and five Democratic pa
pers whose position is not known. We there
fore have twenty-two papers in the State in fa
vor of Mr. Clay’s bill, nine against it and in
favor of the Missouri line, and five, positions
not known. Os these we are confident that
more than one naif will favor the compromise
Taking the “Press” as a correct exponent of
public opinion, a large majority of the people
of Alabama are supporters of the bill reported
by the Committee of Thirteen.
We have received, through the politeness of
the author, a neat little vol. of 104 pages, en
titled, The Doctrine of Election, dialed, De
fended, and Applied, in three discourses, by
the Rev. E P. Rogers, A. M., Pastor of the
First Presbyterian Church. Augusta, Ga.
With an Introductory Essay by the Rev. Tima.
Smyth, D. D., oi Charleston, S. C. These ser
mons are written with considerable ability, and
lhe controversy is conducted in a Christian I
spirit. j ’
Tlie Cuban Prisoners.
Advices received at New Orleans from Ha
vana to the 20th ult., report that the authori- ,
ties of Cuba had given a prompt refusal to the <
demand of our Gen. Campbell, for f
the Contoy prisoners. Doubts are however
thrown on the report from the fact that advices ]
to the same dale have been received at Mobile, ,
which make no allusion to the demand or re
fusal, and report that all was quiet on the
Island.
A special correspondent of the Picayune
mentions it as a rumor in Havana) that the de
mand had been made, and the refusal given
prior to the sailing of the Isabel on her last
trip, and if true, that dispatches announcing
the fact had no doubt been forwarded by that f
Steamer to Washington. If such was the fact,
we should doubtless have ere this had some in
timation of it from Washington, as there has
been ample time since the arrival of the Isabel, i
We are therefore induced to conclude that the
statement is not well founded.
In this connexion it may not be amiss to in
troduce the subjoined extract, from the usually
well informed Washington correspondent of
the Now York Courier Sg Enquirer, under
date of ths 26 th ult:
‘ ‘The news from Cuba, as published in the news
papers, is by no means satisfactory. No official de
spatches from our Consul at Havana have yet been
received, but if the public intelligence affords any
reliable indication of the proceedings of the Cnban
authorities, it is very clear, that the embarrassmen s
occasioned by the detention of the Contoy prisoners,
are not relieved. 1 forbear from any stronger com
ment on this subject, until more authoritative infor
mation is received by the Government. In the
meantime, the public should uot be deceived with
plausible representations, which may be calculated
to mislead opinion. Gen. Taylor has taken his
ground with deliberation, and be will maintain it
with firmness.”
On the other hand the correspondent of the
Baltimore Sun, two days later says:
There arc all sorts of dark rumors about our pri
soners in Cuba. Why are they not sent home?
This latter would seem to indicate that dis
patches had been received at Washington, the
contents of which had not transpired. In this
slate of doubt and uncertainty we must await
the developments of the future.
Mr. Nlcliolson vs. Tlie Nashville Ad
dress.
We shall offer no apology for occupying
so muJh of our space to day with the Very able
review of the Address of the Nashville Con
vention, by the Hon. A. O. P. Nicholson, of
Tennessee. The importance of the subject,
and the great necessity for all the light that
can be thrown upon it. will secure for the re
view ageneral perusal, and we therefore com
mend it to the careful and dispassionate con
sideration of every reflecting mind. Not that
we concur in all the principles avowed by the
author, but as a lucid, discriminating criticism
upon the Address, it deserves to be deliberate
ly weighed by the intelligent and conservative
of all parlies. Mr. N. is a leading democrat
(the same to whom Gen. Cass addressed “the
Nicholson letter,”) and was a prominent actor
in the Convention. His views cannot, there
fore, be successfully assailed as resulting from
a factious opposition, but he must be met in
the fair and open field of argument —and in
such a field ihe advocates of the Address, will
find an antagonist wonhy the steel of the most
chivalric. The logic of the Address is ex
hibited in all its naked deformities, and we ap
prehend it will require more skill than its ad
vocates possess, to parry the thrusts given by
the reviewer. The review will be concluded
to-morrow.
Votes Polled by New States. —On her ad
mission as a State, Louisiana polled 4,748 votes; In
diana 6,789; Mississippi 7,475; Illinois 8,075; Ar
kansas 3,633; Michigan 11,360; Florida 5.301;
and lowa 13,271. California polled, last year, 14,213
American votes.
These facts are rather unfortunate develope
ments for the opponents of the admission of
California upon her alleged want of popula
tion.
We learn from a friend in Milledgeville, says
the Constitutionalist, that the Hon. John W.
Hooper has been appointed by his Excellency
Gov. Towns. Judge of the Superior Court of
the Cherokee Circui, vice Hon. A. R. Wright,
resigned.
ConsistencyJof the Calhounites.—But a
short time ago (says the Vicksburg Whig) Mr.
Calhoun and his followers were strongly op
posed to the Missouri Compromise. The very
name of it fell upon their ears, as upon those
of Mr. Jefferson, “like the alarm bell at
night.” Now, the followers of Mr. Calhoun
in Congress and in the Nashville Convention
are completely enamored of the compromise,
and denounce as traitors all Southern men who
do not agree with them on that subject. To
follow such leaders a man must needs have
cross-eyes, corkscrew brain, a wooden con
science, and as great an aversion to a straight
ne as a worm fence, eras a fellow with a brick
——— "
Good Dividend —The Iron Steam Boat
Company yesterday declared a dividend of
10 per cent, for the last six months, which with
the dividend of 7, and bonus of 25 per cent
declared in January, makes 42 per cent, in
dividends within« year.
Southern Medical ann Surgical Journal,
The publisher, has laid upon our table the
July No. of this valuable periodical. It con
tains the usual variety of original Communica
tions, Reviews and Extracts, Monthly Peris
cope and Medical Miscellany. This work is
edited by Prof. I. P. Garvin, and published by
James McCafferty, in this City, at $3 per
annum payable in advance.
Population of Boston.—By the State cen
sus of Boston, just completed, it has been as
certained that the present population of Boston
is 138 788. Increase from 1840, 53,788; from
1845, 24,442. The population of Boston in
1810 was 33,787; in 1820, 45,298; in 1825,
58,277; 1830,01,392; 1835,75,603, 1840,85,-
000; 1845, 114 366. The classification of the
population has developed the following inter
esting facts. Os the total population of 138,788
souls, no less than 63 320 are foreigners and
their children—very nearly one half of the en
tire population. Os these latter, 52,961 are
Irish, and 10,359 are Germans, English, &c.
The whole number of blacks in Boston is only
2,112, showing an increase of only 270 in the
last ten years.
The Compromise in Louisiana.—The Pica
yune says :
“In Louisiana we know of no papers, of either
party, which are not in favor of the compromise.”
If this fact be regarded as an index of public
sentiment in Louisiana it, indicates great una
nimity in favor of the Compromise. That Mr.
Soule does not reflect the sentiments of the
people of that State, no one. not even his
friends and admirers, pretend to controvert.
Plank Road Meeting in New Port, Fla.
—The Wakulla Times contains the proceed,
ings of a meeting, held at New Port, Fla., for
the purpose of making arrangements for the
construction of a Plank Road from New Port
to the Georgia line, in the Albany,
with a view of connecting it, eventually, with
the Internal Improvements of Georgia.
A “ Plank Road Barbecue” is to be prepared
on Monda/ the 15th inst., at the Upper Sul
phur Spring, near New Port, when it is pro
posed to organize and act.
There seems ta be a general disposition on
the part of those on and near the northern
Gulf Coast to connect with the improvements
in Georgia. New Port, which now proposes to
connect with us, is within a few miles of the
Gulf Coast in East Florida, near St. Mark’s and
we believe at the head of navigation. So that
if they carry out their purpose of building a
Plank Road, the products of the coast will be
come tributary to our irnprovemsnts-
CROPS OF EAST TENNESSEE, &C.
Prom the Travelling Correspondent of the Cultivator.
There are among the farmers of this section,
at present, complaints both “loud and deep”
of the observance of rain, and the injurious ef
fects of the long-continued drought upon the
growing crops. If heat, which a few weeks
since presented the most promising appearance,
has within a few days, shown alarming indica
tions of the rust in various places, and it is sup
posed that many fields will be seriously injured
thereby. Corn is miserable—in many places
only a few inches high, and making no percep
tible growth. The crop must be a short one ;
and you can safely count on high prices for
meal and bacon the coming year. Oats are
also very poor; indeed, almost a failure in
many sections. Potatoes are also “bellind
hand;” but the early planted fields promise
average crops. Grass has withstood the drought
very well; and yielded fair crops of hay.
Fruit is very fine —the peach and apple trees
every where bending beneath their loads.
Horses and mules are scarce and dear, and
very few hogs are being raised for Southern
and Eastern markets.
Upon the whole, the prospects of East Ten
nessee. are rather unpromising at present; but
1 think the panic in some places is far greater
than tlie “signs of the times” warrant. There
is not the least danger of the “famine” that many
desponding individuals so confidently predict.
1 ° D. R,
Greenville, Green co., East Tenn., June 21st.
The board of Health at St. Louis, Missouri
for the week ending on the 10th instant report
105 deadis, »f which number 42 were by
cholera.
At the quarantine ground below St. Louis,
on the 17th instant, there were seven deaths of
cholera.
The NaahviHe Convention.
The action of the Convention is now elicit
ing the opinions of the press of the Southern
States—the conservative portion condemning
and the ultras approving, and calling upon the
people to rally to, and sustain the Nashville,
alias South Carolina, platform. Although we
might fill our columns with extracts, it is only
our purpose to give a few, which may in some
measure serve to elucidate the matter, and af
ford the reader the means of deciding between
conservatism and ultraism.
From the Savannah Republican, ( Whig.)
The reasoning of the address, in opposition to the
Compromise of the committee of thirteen, is mart
disingenuous. It amounts almost to a suppressio
veri. For instance, in regard to the boundary line of
Texas and New Mexico, the address contends that
the Compromise seeks to transfer a large portion of
the Texan territory, now slave territory, to New
Mexico, where it will btcome free soil. The fallacy
and disingenuousness of this position are at once evi
dent, when it is remembered that nearly the entire
south, and doubtless every member of the Conven
tion. has always held that the moment New Mexico
and California were transferred to us the constitu
tion of the United States, proprio vigors, extended
over them. The old anu-siavery Mexican Jaws
yielded to the constitution, under whieh we enjoy
the same right to carry our slave property to the ter
ritories that the farmer of Massachusetts has to go
there with bis property. Such is the doctrine of the
south and of the Nashville Convention. How, then,
can the simple transfer of a portion of the disputed
territory from Texas to New Mexico, make free soil
out of what is now slave soil ? It cannot be done,
and the Convention must have known it. Indeed,
the very bill which they vehemently attack contains
a section rejecting the Wilmot Proviso, and leaving
the whole question of slavery to be disposed of by
the people of the territory when they come Io adopt
a state constitution, and among them, by the slave
holders who may be incorporated into it from Texas.
But grant that the old Mexican law, the lex loci,
prohibiting slavery, is still in force, and we ask
whether the Texan law, which tolerates slavery,
would not upon the same principle remain in force
in such part of her territory as was transferred to
New Mexico ? The fallacy of such reasoning is too
apparent to escape the detection of the most superfi
cial reader. What surprises us most, is that the
Convention should renounce a principle almost uni*
versally acknowledged at the south, for the purpose
of attacking the Compromise. It should be remem
bered too, in this connection, that thus far it is not
known whether this territory belongs to Texas or
New Mexico. It is disputed territory. It is wrong
therefore, to say that it is taken from one and given
to the other. Moreover, Texas is not bound to con
sent to the transfer. The bill only purpprts to make
“proposals” to her, and it is left to her to decide
whether she will accept them or not.
The reasoning of the address upon other portions
of the Compromise is of a character wijh
going. If the Convention had recoin
ndt opposed, the Compromise it would have conferred
a signal service upon the country, and in all pro
bability ensured its success in the House of Repre
. sentatives. Instead of this it suggests the Missouri
Compromise, which nearly all the southern legisla
tures that have meet within the past two years, and
among them the democratic legislature of this Stale,
have united in condemning. We think the plan is
wholly impracticable, and not half so just to the
south as the Committee’s Compromise. The Con
vention most have been satisfied that it could not be
adopted. It was so advised from Washington, but
this, perhaps, was its greatest recommendation.
Even this, however, they do not think it right for us
to propose. If the north will offer it, then we will
1 condescend to accept it. We are called upon to
make a stand not only upon our rights, but upon
. etiquette also, and if need be to dissolve the Union
upon a punctilio ! Such a feeling is unfortunate at
t a time when the good and patriotic of the land are
> endeavoring to adjust great and dangerous question**,
before which all manner of etiquette sinks into utter
insignificance.
From the Chattanooga Advertiser, (Dem.)
1 We “tread no Step Backwards The “Repub
lican Banner,” and “Nashville Daily Gazette,”
may make themselves easy, as to our course in refc
-1 rence to the Resolutions passed by the Southern
I Convention. We have heretofore declared our
■ selves in favor of Mr. Clay’s Compromise Bill—not
as a whole —and the Resolutions passed by the
Southern Convention have not changed our views
on that subject. It is true, we would prefer to see
the Missouri Compromise Line extended to the Pa
cific ocean, but if the South cannot succeed in get
ting that, then they should vote in favor of Mr.
I Clay’s Compromise Bill, provided that certain amend -
ments which have been proposed, should be engraft
ed upon it. We look upon the resolutions passed by
the Southern Convention, as merely expressing a
preference for the Missouri Compromise Line, but
not as expressing a determination to accept of no
other plan of compromise which may be agreed upon
; by Congress. Non-intervention on the slavery
5 question, was the platform upon which the Democra
tic party stood in the canvass of 1848—it was so pro-
- claimed by the supporters of Gen. Cass, through
p out the Union, and if it was right in 1948, it is equal
ly so now. Mr. Clay’s compromise bill, secures to
’ the South non-intervention on the slavery question,
in the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. “Thar
is something.” We like to ste a little consistency
s manifested ; and though others may show a disposi
tion to “jump Jim Crow,” we feel no inclination to
try our hand at ground and lofty tumbling, nor do
{ we charge tha t any democrat has shown such a dis
f position, since the resolutions of the Southern Con
vention have been placed before the public.
From the Huntsville Advocate, (Whig.)
The Address of the Nashville Convention is
1 given on the outside, to the exclusion of our usual
variety. Its enumeration of the rights end wrongs
of the South, meet with our approbation. Its de
nunciations of the Compromise are such as will de
f stroy its effectiveness, and array a majority of the
) South against its action. The charge that “ many
of those in the South who at an early day had ex
l pressed a willingness to support it (the plan of the
1 adjustment) had not well considered its import,”
j comes with a bad grace from ihe members of the
Convention, whose superior wisdom has not been
» patented. This insinuation of ignorance of the
> “ import ”of the Compromise applies to many of the
> first men in the nation, in and out of Congress, and
to a large majority of the people of the South, out of
» South Carolina, Mississippi, and, perhaps, Alabama.
The constitutional position assumed in the Address,
in reference to California, could not secure the ap
proval of Judge Sharkey, the ablest of Southern Ju
rists; and it was voted against by a most able mi
’ VOe Irave no objections to the Missouri line, could
we be satisfied that the South would not gain a loss
. by its establishment; that the result would not be
an increase in the number of free States on the Pa
cific. Give us an assurance that the Missouri line
will benefit the South, t d we will be ready to insist
upon it. But to stand upon it, and then for the ef
fect to be two free States in California in place of one,
would not be benefittmg the South, or restoring the
equilibrium of power. To deny the power of Con
gress over slavery in territories and then to insist
upon its establishing slavery south of 36:30, is
somewhat contradictory, to say the least: This the
Address does.
Although the Address and resolutions strenuously
contend for 36:30 as the ultimatum of the South, yet
no member was found, in the Convention, ready to
come out for that line or disunion. When Mr.
Gholson, of v a., called upon the members to rise
and declare, in the event that the Missouri line was
not secured to the South and the Compromise plan
bourne the law of the land, whether they were then
for a absolution of the Union or not, no one was will
ing to cotinj out f or (jisomof). From this pregnant
fact, we argbvtaat those who voted for this Address
are not prepared h t a k e B jj eß f or a (]j sso intj on even jf
the Compromise eub.n e( j B>
From the Casstot, Standard, (Dem.}
The Nashville C ON v fcKTIO!) ._’ A ' t the of
oar lust week s issue, we lisa 00l receivell tho A(I .
dress of this body '. and although ». thought wo had
discovered something m the resolution which might
be construed as asking an express guarantee
slavery south of 36 30, yet as all tho accounts from
the convention informed us that it was an adoption
of the principle as well as thb line of the Missouri
compromise, we said nothing. Upon reading the
address, however, we observe that 9 distinct recog
nition of slavery is required south of tn y ne# This
measure we regard not only as wholly im rract i CQ h| e
but as giving Congress the right to legisiup upon
the subject; an absolute surrender of the du( r j ne
heretofore maintained by the South.
If the convention believed that the laws of Mexi
co, excluding slavery, were annulled by its annexa
tion to the United States, why then require an ex
press recognition by Congress to carry slavery there.
There is then apparently a studied effort on the
part of the convention to deceive the people when it
says it has adopted the Missouri Compromise—for it
has adopted only the line and not the spirit.
From the Grffin Whg.
The Nashville Address. — We copy to-day
the views of the Savannah Republican respecting
the Addrcssto the Southern People by the Nashville
Convention, and in addition to what is there said we
must say that in our opinion it is unfortunate for tho
country that that Convention ever met, for the rea
son that if the action of the Convention have any in
fluence at all, either upon the public mind or upon
Congress, it will be but a source of embarrassment,
leading to confusion and discord. The Missouri
Compromise has been repudiated from the start by
all who favored the Nashville Convention. Almost
all the Legislatures of the Southern States, with nu
merous public meetings in the South, have con
demned it as not being a settlement that would satis
fy the South. In consequence of this condemnation,
all the members of Congress, as well as the people,
who desired a settlement and adjustment of the diffi
culties growing out of the organization of the new
territories, set about maturing some other plan of
compromise ; and Congress has now spent near six
months in arduous and laborious efforts to settle the
difficulties, and have nearly matured the plan re
commended by the Committee of Thirteen.
Now the members of Congress, by the recommen
dation ot*the Nashville Convention, are thrown into
this predicament: they must either throwaway all
they have done since the commencement of the ses
sion, and fake a new start in trying to carry out the
Missouri Compromise, or disregard altogether the
action of the Nashville Convention, and proceed as
though such a Convention had never been held.
We believed from the first, that such an assem
blage as the Nashville Convention could not possibly
do any good, and that If its action had any effect at
all, it would be but to embarrass the action of Con
gress and bring about confusion. And now since
the Convention has been held and its proceedings
published, we find that our expectations and the
worst alternative we predicted, have been fully real
zed.
Properly Rebuked.
During the late session of the General As
sembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church
at Cincinnati, the delegate from Massachusetts,
Rev. Mr. McClure, in taking leave of the As
sembly, stated that he was charged with the
duty of communicating to the As-embly,a res
olution of the body he represents, on the sin
of slavery. After he bad concluded his re
marks, Dr. W. L- Breckenridge, ofKy .offer
ed the following resolution, which was adopt
ed :
Beeolced, That our Delegate to the nex_
General Association of Massachusetts be direct;
ed to inform that venerable body, thai this
General Assembly must consider itself the best
judge of the action which it is necessary for it
to take as to all subjects within its jurisdiction,
and that any interference on the part of that
General Association with its action upon any
subject upon which this General Assembly has
taken action, is offensive, and must lead to an
interruption of the correspondence which sub
sists between that Association and the General
Assembly.”
This resolution gave rise to a brief debate,
but was finally adopted, with but few dissenting
votes.
That is the way to treat Abolitionism when
ever it presents itself—calmly, but with a firm
ness that cannot be misunderstood. The Old
School Assembly deserves credit. They
might perhaps bave gone one step further,
and declined to send any delegate.
Th» State Road.—We have received two
letters from gentlemen travelling in the inte
rior, on ihe condition and management of the
State Road. We do not reproduce ibem at
ibis time, as it is hardly necessary to do so . If
we are not much mistaken there will be many
complaints made public before the summer is
ended. — Sav. Rep.