Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 “ Bat the true barriers of our iibertv is tb’s coun try are our State Governments, and the wisest con servative P-wer ever contrived by man is th»t of which our Revolution and pr- sent Government found os p.-messed- Seven een uiatinct States amalgama ted into one as to their foreign concerns, but stogie and independent as to their internal administration. -Vol. 4; Page 162. Again he says: «• The capital and leading cb’ect of t•« Constitu tion was to leave with States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United Stales these which respected citizens of foreign or other States, to make ua several as to our selves, but one as to ail others.” —Vol. 4; Page 373. Speaking of the State and Federal Govern ments, he says: «• They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.” •« The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same Government.” “ These two sets of officers, each independent of the other, constitute thus a whole of government for t each State separately ” These prove that Jefferson did not th'nk that each State was fully sovoreif" and independent, but that the people of the United States were one sovereign people, exercising a common or national sovereignty on ® L,e ; nera* Government, for general or national pur po.e. ; .nd particular or W .overeijnty, by u many co ordinate, that i», Stat. Govern menu, for particular or State purpo.e. « 8 there are Stales. 1< •"? Con.titution, as Jeffer son rays, a m«lr®* ted the /« ver « ! S*' 9l ,nlo one State to t» 9 extent of the vested powers, then the people of this one Slate, tn their cha racter of oneness, must be either dependent cr sovereign. They are not dependent, because every dependency mu-t have a sovereign, and tbev have no sovereign, unless each 8 ate is the' sovereign of the people of the United States, as a whole, which is a proposition too absurd to be argued, and which no body as serts. The people of this one State, then, are sovereign, for the accomplishment of all the ob jects for which the Constitution made the one ; and all the sovereignty which they possess in their character of uni y, the States cannot possess in tbe:r character of severalty. To say otherwise, would be to assert that two rights adverse to each other, may exist at the same time, or that each of two authorities can, at the same time, hold sole possession of an uadi vided object. Let me now turn you attention to the au thority of a person who was once your e real Apollo. But 1 will first ®My, that for the pur pose of weakening the authori-y of Jackson, it has been recently sa d that he issued two proclamations, taking back iu the second the principles which he had issued in the first. You and I know this is not true. My recol lection is, that there was an article published in the newspap re which was said to be au thorized by the President, and that its object was to explain some parts of the proclamation supposed to be arsonierstood or misrepre sented. No one can believe that a Statesman of Jackson's age and character, would, in a solemn proclamation, discuss the fundamental principles of the Uni 'D, and then change his opinions in a few weeks. In the proclamation it is said: ‘•The States severally have not retained their en tire sovereignty. It has been shown tbit in becom ing parts of a netior, not members of a league they surrendered many of their ess*Dtial rights of sove reigntv. The right to make treaties—declare war — levy taxes —exercise exclusive judicial and legisla tive powers— a ere allot them functions of sovereign power. The States then for ell these important pur poses were no longer sovereign.” u How then can that Slate be said to be sovereign and independent, whree citizens owe obedience to laws not mide by it, and whose magistrates are sw>>rn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with those passed by another. What shows conclusively that the State cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they ex pressly ceded the right to punish treason; not trea son against their ae t arate power, but .raason against the United States. Treason is an offence against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it.” “In support of Jackson's opinion, I will refer you to the oath of allegiance prescribed to the officer® ano soldiers of the army in 1802, under the sanction of Jefferson : “I A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will tear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will verve them honestly and faithfully against their enemies or whom soever.” Allegiance is due to sovereignty, and if the United Stares as a whole are not a sovereign power, men the Btam*men of .hose days cotn tnit ed a gross blunder, when they pul the army under au oa’h of allegiance to sovereign ty that had no existence. This for n of lhe oath has been changed, to the present form to support the Constitution, which is more plain and comprehensible to common minds. The oath to •opport tbe Conslitu ion, plain as it seems to be, has rec ived a modern con stroction. In the opinion of the Secession par ty, when a citizen swea-s that he will support the Constitution of the United States the oath means that he must suppor it so long as it ne * no support 4 but il lhe State, (provided it Ik South of aud Dixon’s line) pro posv, to overturn it, he must help her do it. One of the Popes of Rome, in olden lime, claimed it as being his right and io his power, to release a mao from the obligations of an eatb; indeed, from any moral onhgati n ; and what was called an Indulgence was Ireq ien'iy issued to authorize a person to commit mur der or any crime, without sin or incurring moral guilt. So, according to the doctrine of the Secee-rion party, a State can, in the exer cise of her sovereign po.ver, release a citizen from bis oath lo sapport the Constitution, and grant him an Indulgence to commit treason against the nation without gu It. The condi tion on which the Pope granted his Indul gence, was a good round »um of monty ; the condition on which the sovereignty of a State may grant this la .ulgence, is Secession from the Union. I now come to the internal evidences of the Constitution by which lam to establish my propu<«niu(>, WUMA 1«, Uiai uie 3iaic» severally are not fully soverei o, nut that <he S'ates in their united Chirac er constitute a nation which is sovereign to the fall extent of the delegated powers. What is the difference between a federal Union and a national Vattol in his work on the law of nations says, that seven! •oveieign nations or Slates may unite under one common Government, each retaining al! its sovereignty, and then they form a federal republic. But it is e a sential to the eiiitenc® of each a republic, that each Sta’e retain ail her sovereignty and that the common authority hold each, a® a sovereign, responsible forth i faithful observance of the compact of uni *n ani observance •<* the laws, and nut individ uals But when the compact of unianis such that it establishes a common authority, which is made supreme iu every SlMe, ard holds in dividuals and not Slates, reeponrble for ’he observance of tbe compact aud obedience to the law, wi-h power to enforce obedience in cespite cf S'ate authority, and to punish citi sens of every SiMe lor treason agairiNt itself, then the union k na ional and not federal In a federal Union, the Government is one of severe gn Siaie®, each acting iu her sovereign capacity. Iu a national Union the Govern ment is a Government of tbe people, wherein bo Sta’e acts in her capaci y of sovereign. Treason is a crime which can he committed against sovereign authority on'y; but treason •an be committed against the United State® ; therefore the United Slates must possess sove reign authority. The Constitution authorizes foreigner® to be oalurslißed under the law of 1802 which re ceived the eanotion ofjtflarson A foreigner, who emigrated to one of our territories, might then be naturalized without ever having put his foo*. in any one State. He would re nounce the paramount allegiance which he •wed Co his natural sovereign, and transfer it to tha United State® ;ha take® the oath ol alle giance lothem ; paramount allegiance can be doe to sovereign authority only. This para mouit allegiance must be due to the United State- as a nation, or it must be due to them severally. It cannot be due to them eeverally, because he is not a citizen of any State and none but a citizen of a State can owe allegi ance to that State. It is impossible that para mee«4 allegiance can be due to more than one sovereign at the same time. There mav be an inferior allegiance, such an in feudal times the tenant owed to hi® itmr ediate lord, while paramount allegiance was due to the king There may be divided allegiance; such acm Ben of a Blate owe® to the reserved sove reignty of hie State aud to the vented lore roignty of tbe United States, but paramount allegiance cannot be due to two or more co equal sovereigns possewing the tame attri butes of sovereignty. Paramount allegiance mean® tha highest allegiance: now, paramount allegiance cannot be due to Georgia and to each of the other States at the same time by the fore : grer. To say so would be to say, that It ere ia an all* glance which is higher than that which is highest, which is absurd This r ore’*ner, tuereloie. must owe al.egiance to the United States as aeuvereign ua.ion. The same may be »a<d ol the Mexicans, who ii hab.t New Mexico, and who were made citizens of the United States, by the treaty with Mexico They are not cit aens of any one Bute ; they have never been in any State ; they owe to no individ ual State; yet they are citisen®of the Unfed States, and owe allegiance to some sovereign Power; and a® that Power canuot be any one Slate, it must be ail the State® in their nauona' ■Bit). li Mr. Jefferson wa« not ritht. when he •aid that lhe Couautu ion ama'gamaied the S’B e® into one State for certain objects; f the United States be not a sovereign na: on to the extent that they were thus amalgama*ed ; then, 1 a.«k you. in what condition are the peo ple of the D strict ot Columbia? They owe no allegiance to lhe District; that is not eovemgn; they owe n.v allegiance to the government; that i® but the agent us a sov •reign; they owe no aileg’snee to any State ; they are etna n® of no individual State; are they a nou-deacripl claw of people; citizens without a country—sutjecta wi host a ®ove- ia .be itcood article of the Artklee of Ceofederauor, it ie dechred mat each S:a<e r«ta>M all na aorereifoiy, and all powers coi delegated; but in the Coomtuuon it i, not provided tha each State retains all her aove reigni,. while it is provided that a!l powers not delegated, are reserved to lhe Slat's Wbjdid the Convention insert the one and act the other ta tie Constitution f The answer >a plain: th?y did no: it tend that a State should retain all her sovereignty, but did intend that the powers not delegated aheuld be reserved. I think it bas been abundantly proven, that a State ss rot luily .overeign s but dial the United States are a KaUon. sovereign to the •iteut of tbe vested powers and tber.f re th. doctrine of the right of seeeaaon by virtue of undivided eov.reignty is no; tree. Lot bi now turn more directly to tbe Joe trio, of sreassvea The hts'enaa to wnom 1 have repeatedly referred, says it was a< ved aths New York Convention. •• Thai there .Kiild be reserved to the Si •of New York, a right io -z’i.'Adrure tron tbe V.roa. slier a certain number oi y era, ■ ihe amtndmrn'e |rvp»ei • ould previous'v been tit tsd to ■g. ser. I G u.snnon. Th • sweon, ho. er waaoes. ... (VuL Z. p. 281.] Tfcb urjeratieo u .trrsauutiis, that the > I York Convention did not thir-k a State had a ■ right to secede, and did not wish i* to have. One of the resolutions of the Nashville Con vention ia as follows : “ Resolved, That the Union cf the States is a union of equal anl independent aovereign'ies, and that the powers delegated to the Federal Govern ment, te resumed by the sev ral States, when ever it may seeui to them proper and necessary. You assert the same doctrine »« your recent letters; but Mr. Ca'houn, in a speech de leer ed by him in the Senate, said that ‘•Such resumption “V. *com“unily ‘ ili — indi ’ idu ally.” You and the Nashville Convention say tba» a 8 ate ha« a right lo r « 9 ume the delegated ert Mr. Calhoun says this would be a bJeTch of her compact; then putting your doctrines together, and we have the novel principle asserted that a State has a right to viola e her compact Gen. Jackson, tn my opinion, takes the correct view of this subject; in his Proclamation he says : “ The Constitution cf the United States then, formsa Government, no. a league, and whet er it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a Government in whhhali the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States—t »ey retained all the powers they did nut gra-.t. But each State having express ly parted with so many powers aa to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot irorn that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the con travention of a compact, but it is an offence against ■he whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure sece Je from the Union, is to say that the United Stat-a are not a Nation ; because it would be i solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve i s connexion with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing an offence. Se cession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression ; to call it a Constitutional right, is confoun ling the meaning of terms, and can oily be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would paua; before th*y make a revolution or incur the penalties consequent ou a failure.” “ Men of the best intentions and soundest view? may differ in their construction of some parts of the Consti uikn; but there are others cn which dis posal naio reflect! >n can leave no doubt. Os this nature appears to ba the assumed right of secession. It rests as we have seen, on'he alleged undivided sovereignty of a State, and on their having fort ed in the r sovereign capacity, a com r act which is cal ed the Constitution, from which because they mide it, they have the right to recede. Both of these posi tions are erroneous.” This was Jackson’s opinion. Your opinion, as expressed in your letter of tbe 3d July last, to Cantrell, is juat tbe reverse. You say, M A State, then, in my j idgment, has the right to secede from the Union. Tha people of the seceding State alone, in their sovereign capacity, have the right to determine on the ne .easily of its exercise.” In that same letter you say : “ Tbe States nor the people thereof, no where re nounced the right of re assuming lhe portions of their sovereignty which they had con ce i«d in the Consti tution, whenever the conditions o' the giant were broken, ot wh ; ch they had not paxted with the right to judge for themselves.” And again, in that letter, you say that by virtue of this right of Secession, tbe people of a State— “ May, in their sovereign capacity, depart in pea*e, without revolution, without war, without the shedding of blood.” Putting al) your doctrines together, I mean yours and those o' your party, including Mr. Calhoun, and we find the following principles asserted, to wit: lat. A sovereign Sta;e has the right to violate the compact. You say a State ba® tha right to secede ; and Mr. Calhoun says it would be a breach cf her compact 2d. When two or more parties eater into a com pact, an u one party has 'be right input his construc tion ujon it, and decide when it is I Token; and his judg’’ ent is conclusive upon all the ot ler parlies. 3d. If a party voluntarily enter into a compact, he has the right to withdraw from it at pleasure, and as a consequence of this principle, if he entered into the compact under duress, he is bound by it. 4th. A S.ate, by virtue of her sovereignty, may ov-inurn th® Government without revolution. s<h. When a party enters into a contract by which he conveys away a r-ght, he can resume it without regardto the other party, provided there is no express agreement that he shall not resume. 6th. Two parties can noten’er iotoa compact that shall perpetually hind them unless it is expressly agree I that it shall. This i®. certain y, a new law of contract. It has long been a part of international law, that when two sovereign St®te® or rations, enter into a compact, it is perpetually binding on both, unless its duration is limited by i;s terms: for example, if two naiions enter into a treatv by which it is agreed that the goods, wares and merchandise of either shall be received in’o lhe port® of the other on terms of the most fa vored nations, this treaty would bind both par lies without limitation of time, if there is no thing in i s terms to limit it. There is not iing in the con®tituiional compact which limits it® dura’ion. it is t erelore binding without bmita uon of time. The title of lhe Articles of Con federation is in these words : “ Articlbbof Confederation aid Perpetual Uniob.” In the 13. h article it is declared that— “Tbe Union shall be Perpetual.” And io lhe ratifying pan, each State did solemnly plight and engage her fai’h, “That the Union shall bs Perpetual.” You will observe that thi® perpe uity is guarantied to the Union, not to lhe Confe iera .ion; that might be dissolved, but the Union continue under some new ties. The preamble tolhe Cons’iiution ia in these words, to wit: 11 We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more ;<erleot Union, er.al libh justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote 'be general welfare, and secure the bles erdain awd eeraWieh this Conwrfttttton fortbfl ffßlltW" States of America.” The first object proposed is to form a more perfect Union. Now, er, let me candidly ask you, do you believe (hat the wise men who made and adopted lhe Constitution, could think that they would form a more perfect Union by substituting a contingent Union un der the Constitution for the perpetuity of the confederation, by releasing each Siate from her pledge of faith to maintain a perpetual Union, and leaving her nt liberty to secede at p'easure givirg u d fit I may so speaks a foe simple title to the Union for a tenure at will ? It ia not expressly declared inthe Consti’u lion that the compact whali perpctuall/ bind the parties, but internal onal law sa« s so. At.d moreover, such a declaration would have been out of place, a-the Union which was formed i® I’Biioual, and c*nnot be dissolved but by rev »- Uon. which bids defiance to Constitutions and Government®. I aiu sure you will noc admit the proposition that one S a’c may rig ifully be expelled from lhe Union against her wil , by the other State® at their pleasure. Yet there i® no difference in principle between this proposition and yours, that one State st pleasure may secede from the other® against their will. If one S:ate has a right thus to secede from thirty, the®e must have the same right to secede from her, unless lhe sovereignty of one Stale is superior to tho sovereignty of thirty ; or unless one parly to a compact has m re right to judge of it than thirty hive; or unless a S;a’e, when she acta singly, ha® rights which she Insea by acting iu concert with others, which last position you will not asHume. a® you are inclined to a South ern Coi feueracy, which cannot be effected wi.hout ac ncert he ween n t e Southern States to secede from the Northern. The Union party admit that a State may se cede, but m t upon constitutional principle®. Secession is rev lution, and can be justified upon those principles on’y which justify revo lution. If a State secede, she throws off con stitutional restraini® aud acts in defiance of it® requirement®. She contends that those wh’’ were as much under constitutional obligations as she, have violated them ; that wrongs have been itifl cted on her by them, which abrogate the Cvnstrution, and throw her back not up on sovereignty, but upon lhe natural, able right® of man She doe® not prerend that in seceding, she rets in accordance with the Constitution, but in disregard of a brokt n com pact. The Constitution ha® nothing tn it which provides for it® uwn over hrow. Ii does not provide for the secession of a State from the Union, but does provide for lhe admission of one into it. Wi.atwa® intended, is provided tor; what wh® not in ended, is not provided for. You conten i that secession is not revolution; that a State may *• depart in peace ” at her pleasure, without violating an- provision ot he Constitu ion. You were President of the Nashville Convention and appoved its proceed mgs. What plan aid this Convention propose lor secession withoot violating the Cons ru lion T That tbe Sou hern Slates should meet iu Congress aud agree to form a Southern Con federacy, or enter i:. to some other compact wiib each other I® that ia accordance with that provision in the Constitution, which says “ No Stale shall enter into any agreement or com ; act wi h another Siate,” without the const nt ol Congress T Aud by vir’ue of whu authority are these things to be done ? By virtue of sovereignty ! '1 hat eminent writer. Vatrel,de fine® a vereignty to be public authority; but with your tarty, the word has a CMballistic uiesmng; or >ather it i® a Delphic Orach, which mean® whatever is des red. And among other things, h mean* that if Sist® sovereignty is thrown over the people, they can make war, or do anything else against th® United States, without persona re>p-H:sibiii’y. In the hand® ot the s cession par’y. State so vereignty is “a matked battery,” behind which disunionists may standard t.re at the Palladium of our libett es, as Wast ington calls tbe Umon In the hands of the Union party. S.ate sover e;gn y ie a political sanctuary, belore which patriots® and to deiei d it. Let me now present the subject to you in another view. I offer the 'ohuwiug proposi tion fur your considers ion : Ist I’poa whaterer principle any one Sta'e may rigbtfa’ly secede from the Uckyq ; upon that same pi me-pie every other Stats may nyhifui'y secede. <d. It upon tbe principle propreed, every State cannot rightfully recede, then no one Scats can rightfully secede. You must admit these propositions, or deny the co-tq allity of the States. Your o.oc nne is that a State can. at any nme, resuue rhe powers delegaied to the United States ; that she is fully sovereign, and by virtue of tha’ full sovereignty, has a rift: io secede from the Union at pleasure. I think it can be demonscrated. that none of the oew Sta es. which were formed out ot lhe Terri one® can possibly secece upon these principle*. Florida is one us the new St t*s. aud before she was a Stare, she wa® a depea dem Territory- She could not make law® tor her own government, except so far as Con ere®-* gave audxnty ; and these laws, wbeu ma • w ®re inoperaure nd Congress approv * 1 s*°* I he u. a»a Terriior*. Florida pos ****ES?° at ail. Wh-n she • for .d mw ., u 0 Cnwrew could bavt «od k.p< a „ 1O , L . ril orlal eo „ d „ t.on o Hbyibc to soveraigmy up th . aiomeDl of h«r aJamioa, .bo couid del.g.i, Boat . tori: wm u japosoibinty for tier u> d.i.g.t. Uxu wcca «ko did bm f)— There are no powers «>-»'ed in the United States which Florida can returns, for she pos Besses at this moment all the powers, which she ever did possess; and it ia au mposs’bili tv to resume a thing which she never had lhe possession of, nor even the right of possession She does nnt now, a*?d never did possess the power to declare war ; make treaties, coin money, and so on The powers which the old States reserved, were vested in Florida when ihe became a State ; and the powers which the old States delegated to the United Stars are withheld from her to tiiis day; indeed, there is no authority upon earth to invest her with the possession of these powers without revolution. It folio ws, therefore, that she is not now, as she never was, fully sove reign It is impossible, then, that she can rightfully secede from the Union, by virtue of sovereignty, which she does not, and never did possess. What has been said of Florida is equally applicab'e to every other State which was formed from a Territory. Then, as no new Sta’e formed out of a Territory, can take from the United States any power vested in them, neither can any one of me old States do it. Aa none of these new States can, in the exercise of full sovereignty, secede from lhe Union; neithercan an old State do it. Your docrine of secession, therefore, cannot be true. According to ons of my propositions, the orinciple upon which one State may rightfully secede, every other State may secede. The right to resist oppression, and defend our own, belongs to every community. The new States possess this right in as fu 1 perfection as the eld States do, and in the exercise of this righ’, (which when politically applied is some times called the right of revolution) every State may secede. Therefore the doctrine of the Union party must be true. There is a common error that the Govern ment of the United States, is the agent of the States severally; whereas, it is the agent of the nation, that is, of that “one State” into which Jefferson says the Constitution amalga mated all the States for certain purposes. That agent has been invested with powers by the common consent of all the Sta’e®, and of which no one State can direst it; and has du tie* to perform which it cannot decline Bat leaving the Government out of view, and arguing the case upon your own doctrine, it is easy to show, that you lav down a proposi lion, and then contradict it by the conclusion Your proposition is, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions that in cases ol compact “among parties having no common j »dge, each has an rq :al right to judg* for itself, as well of infractions as the mode and measure of redress.” Your conclusion is, that if o”e party does judge, lhe judgment is final and conclude upon all other parlies: for .instance, if South Carolina should say to the other States, you have broken the Consiitutional compact. Your proposition admits, but your conclusion denies, to the other Stales, the right to say, we have not broken the compact. If South Carolina says, in my judgment secer slon is my mode and measure of redress, and 1 will secede, then aga n, your proposition admits, but your conclusion demes to the other States the right to say ; if you attempt to secede, you will violate your compact with us, to our injury, perhaps lo our ruin ; there fore, we will compel you to keep your com pact. That I have given lhe true construe tionto the Kentucky resolutions, above quoted, which was drawn by Jefferson, may be in ferred from this, that in his letter to E. Car rington, he says, “when two parties make a compact, the e results each a power of compelling the ether to execute it.” This is the right of wit protection, which extends beyond So far did Pres dent Monroe extend this right, that he announced to the world, that no European monarch would be permitted to esiaolish acu ony upon the American Continent, because such a monarch! cal establishment might endanger our Repub lican institutions. I believe it has long been determined in the minds end feeling* ol ihe American people, padicularly of the Sou hern oeople, not to permit Spain tosed? Cuba to any natio i pos seFs ng a strong Naval force : and especially to Great Britain. The proximity of Cuba to the Southern States ; its commanding position ; the existence of slavery there, and the aboli tion propensities of Britain; would make the possession of that island by a nation, eo pow erful upon the land and the seas, menacing to the Union, and eminently perJous to the South. If the great law of self-preservation would justify un in taking such a position, would it not a'so justify the Union in resisting the secession of a State, However sovereign a Sia e msy bn. Spain and Britain are no less sovereign. Would the cession oi Cuba imperil the Union more than rhe secessi >n of a State ? Tenne«- see is in the bosom of the Republic, if she were to secede, many evils, known and un known, would result to th** co-States. Sho iivght then erect a throne and phee a monarch upon it; an imperium tn imperio. Would this not be more perilous to our republican institutions, than a monarchical colony one or •wo thousand miles off? If Alabama and Louisiana secede, then as foreign nations, they would command the mouth of the Mis siauppi. the great artery of the West, and ih? only outlet to the oceau for her vast commerce. Would not this endanger the Western Slates in the great vail y of the Mississippi, more than the possession of Cuba by a fore'gn na tion I If Alabama and Georgia secede ; then Florida would be geographically separated Nome huu Ireda of miles, from the Union with which she is polit cally united. Must Florina and her sister States subni ssively fold their arms, and say. Thy will be done, O, thou Sovereigns ! If South Carolina secede, then -<he might, (rs some of the people there have already intimated) throw herself into the arms of Great Britain In that event, we might soon see British cannon planted upon 'he hill at Hamburg, and pointed at Augusta ; while the lone Star of ‘he State dimly beamed l .u - «iue. periiuuß, oenea i» •nu ’' CbtrM the American Eagle en(fure fKe-stgTHTn peace f Woo d the people of Georgia have no right to resist the display of a foreign upon the banki of the Savannah ? The right of a State lo recede by virtue of her sovereignty, is no belter right than an in habitant of a city has to burn bis house, by virtue of his fee simple title lo it. And the right of the United Sidles to present lhe Sec* a.«ion of a State, is rhe same which the o her nhabitants o r the city have to prev. nt the incendiary from oeuing fire to his house, and •hereby wrap (heir own in flames If the doctrine of Secession is carried into practice it is ru nous, and i " then y is dan gerous. It teaches that the United Stites are ■o many countries united under a league, that there is no common authority to which all lhe people owe allegiance, hut a State is fully sovereign io which the ci'izens owe undivided, paramount allegiance. The man who hjlds •his doctrine may feel very patriotic towards his own Sta’e, but his pitnotism cannot em brace the Un on Patriotism is lhe love of one’s country, and he cannot look upon the United Slates as his country, who does not believe that they constitute a country or na tion, nor upon the people as his countrymen who owe no allegiance to his country. He ran feel, therefore, no patriotism for the Union no fraternal sympathy for the people. What has b^er, the efT.-.ct of this doctrine upon South Carolina! Laying aside her in terrst real or supposed, her feeling for the Southern Slates is cold as Parian marble, and for the Northern, colder than an iceberg; bu’ fur her sovereign self, warmer than the sun that shines» pon her. These States cannot be held together by ar i les and navies nor by the moral obligation of observing compacts. The enduring ties of ths Union are interest and patrio i«m. Your doctrino breaks 'he tie of patriotism and makes that of interest insecure- If a man of the Secession party and a man of lhe Union par y were to stand together up on a mountain height in Georgia, the former migh say in accordance with his doctrine, See Tennessee »n the North and Florida iu the South, the Sasannah in the East and the Chatahoocbee m the West, these are the boundaries of my country. The States be 'ondare no part ol mv country, nor are the people thereof my countrymen. Tha Un on man, in accordance wi h his doctrine might reply if you wish to see the boundaries of my country, behold the Cana dian Lakes in lhe North, and the gu f ot Mexico in the South, the A lantic ocean in the East, and lhe Pacific in lhe Wes . Wnbin these vast limits, the wide spread valleys, the everlasting hills, the cloud capped mountains, every fool of land and of wa'er is a pin of my country, and all the mil'ions of peop'e •‘woo walk beneath the tky ot Franklin, upon ’he land of Washington” are my courtrytnen. If ever 1 raise my arm to strike down the Star Spangled banner encircled ia all the gio rios of the Union, it will b* when the gloomy alternative is presented me, of suffering the Star of Georgia to besuuk in degradation and darkness, or to shine lonely in its own firma ment. Examin xr. Revolution In Mexico. The Galveston News of the 29 h ult. after givirg some items of Mexican news says: Dr. J. B. Miller, who came pas-enger cn the Uncle Bill, informs us that lhe news of a general revolutionary outbreak in the States of Tamau’ipas and Nt-w Leon was hourly looked for when he lei*. Brownsville, and that .he m-n who were concentrated near Rio Grande Cin were reported to be principally Rangers, who wera a: ached to the companies that were recently disbanded on our Western frontier. Os these th<*re were near 200 enrolled under the command of Carabsjal. who were only await ing the proper fme to cross the river and participate in the revolutionary movement. I' appears that no o her Mexican State than the two already mentioned was expected to engage in ibis revolution ; but every confi dence was entertained that they would succeed to the fullest extent of their purpose, wuh little or no resistance on the part of the Federal troops In fact, if resistance were made, their numerical strength was so insignificant, and they were posted at points so widely asunder, that to accomptiM) iheir defeat was consid' sred nothing more than mere “child’s play.” This movement has been designed for some tine, which we have before givee lutimalion us, ard ail that has delayed a dsmoustation un’il now was a determination on tne part of re prime movers not •*> attempt a revolution without being fully prepared to consummate it. From ail that we can ga her, the p’ans of ope ration have been well concocted by able military men and staunch patriots ; and if what is said io relation io the preparations ot the revolutionists, iheir strength, &c.. be only naif correct, there can be ben lit ie doubt of their success. From the informs ion we first received of ths purposed revolution, we were of the opi nion that it would stand a bet Her chance of a favorable cosciueion to me revolung party, han any of tne puerile and ill timed attempts o revolutionize wh.ch had previously been made in that quarter. That upinicn was oased upon the isc: that they were, for the first t.me, deliberately and judiciously project in* their p'ans of operation, without any in tention of going precipitately to work, before everything was arranged for that purpose. We ax enow mere strong iy impressed wuh abe lief in the success cf the movement than we were before, from the suggestions that are con fidently made that the Texas Ringers, who were recently disbanded, hive enlisted in the cause. We are personally requainted with many of those gal ant young men, and know that they are the very “boys” for such an ad venture. All that will be necessary to ensure success to the revolutionists, with such reliable auxiliaries as Texas Rangers are. will ba deter mination of purpose, concert of ac*ion, and, above all, rigid fidelity in every instance and under all circums ances to their chivalrous allies. We have not learned who &ll ‘he principal leaders in this movement are; but the name of Gov. Cardenas, of Tamiulipas. occupies a conspicuous place in the list, which is suffi cient to give character lo ihu enterprise. By the next arrival from the West we shall expect something more definite. THE WEEKH CIIROMCLE & SENTINEL BY WILLIAM S. JONEF. TWO DOLLARS P Kll ANNUM, INVARIABLY IN ADVASCI. DAILY, TRI-WEEKLY dt WEEKLY. Officein Railroad Dank Building,. DAILY PARER.perannum (i.nlb, mail,) •’ DC TRI WEEKLY " “ 40“ WEEKLY PAPER “ a 01> AUGUSTA, GA.-" WEDNESDAY MO LINING, ■■ SE FT, 10. SAMVEL BARNETT, Aasoclate Editor. Cott.titutlonal Union Nomination. FOR GOVERNOR. IION- HOWELL COBB CONGRESS For Representative from Bth. District i HON. UP BERT TOOMBS. Mr. Toombs’ Appoiwtmxhts. —The Hon. Rubxrt Toombs will address toe peoph as folio m; At C vington, Faiday Sept. 12. “ Atlaßta. HqxMhy n gkt, sept. 8. jFarffc* Os Hullech candy m requested by Striven county to meet the Union Par ty of said county, in Convention, at No. 6, C. R. R. on WEDNESDAY, the 10th of SEPTEMBER next, for the purpose of nominating a Candidate to be run by the two Counties for Senate. At which time and place those friendly to the Union will nominate a Candidate for the Representative branch of the State Legislature for Scriven county. Come one, come all, to save the Union. Many Union Mzn. Sylvania, Scriven Co., Ga., Aug. 13. au!9-3 Union papers plesse copy. YT Free Dinner to Kir. Toombs In Burke. --Tse Constituticnal Union Party of Burke County, will give the Hou. Robs ar Toombs u Freb Barbbcuk, at B <ik Camp Cross Roads, on SATUR DAY, the 20;h insL The citizens es Jefferson, Emanuel and Burke counties are respectfully invited. As ample arrangements will be made for the accom modation of rhe Lidies the Committee heps to be honored with their presence. The Ho«i. A. H. Stzpbens,Charles J. Jenkins, Gbo. W. Cbawpjrp, and A. J, Miller, are expected to be present. 53” The Commute invite Free disouseion. James A. McGruder, Wright Murphree, Wm. C. Musgrove, Calvin McCullers, George Price. R W. Belt, Henry W. Jones, Wm. NNSWorthy, Jeremiah Inman, R >bert F. Connelly, Th >mas Peirce, He.iry P Jones, Jams-* Gnffin Horman WiLiams. T. A. Parsuus, Committee. JjpWe are requested to s’.ate that ANDREW J. MILLER, Esq., will address the ci'izens of Co lumbia county, at Appling, on TUESDAY NEXT, the 16'h inst. Cub'Yii lutcligeuce. Knowing the doep anxiety of the public to rend every thing from Cuba, we have during the exci einent, with a view of satisfying a very natural desire, devoted much of our space to the subject of Cuban affairs. It is proper however to remark, that we place very little confidence in much that is publish J. This incredulity ie based upon the far (hat the sources of information are very r. .ertain and often unreliable, and the ev jnces so abu dant before our eyes of a A- position on the part of the Cuban sympathisers in this country, to magnify and misre; resent every thiug, as their feelings or inclinations eugges ted. Among other statements, which we regard as fabulous, are those in reference to the pris oners taken with Lt fez— -one saying they were condemned to ’he Spanish Mines for life, or a term of years, and another that they hai been executed. Our reason for disbelieving both these statements is the fact that the Capt. General of Cuba published over his own sig &&Ii August, a Proclamation, of which the fU* luwin? is a correct translation. Now if the prisoners were captured on the 29th, they could not be either executed or sen lo lhe mines without the perpetration of the most perfidious and degrading fraud imagina ble. We are therefore of opinion that they have not only not been executed or condemned to service in the mines of Spain but that they will be returned »o this country. The Prods mation is in thene words : “His Excellency proc'aims that the major part o the pirates who had invaded the Island, uaviDß been ez’eiinmate I through cha repeated and valiant hh aaulis us th® army, an well as through the deeded and active co-o eration of the country peopla; and consideiing, liacwiae, that by th) unanimous confes sion of all t oae who bad been taken and shot, they had been deluded and deceived i.i being made to believe thar the country had called for them, th if lhe army would make common ca tee with them, and that victory would be easy and certa.n; feeing of opin on too, that in noothar mode could he mul ritrde have been induc’d t embark in this enter prise, and furthermore, that public vengence been satisfied by the severe punishments already inflicted, and that buinioi y now requires an exhi bition of clemency—it is decreed: “ st. That quarter will be grin'ed to any indi vidual balo-ging to tne band of L p®z, who may aur tender or ue ap; rehended by the army or the conn try people, within the pace of Cur days following the promulga'i n of this j rociamaiijn— after which the general order of the 20th Ajr:l last will remain in full fores and vigoi. “2d. Any such individual, or individuals, who may be attached to the band of the madman Lop z, will be exempt from all punishment and will ba re stored lo their country—if a foreigner.” Miaatsstppi--The First Gan. By telegraph c >the Charleston Courier, we have returns of it e election he'd in Mississippi on Monday and uesday last. Ist and 21 inst., for members of the Sta’e Convention from thirty-six couutis —two thirds of the State— which show the following gratifying resu't. The thirty six counties e ect 71 delegates, of theae G 4 are Constitutional Union men, and 7 are ° Disunionists.” “ Secdss : onistn” or” Fire Eate s.” This renders it certain that the Union party have carried the State by an overwhel miog majority, and that Mr. Rhett's bug'e man, Quitman, will be in a hopeless minority in lhe contest with Foote for Governor of that State. This is glory enough for one day. The Union men of Mirs., adopted tbe Geor gia Platform and maintained their position thereon mor gai'an ly, while the Disunionists, like their allies in Georgia, were for any thing, every thing and nothing long They could not deceive lhe intelligent and patriot.c voters of that State. Ihe iseues therefore were precise ly tbe same as those now before the people in Georgia, and lhe result in this State will be quite as overwhelming to the disorganiser* and agitators. Georgians, the whole country looks to you to respond in the angusge ot Freeman and as becomes you, to your daughters, Ala bama and Mississippi. We are iod-bted to our much esteemed friend, that sterling old Patriot, Judge John Moore, formerly of Lexiog on. Geo., for the following details of the result in Lowndes Co. which, we judge from lhe letter accompany ing it. filled lhe gallant old republican’s I eart to overflowing. He is always to 5a found on the side of .iberty aud the Constitution. L9ng life to mm. and may an all w se Provi dence vouchsafe that the evening of bis well spent life may be as brilliant as his early man hood was d s i.iguished for devotion to the institu..ons secured by the blood and treasure of his revolutionary sires. Four of the candidates Cobb, Billups, Harris and Youso. will be recognised as Georgians, formerly from Oglethorpe and Wilkes Couaties • Joseph B. Cobb, Union, 744 Tho.uasC Bliiaps, “ 741 Barksdale, “ 741 W. L. Harris, Secessionist, 569 Geo. H. Yonng, •• 523 ■ ■' Wynne. •• 554 Tb s election will produce a greater num- ber ot converts from the secession ranks in that State, to the cause of Union, than all the arguments that could hav s been addressed to them. Tbe most rab»d fireeaters of a few months ago will now adect to become tbe most ardent friends of the Union, but they cannot gammon tne people. They bave seen iheir tracks and will repudiate them and their principles as enemies to the government of their fathers, and therefore unworthy io be trusted. Sentenced to be hums.—Jas. A. Jobsson, a youth, was found guilty of murder at the late session of lhe Snoerior Court ia Baldwin county, and sentenced to be hung oa the 24. n October next. Col. Henry L. Benning. This gentleman has been nominated, and has accepted the nomination of lhe Disunion ists of tbe third district, as their candidate for Congress. In announcing his nomination, we took occasion to allude to his advocaey, last year, of Disunion and a southern Confederacy, and to express the opinion, that unless we were mistaken inthe man, he would notnow dis avow those That he continues to avow tfaoin, ws haveabundant evidence from lhe no ices of his speeches before the people of that d net, b?ine extracts from which we propose to auhju’n, with such comments as we deem ne cessary. In a recent speech at Lumpkin, Stuart county, says the correspondent of the Columbus Enquirer: “Col. Benning commenced hia by asserting that the questions wh ch are now be ore the people are not the same questions that were before tin in last year. Thai he w.ia member of tbe Nishville Con vention and recommended tbe holding of a Southern Congress, and that if j t had met, and he had been a member of it, h*' wqql.j have advised the formation oi a Southern ConLderacy. He id not stale that he abandoned this idea yet, but said that he was upon the Georf»ia;platf ojrft - > it being the will of a ma j rity of the pe< p’.e last year,—and be felt hirmolf bound by that will, until— I suppose—he could change it. He considered the Adjustment measures of Con gress more unjust than the dumemoerment an 1 pani lion of Poland by the combined powers of Austria, Prussia and Ruasif That in 1843 he supported Gen. Cass upm th® no i-intervint on principle, and voted for him in tbe B< Itimore nominating Conven ioo, and approved of ibe Resolutions of that Con vention He denounced tbe Georgia Platform, as ’ eing coinmil ted to disunion up >n certain contingen cies, which would inevitably happen in the course us two or three years, one of which-the rep al of 'be Fugitive slave bill -he rid not consider a practi cal question, and that tbe Southern Atlantic S ares were not as much inreres’ed in its pr servati n as the bordering slave States, and that it was of no benefit to us I He said »hat Cuba would soon tpp’y for admis sion into the Union, and that to refuse tier application would be sufficient cause for disunion, according to the Resolutions of <he Georgia Convention. This is a pregnant paragraph. He adm ; ts that he favored a southern Congress, designed to estaoush a southern Confederacy, and on a former occasion end perhaps on thb, he also declared himself in favor of obliterating all State lines and establishing a grand consolidated government! as better calculated to subserve 'he rigbta/mterests and liberties of the people confederacy of States And this is the J&iididate of the ptfly who de- ptfty the Warty: When will wonders the hiato of disunionists of Georgiaf Nor did ne'biisavnw that he still favored the establish ment of his grand consolidated southern Con federacy. He had the cool effrontery to deciare also that be was on the Qeorgia platform, and yet denounced the compromise as “mere unjuit than tbe dismemberment of Poland, by the combined powers of Austria, Prussia and Rue via.” What a servile suomiasionist Col Bin ning must be, to take bis position on the Geor gia platform, which declares that the State can acquiesce in the compromise, (a measure which he regards unjust and monstrous) wi*hout dishonor. Col. B. had forgotten doubtless that the Convention that nominated him, resolved lo acquiesce io tbe compromise until it could be chaaged, and that tn his letter ot acceptance he apprmed aid endorsed that resolution. This is rhe position which ho oc cupies on the Georgia Platform. He was for non interventiou iu 1843, and supported Gen. Casi, upon that principle, and uow that he his obtained non intervention in ibe adjustment, he is not satisfied. He was a zeaLus advocate of lhe Clayton Compromise, and with his party denounced ail who opposed it as uneouud on ;he slavery question, and yet he opposes the present compromise. We suppose he was i r t<orant of the consequence ol bis own policy. What a sagacious, far •euing statesman! Notwithstand.ng he i« on the Georgia plat form he denounces it because it pledges lhe State to disunion, if the Fugitive law be repealed or essentially modified - Not as frank and manly as bis friends Col. Stell and Barksdale, who would vote for its repeal, yet he considers it not a practical question, and •he Southern A lantic Sta’es not much inter ested in :t; heuce we suppose t e would be pite inaiflerent on tbe subject of i s repeal How very consistent! I revious to the ad jastment, the absence of such a law was one us the principal causes of grievance with lhe vouthern and the refusal to enact it by Congress, in their opinion, would be good Ciuse for disunion ; and now they have got it, its repeal will be a ma ter of little conse quence. Another cause of objection to tha Platform w is, that the refusal to admit a State m'n the Union because of tha institution of Slavery, was a contingency fur disunion, h'traogo ti.at sue > objections shou d come from a man who only lav: year favored disunion and a southern Confederacy, and does not now disa vow his predilect’on for the latter and asa conse quence the former. Verily, Air Benninb oc cupies a distinguished position on the Georgia Platform. “ He asserted tha' the Proclamation of 1832 was written by Edward Livingston, and that Gen Jack son signed it as President without ever having read it —or knowing what was in it, and tbit he after wards repudiated it. This was a very severe reflec tion upon the sagaci'V, integrity and r atriotism of Gen. Jackson. >uch a charge is win’ing in every es-’en ial requisite cf truth to give it validity, —for certainly a tn in must be very crelu’ous and enter tain but a very poor opinion of Gen Jickson, who can be made to believe, by bare assertion, that the old Hero would have subscri *ed his Exec utive document of such tremendo; s const q ienees without h ving read it, or understandim? whit was n it—it being undoubtedly 'be most important Exec t-tivedo ument that ever emanated fntn an adtoinij 'ration since the ' inh of this G> vernin°nt. The whole bisioiy cf Gen. Jackson’s life, from beginning to end proves conclusively the futsi'y of (ha cli irt/e. He wan equally severe upon the Democrane party ot Ga. He said that they had lor a long 'ime veers I think) known C« bb and Judge Lumpkin, to be tinctured with tree soiii m and that the Chero kee country was no as sound upon this subject as -he might be. This was a hard lick upon the old Jetnocrats who had supper ted Cobb aud I umnkin fur < ffiee, and I don: see for my life how b's Demo cratic friends here, can well digest this i»oriion of bin speech, fur it directly charged ibcm, with having knowingly and wilfullv supported and sustained a free soder. He concluded by saying that the only means of preventing South Carolina from goin? out ol the Union, was to elect McDonald Governor.” As to who wrote Geti Jackson’s Proclamation, we of course do not know, nor is it important at this p* riod of time ; it is suflioient that he ap proved and signed it, and it is not even proba ble that he did not earefu'ly scan so important a paper. But that he ever “repudiated it,” we know to be untrue, and no min is more familiar with this tact than Mr. Benning, unless he in wofuliy ignorant of a tranvacion, about which he afl~ec:s to speak so authoritatively. Gen Jackson never “repudiated' award ora sen tence contained iu that proclamation; uo far from it, ho distinctly reaffirmed it all—every word of it, not only in the pr 3 .ended “Counter in the editorial col'xnne of the Globe, but also in his mersage to Congress in which he asked for the passage of the Force Bill for which Jjht Forsyth, Sr. voted. We sp*ak advisedly, for we are aware that it has been asserted that the editorial article in the Globe of that day. which was inserted by authority, and which the disunionists for effect, call “General Jackson’s Counter Proclama tion,“ repudiated or modified the Proclama lion So far from its doing t ither. it reasserted every principle, and was only designed and intended to e&piaiti that certain pa-sages did not autnorise tbeconstruction which had been plarod upon them by certain politicians in Virginia and e’-iwnere. This was all that was intended by that editorial, and no impartial man. wi > reads it carefully, will pretend to assert that its does more, and we challenge Mr. Benning to tbe proof. We pass over 'Ge reflection cast by Mr Bbvning on the fam*_>nd iu egrity of “Old Hickory, ” sod invite lhe attention of the hardy yeo aorvo r the Cherokee counties to lhe charge a Bae against them of unsoun iness on he southern q test on. Voters ofCherocee, you owe it to y jurselves and to your section, ’.9 Bind mate yourselves against this foul asper sion cut your loyalty to the South, and you snould oot fail to overwhelm your tradu cere. Mr. Benning eoncludsd by reasserting that piece of hignly concentrated peurility, that if the people of Georgia wou d prevent South Carolina from seceding, tnev mutt elect Mr. Rhetts bogleman. Chirles J. McDonald! Thus, while Mr. Rhett and his disunion agitators and followers iu SoQ’b Caro'ina are relying open the election of McDonald to sustain that state in seceding, hie followers in Georgia have lhe cool impudence te tell tbe people, that 'he election of McDonald will prevent secession by that State f Alabama Legislature —Tne Florence Gaxetie says tbe L*g:elature of Alabama is composed in the Senate, of 24 Union men, 9 Secessionis’s; in the 63 Union men, 36 Secession's s. Majority of Union iten on joint ballot 42. This is truly a most extraordinary result un der the circ imjtances, and con:lu?iveiy illus trates the devotion of the people of Alabama to the Constitutions and Union. Had die Union party been properly organized with proper nominations, they might easily have elected a Governor, every member of Con gress and four-fifths of ’he Legislature. Thb Sugar Manufactubk —Tha Baton Rouge Advicate learns tna: a citizen of that p ace has di«eovered a new system for the manufacture of sugar, by which he can, with ordinary machinery now in use, make a sugar perfectly white. Tbe molasses, which will be in leas qualities than at present, will also be changed into tha ordinary natural syrup. Til? Issue«.--What are they! Ist. The two parties n Georgia are undeni ably at issue upon the character of the Cornyro mite measures. It may seem a work of supererogation to prove this. But in dealing with the loaders of tho Southern Rights party, there can be no such thing as a work of supererogation. The Georgia Convention, (whose platform the Union Party adopts) asserted that Georgia might “consistently with her honor, abide by the general scheme of pacification?* The Southern Kights Convention asserted that “by the acts of the late Congress, known as the Compromise measures,” the same scheme of pacification above referred to, the Sou hern States, (of which Georgia is one,) “have bean degraded from their condition of equality in the Union.” The two parties th in are strictly and tech nically at issue upon the character of the Com promise measures, if language can make an issue. 2nd. But wh le the Southern Rights party Convention—their candidate for Governor— their candidates for Congress, and their presses, join issue every where wi h the Union party— candidates and pres*, on this question of faM, affect to consider its decision of no possi ble practical importance. They assert that while the character of the measures is acknow ledged to be—the actios correspondent to the decision of fact, is not in issue. We say that it is. Let politicians talk as they may, they cannot control the legitimate effects of the decision made by the people on this great question of honor or dishonor—of equa'ily or inequality in our condition in the Union. To abide by an honorable adjustment, mav properly be called —acquiescence To abide by a degrading settlement, is not acquiescence t or pretermission nor extraordinary so? bear a nee— it is submis sion. Gentlemen may say that in revving the issue of fact of last yesr. they do no: mean V» revive the issue of action. They cannot help reviving it. Who gave them rhe power to make Georgia submit to acknowledged degrad i tionf Georgia stands by the Compromise, because she hss decided that it is consistent with her' honor to do so. Let her refefse that <l3- cision—• and she ought to reverse her acJon What is more—she will reverse it. It is n«t idle only, but disgraceful to sa/ otherwise. It is disgraceful, if they do not mean what they say It is disgraceful if they do. W? say then that the question of action, as well as the question of fact, is, necessarily— whether the Southern Rights party will have it so or not—at issue before the people of Geor gia. The question stands just where it stood last year. The decision of Georgia on her own course of conduct is no more authoritative than her deci&ion on the character of ths Compro mise measures. The one wag based on the other. They must stand or fall together. The action cannot stand, if the facts fall—the super structure, after the foundation has been remov ed. We have no confidence in those who tell us the decision of Georgia * ought not to be dis turbed,” yet are endeavoring to overt! row the ba-is of fact on wnich :t rests. On what could we base confidence in such men ? Do not they know, ihai if they could persuade Geor gia she now stands degraded, they would be utterly impotent to “ ram ice 1 up the conse quence?” Would she consent »o remain so? Dare they propose that she should ? The storm would be above their quell. It is folly or deception to pretend the contrary. The only thing which now shields them from the contempt of true hearted Southern Rights men. ;a the conviction of their insincer ity. Let them have power to act in legitimate accordance with their convictions, and they would not DARE TO SUBMIT. We hn!d it clear then, that the issues of last year (the one optn, (he other a nothered) arv again before the people of Gjursia. They were thus expressed by the Georgia Convention. “May Georgia, continently with her honor, abide by the general scheme of Pacification ? if she may, then does her interest lie in ad herence to it, or in reahtanco I” The Geor gia Convention, asked about interest, if consit lent With honor. It scorned to aak the ques tion—“if she may not consistently witn her honor, doe, her inte r eit lie in adherence to it, or in resistance?” It was for Gov. McDonald to assert she may not adhere to it consistently with her hon or, .and yet indijnant'y disci tim the imouta tion that he will not “adhere to it.” If he be sincere in this disclaimer, what link is wanting in his perfect chain of title co be called a «übmis sionist ? If he be insincer \ he is not even an honest Di union man. We do not see how he can eseape the dilemma ? 3J. A.(other isene, the Southern Rights party have endeavored to rare with th s'rongest assertivne that they have now no use for it, —it» the assertion of what th*y call the right of Se cession. The true Rupublican view of th ; s right ha« been given in our colnmns, and in that (<he correct view) we approve and ad vocate it. What ’he Southern Rights party calls the right of Secession, is neither more nor less than the undisguised rifht of Repudiation. It is the right of each State ‘ in virtue of its independence and sovereignty” to repudia'e its moat solemn engagements at its own dis cretion and without responsibility to the other party. It is a doctrine so odious and despica ble, that even in the most ordinary treaties be tween nations, no civilized nation has ever claimed it The unusual importance and solemnity of the Constitution established between the Sovereign States of this Uni n, seems in the opinion of the leaders of the Southern Righ's party to have lessened its obligations, and rendered repudiation, which in ordinary cases is difficult and scandalous, in the present case easy and innocent. 4th. As for the constitutiona’ity of the U. S Bank —of Protective Tariffs and Inter nal Improvements, on which the Southern Rights party attempt, in their desperation, to make issues, we have only to say that, if they be the issues before tbe country, the party or ators and presses shamefully neglect them. We think they are ashamed nf the effort to divert attention to them, made by their conven tion. Won’t Support the Constitutions It is rather a significant fact iu the history of the times, that the Legislature of Mississip pi at the extra session, which called a conven tion of that State, to rake into consideration what course the S'ate should pursue in the present crisis, rejected a proposition requiring tne members of me convention to take an o» b to support the Conaiizution of the United Slates ! This proposition was submitted in the shape of an amendment to the bill calling tbe convention, and waa voted down, all the Di* unionists votsrg agsmt the amendment, and the Union men for it. Such an act on the part of the Legislature of any State in thia Union should not pataunnoiiced, or fail to make a da a p impres-ion upon the public mind. No movement could more clearly evince their set tled purpose to disregard the CotiflUtatiuo of the United States and lo destroy the govern ment. If not, why no: take the oath? Such an oath is n>t uncommon in Legiaiaturee and conventions bu‘ on tbe contrary is almost uni verse ly taken and observed, wherever there prevails a loyal spirit to the government and Constitution of our fathers. Can such thin/s be, and not excite the indignation of a people who cherish a fond regard for their govern ment and its institutions? We think not. Yet, notwithstanding, thia act on the part of the disunionists of th* Legislature of Missis sippi, the leaders and organs of that party, (nke the leaders and organs of the same party in Georgia, and throughout the almost entire South,) have the cool impudence and effron*e ry to proclaim to the people that they are de votedly attached to the Union—better Union men than the Union party ef’be South! If iu the face of such facts, the people affect le believe them, they are certainly the willing victims of a delusion the most extraordinary that ever possessed an intelligent and reflecting poop e. Differences of Optntoa--The Texas Boundary Q«»don. Thi Southern Rights Convention of May 28 h, 1851, referring to tho Texas question sa d : “ By tbe acts of tbe late Congress known as the Compromise measures, the Southern States being a minority in Federal numbers, have been roacsu to surrender territaiy, unquestionably and legiti mate y our own. to tbe use and enjoyment of tbe hi eling States.” Tne editor of the Constitutionalist was not en!y a member of that Convention, but was a member of the Committee that reported thia resolution. Tne following was his opinion of the Texas question, one year and six days be fore : “ A* to the Texas boundary question it is cient w ray, that it is a ma tier of ,ree choice tor Texas to decide to accept tne terms, or cot, ar she please*, which are offered by tbe scheme ts Com promise. She m noc required—ana is not to be rose so to part with any portion of her territory.”—-CaswU. tutiomuist, Slay tbd, 1851., Mr. Tootnbi.--The C 'nstltutionalUt. No one. we presume, was disappointed or surprised at finding in yeaterdass’ Constitution ahst. an article assailing Mr. Toombs for having the temerity or presumption to make a speech Tuesdar night,at the Masonic Hall, in com pliance with the request of the County Conven tion of the Union party, It was however, a lame effort to make a little capital, and a plain state ment of facts will entirely take the wind out of the sails. The disunion par’y proposed to give a bar becue and ini ite several speakers of their own party. With this view, a collection was taken up, and Union men cal ed on to subscribe. A proposition was then made to the Committee of arrangements to unite in defraying the ex penae of the Barbecue if free discussion was permitted. This proposition was declined — and the chief reason assigned for declining, was that they expected a number of speakers from a distance, aid if free discus-ion was allowed, all their speakers could not be heard. The other reasons were, that the Union party had already had an exclusive meeting; and that the Committee was not authorised to allow free discussion- Here the mat er rested until the day, Tuesday, when Mr. Toombi arrived in tie city, expecting, under an arrangement previously made between Mr. McMillan and himself that 'ie would be permitted to speak. That arrangement was, that each should ba considered as invited to, or have the privilege of attending, the appointments of the other and participate equally in the discussion. Toombs opening and closing at his appoint ments and McMillan at hie. And under this arrangement McMillan had spoksn on two or more occasions at the appointments of Mr Toombs. Mr. T having heard that the Com mittee had refused to give him a heading, call* ed in person on Mr. McMillan, and demand ed the observance of the engagement. Where upon McMillan placed the responsibility on 'he Committee, and they again declined, ex cueinz themselves now on the plea that this was a meeting of the people of the County and net s» appointment of Mr. McMillan. The previous excuse of the large number of speakers from abroad was not then relied on, because it so happened hat McMillan was theoniyone present. These facts will leave little doubt in the mind of imperial men as to who backed out and who feared discussion! The idea that Mr. Toombs or hi friends fear a conflict with Mr. McMillan in debate, is simply ridiculous, and no man in Georgia who knows anything of the two men and their capacities, doubts its supremely ridiculous character. It was the knowledge of these facts that in duced the Convention of the Union party which was in session that day, to invite Mr Toombs o address the people at the Masonic Hall, the compliance with which has so much disturbed the Constitutionalist. But that Mr. McM.llan and his supporters may have no excuse for backing out a second time the Uuion party will on the 4>h Saturday, the 27ib day of this month, give Mr. Toombs a Barbecue in this city, to which Mr McMil lan will be invited. So that if Mr. McMillan and iiia friends arc so anxious for a free discus sion between the two candidate*, let him face me music. There will be no dodging this time aimer behind or by ihe committee Tlie Clayton Compromise. What was the Clayton Compromise, and what were ts provisions? are q lestions fre quently asked. Eor the information of that class of our re id era who desiro to be informed on the subject, we will subjoin iha sections of the Bill which had reference to the question of Slavery, premising that the ether jSec.ions wer.i in the usual form of Bills for the organi zation of Territorial Governments. Here are he words of the Bill : “Sac. 26. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of said Territory eh 11, until Con grees shall otherwise provide, be ves ed in the gov ernor, secretary, and j idges of the supreme court, A?ho or a majority of them ahill have ower to pass any law for the administration of justice in slid Ter ritory, wh ch shall not be repugnant to this act, or inconsistent with the laws and C institution of >he United States But no law shill be passed interfer ing with the primary di-p >sal of the soil, respecting an establishment of religion, or respect 1 ng the pr> h : - bitim or establishment of African slavery; and no tax shall be itnpise ( upon the properly of the United State*; n r shall the lands or other property of n'n residents te taxed higher than ths lands or < (her pr pe ty of residents AH the laws shall be submit ted to the Congress < f the United States, and, if dis approved, shall be null and void.” And in tie 3ist section, after providing for the organisation of Territorial courts, the so - losing provision is found : “Writs of e-ror and appeals from the final deci sions of said supreme court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United 'tales, in he same manner and under the fame regu lations as from ite circuit courts of the United States; except onlv that, in all eases involving title tos'aes, the paid wi its of error or appedsshall be allowed and decided by the eaid supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title incontro versy ; and expect also (hat a writ of error or arpeil shall i e allowed to the Supreme Court of the ■Uy tMBWCT/W Ilf gwy thereof; ur-of mi rice courts created by this act, or of any judges hereof, upon anv wri of habeas corpus, involving ‘he questoo of personal freed im,” <Stc. These, as tefore remarked, are the onlv sec tions affecting the question of slavery, in the Jlayton Compromise, which bill contemplated the organiz tion of a Terr torial Govern ent. for California an I New Mseico. They pro hibited forever the Territorial Government from pa sing any law on the subjoct of slavery, and left t e southern d tvehoider, who might go there, to test the right to hold slave proper ty in the courts of the Territory, in the first in stance, an I than by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. It will be recollsc’ed that Mr. Calhoun was one of the Committee that reported the Clay ton Compiom'we bi I to the Senate, and earnest, ly and zaa'ous'y advocated its passage, assert ing that it was all the South iesired, and de c’ared that the Mexican laws were abrogated by the extension of the Constitution of the Un ted States over the Territory. This posi tion was maintained by almost the entire Dem ocratic party of that day, and by all of the pre sent disuD'on party of the South. No man has forgotzen how Mr Stephens was denounced by the whole of what is now the disunion party, for opposing the Clayton Compromise, and yet they now denounce the Compromise acts of tho last Congr-ss because, say they, the South is excluded from the Ter ritories by reason of the existence of the Mex ican laws—laws which they then declared to be null and void, and the position of Mr Ste phens absurd. Now to show how much batter the present Compromise is than the Clay'on Bill wis, it is only necessary to remind the reader, that the Clayton bill not only settled no hing, and left every thing in reference to slavery to be de cided by the courts, but prohibited forever the T? ritorial legislature from passing any law in relation to slavery. Tne presen* Compromise leaves the question open to be decided by the people of the State when they form their Cons itution whether slavery should exi«t oi not. and it was further expressly provided (hat whenever New Maxie » and Utah appl ed for admission as States, they »houid be admitted wi h or without s avi ry, as the people might de ermine This is, and has been the position oi all parties a he Sout i, since the foundation of the government. In conclusion, we remark that we challenge the whole disunion pre«s of the South to con trovert Miiccessfuily a single statement of fact in the foregoing article. •• That Suppressed Letter.” The incident in relation to “ (hat suppress ed let'er, ’ which occurred at Cassville, is thus noticed by the correspondent of the Southern Recorder. After premising that Mr. Cobb’s positions were so well known that it was unnecessary to report hie arguments, he adds *. “ But there isene thing, an incident that occurred, I have though’ it well enough to mention. In seve ral parts of his speech, Mr . Cobb alluded to the ff is representations that bad been made snout hi o, die., and be called upon his oppo ents, if there was any thing they wished to it.qu re about, or if they had any charges againjt him, to come out, ‘ n -w is the time,' and not wail until he was gone, die., that he had nothing to conceal,” die. In ons of these in »tan:e«, m wb.ch he called upon gentlemen to come out, Ac , he paused for e>jvae time. Close by the I writer, there was a knot of fire eaters or Southern Rights men, and his attention was directed to them by hearing “ that letter” “ that suppressed letter” ottered by one or two voices, and suorVy alter one of the party stepped up and said he wanted to “ see that suppressed letter I” Mr. Coon then turned to him and asked him if be had “read bin letter to the Macon committee” *? The fire-eater replied “Yea.’ “Then,” replied Mr. C-bb, “ you have read that suppressed letter, and did'nt know it!” 1 then at the moment glanced a. the fire-eater, and from the manner in which he held his head, be reminded me of a man who bad just had his hat pulled over bis face. Mr. Co‘ b then said that with the exception ot the introduction of the letter to nis friend, Mr.-Hull, which is in sub stance as follows : “ Dear Sir; I profcee to give you my views upon the subject of secession, witbout en tering into a engthy argument to sustain my posi tion ” The w 'lole of the suppressed letter, wilh:ut an alteration, and with the crossing of the t’s and the dotting of the i’a as in the original, is contained in hio Letter to the Alaejn Committee.” Cumberland Tuinkll. The Murfrees boro’ News, i as been informed by the con tractor Cui, Bates, that the Tunnel on the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad will be completed by the Ist of January next: * The Col. seldom makes a wrung calculation about anvthing he undertakes, however great the (ask to be performed, and we have no doubt bat the Tunnel will be completed about the time specified. He deserves much credit for •he mauner in which be has poshed forward thw tremendous work.” Personal. Th< public will, I trust, pardon my calling their attention to a matter purely personal, which is rendered necessary by the pit ful at tack made upon me, through tho column, of the Conititutiinalitt, of yesterday, by J.mxs M Smtthk, Had the circulation of that paper been confined to tho circle where we are both known, the article and author should have met with the contempt so richly merited. As it wil , however, be seen and read where neither of us are personal'y known, it becomes neces sary that I should notice it to correct some miss'ateinents of facts contained therein. As the readers of the Chronicle & Sentinel are well aware, there has appeared in it, a se ries of artie'es under the signature of‘•Doc tor,'* marked with unusual ability, the last of which was published on Friday, the29:h Aug. as', w hich called forth the following note : Auousta, August 29lti, 1951. Ds. Wm. S. Joss-s.— Sis : I demand cf you 'he usmeoftlie author of tho article ‘'Doctor, *' which appeared in the Chronicle & Sentinel of this date, inorder to demand of him personal eaiislaction. Respectfully, your ob*t. Ser’vt. James M. Smtths. Th's note was brought into my office by Mr James Gardner, Jr. When he presented it, I inquired, who it was front? He replied Mr. Smythe. Presuming it was a call for the author of “ Doctor,” I renewed and immedi ately replied to it, giving the name of the au thor. Having folded and addressed my reply, I handed i’ to Mr. Gardner, who immediately rose from his sett, as I supposed, to retire, when he drew from a side pocket what ap peared to be a letter, and presented it, saying, “ Here is another.” I inquired from whom 1 Ke replied, “The same gentleman,” and as I received it, I understood him to remark, ‘‘You can reply to it at your leisure,” and immuli. aw'.ely atked uut of ihi room I opened end proceeded to read the follow ing no Augusta, August29th, 1851. Da. Wm. 9. Jcmbb—bir: Considering the article “ Doctor,” which appealed in the Chronicle & Sen tinel this moroing, oi such a character as to maks you as tbu publisher of that paper, a party to the out rage, I deinind of you that .aii.faelien, for insertin' it in your columns, which is due from one gentle man to another. 1 his will be handed you by my friend James Gsidner, Jr., E-q. James M. Smyths. As soon a. 1 discovered the nature of it. contents, I rose from my seat to call Mr. Gardner io return it to him, but ho had past sd out at the front door of the offi :e , a distance of near six y feet l s aned with the determi nation of following him into the street, but after proceeding a fjw steps, returned ty my seat, thinking it of no consequence. It is proper to remark, that if I had even suspected the character of the communication, Ish uld rot have received it For 1 did not imagine even that Mr. Smythe, who professes to be so very anxions to obtain persinal satisfaction, would have made such a call on me, whose opinions on the suoject of duelling he soieell knew, one too, who ha asserts is “a mender of a respectable Church;" especially after he had obtained the name of the author a reputab'e gentleman, whom As knew to be neither the member of a Church or opposed to a resort to the coda duello. If the author of Doctor had proved uoi to have been a re sponsible and reputable man, he might have had some excuse for a call on me. Thus the nutter remained until Tuesday, the 21 inst., when Mr. Gardner aga n called and announced that he had a note for me. I replied, you can take itbackti the author, and inform him, he must seek some other channel to convey it. He remarked, I had received notes through him. I admited the fact, and stated I was induced to do so alone because I supposed they had reference to a demand for the au hor of ‘‘Dootor." and I did not wis t to interpose the slightest obstruc tion to Mr. Smythe's obtaining his name. 1 should however receive no more through l im. He asked the reason. I replied, none of the c >urtesie< of life were exchanged between us and 1 regarded It a violation of etiquette and usage for one so si'uated, to bear anole to another with whom he did not speak. He dissented from the correctness of my opinioa, and asserted that it was neither a violation of etiquene or usage. I then peremptorily re fused to receive it, and turned off an! left him, and he walked out. On Wednesday the 3d inst., Mr. W. W. Montcomery, wi b whom I was entirely uuao quaint d, appeared in tuy office, and as I un derstood inquired if 1 was Dr. Jones. 1 re plied, Yes. He remarked he desired to see me and I walked aside with him, when he inform ed me he had a note for me I inquired from whom? He replied. Mr Smythe. 1 told him I should not receive it- He then made some remark about“geuileman,” which I did not un dersand distinctly; when I informed him I could not argue the question with him, but I with Mr. Smvthe He asked if I bad any obj tciion to the channel through which the note came? I inquired his name, when he hesitate ! seemed confused and I added, is it Montuohery ? He said ys, and I replied, not the slightest objection. He then remark ed, he supposed Mr. Smythe would be left to pursue what course he thought proper, to which I replied, that was a matter for his cob sideration, not mine. I did nor even see the note which Mr. M. said he bore, ana how he could iisve understood me o say that I did not con-ider myself re sponsible for the article of “Doctor,” I can not imagine. / made no allusion whatever to “Doctor" o' his articles. The power press, however, was going at the time, which m kes very considerable noise, and Mr. M. may have misapprehended me. Apologizing to the public again for tres passing upon their indulgence with a purely personal matter; with this brief narrative of the facts, premising that I have given the sub etmee (and generally as nearly as recollected the precise words) of conversations, I take leave of Mr. tSsrrsi, wi h the hope 'hat he v ill wear gracefully all the laurels an intelligent public will award him. W. 8. Jones. The Alberti Case. Os all the shifts to which the enemies of tkis Government have been compelled to resort, no case so powerfully as this illustrates the depth and venooi of their hatred. Published first in the Richmond Enfuirer, under the caption, “Northern Aggression— Case of Alberti," t was re-published twice in this State by the Augusta Republic. When that paper and tie Conetitutionalist melted “ like two dew drops, m'o one,” the same piece, a I ttle rectified, was set forth in a Constitutionalist It Repub lic—Extra, in flaming capitals. Thousands oi these reports were scattered broad cast over ihe Slate, ai d the question asked why the Union papers did not publish this ill authenti cated •' infernal transaction.” Unused to con vict the accused without evidence—and to spread as a case of “ Northern Aggression ” oo the 8 >u(h,tha' wh.on, if correctly reported, wa. at farthest in aggression by Pen sylva niansona Pennsylvan an—with eyes not so blinded by hatred of the Union and of the North, as to see wh it was not to be seen—the Union papers preferred to wait for a correct statement of the tuih of the case Yet even the ex parte review, published, ae cordirg to its own statement, “ for the benefit of tbs family of Alberti, and of couris one aided and partial in its fare; even this review could not satisfy the grudge of the alist Sf Republic. It must needs convert it not only into a case of “ Northern aggression,’’ but endeavor •hrough it to excite prejudice against tho fugi live slave law. Dissatisfied with only going the legitimate length allowed by an ex part. sta ement of the ciae, it must aaeert that Al berti and Price were “incarcerated in gloomy dungeon*,” not because convicted of kidnipping, but “for merely assisting in the execution of the (fugitive slave) law in a soli tary instance.” At our article correcting its misrepresents tions of tbe unau henticated report it had spread by he thousand, it profested to be “shocked.” Is it or not “ shocked,” now that tbe authentic report is furnished it, at the mis chief it has wrought by not waiting for the truth? Is it not “shocked” to think that the correction will fail to roach many already em bittered by error, and by its own strong com ments against the Government and the law? Or does it glory that the mischief may bo more extensively spread than the correction can reach ? Weihallsee. Will it strike off “ extras” of the true as it did of the false statements of the case ? We suppose it thought the case fairly reported. Will it now show its fairness by taking all tbe pains in its power to correct its own hasty deeds ? Or will it prove itself more anxious to promote discontent and rouse boe'ility to the Government, than to do sheer justice, or even repair; its own wrongs ? It found room— made room— for tbe uoau tbenticated and false report; will it find room —make room—to spread the authentic and true ? The article in the Constitutionalist of yes terday, which attempts to assail the authentic report of the case published by ns a few days ago, will receiYß our attention at an early day. y ,j’ ■ .'Jjiss Ths Adrnlsslan ot Calirjtn Uton this master grievance of th - measures, on which was baser of tbe Convention in Georgia, w calmly to sum up those arguments, they are, which demonstrate that it I no good ground for resistance to ths Government. We shall assume that any act of < in order to warrant resistance, must, | constUßtioaoC, be grossly o iprsssi 'e i pie or practice. The Virginia Resolnti that, even if an act was an infraction of < • stitutron, it must be a deliberate, folpo gerous iofrauiou, to warrant State i tion. We expect to show that ««is no it at all of the Constitution, an 4 not gr( ptessive ei her in principle or practic believe that the whole country. No South, and the people of Calif orn ' Ia | cause of complaint at the delay of c oc form a Territorial Government, tij, tion of Congress may have been g exercised in admitting her as a Stat that discretion, if unwisely exercised, exercised unconstUutional'y. Upon the practical question of loss i to the South, we have seen no argument . clearly put or more ably maintained than u found in the extract we are about to make from the Constitulionalisl. In the paper of May 22d, 1850. it defended tho proposed ad m’ssion of California, upon the following grou ds. “But the Compromise proposes the admiss'on es California with alt her boundaries, and with hsr anti-slavery Constitution. There Xn-e grave ob|ec tioos to ths manner in which she has been organized as a State, and her Territorial limits ere snotra.ua aad itnreascnable. ‘ But will curtailing her limits, curtail the area of free soil, and exlead the srea ot slavery 1 That is the practical qiesiion. “Now it is well ascertained that ns part of Califor nia North or South es any given line wi'l ever be slave territory. It cannot be slave territory. It cannot be made so against the interests and wishes of tVe peep e They Have decided not lo have slavery there as a socitl institution. The Democratic doc trine io that the peep's are to be left free to decide that question for ihem.elres.” The objections lo tbe admission of California are here distinctly set aoxfb. and the ireasjAfl onvdi-r, tiSpse O' no practical lose to the South, nltrany of “Democratic dootrina," wlieh has ever been as decided in favor of Southern Rights as the doctrine of any other partv. We shall upon the practical question, therefore, merely expand and illustrate the foregoing argument. The first objection to her admission (which was the only objection made by theconv«ntioo act of the ieo-gia legislature.) is the extent of the territory of California. It is obvious, how ovir, that if that argument is correct, which proves that no part of it c .uld ever be slave teirtory, the extent of territory is beneficial rather than injurious to the South. A d'viaion of the territory would have increased non slaveholding power in tno Senate, by the ulti mate admission of two or more B ates instead of one. It may be remarked in relation to the reeond objection.—the manner in which California was organized as a State—that this also could not affect nor injure the South practically, if the argument about tbe existence of slavery there is correct. If any unfair or extraneous i .fluence was exerted, (and it has been denied and tbe proof challenged ) it muat be remem bered, that it was exerted by a Southern Ad ministration, — at the head of which was a Southern Planter and Slaveholder, whose op portunities of knowing the count-y, (whatever hie opportunities of political knowledge,) were certainly great. The blame (if blame be due) should not be thrown on tho wrong yuarUr— nor was the then President of the United States false to his own section in policy or in tention. The great practical question, however, is just what the Constitutionalist declares it to ba. •• n'ould curtailing the limits of Californi i cur ■ail the area of free soil, and extend'll area of slavery?” In expansion of the arguments urged by it and in addition to them, we would remark that the following circums'ances rendered it moral ly impossible for California ever to have be come slave territory. In tbe first place, tho country was remote from any other slave country, and the difficulty and expense of ta king slaves there very great. The character of the soil rendered it unfit for slave labor— which could only have been profitably em ployed in the mining country- Confined to the narrow space of the mining districts, and surrounded nn all sides by free facilities for e>cape, and tbe trouble capture would bo unusually great. lory was free when acquired. already thrre were probably averse to it. most obvious E nigration would tend therefore rethsr crease than to diminish anti slavery sentiment. These are facts and laws uncontrollable by any human government. The fact of ultimate admission into the Union was well known, and the further faet that tho question of slavery would than become aquas lion for tho decision of the people. Wha that decision would be, was rendered almost < tain by the facts above mentioned as to prevalent sentiment of the original populati and the mejerity of emigrants. Their inter would probably have combined with their timent to induce the majority of voters to elude the competition of slave Itbor. Every one ramembers that this view es practical question, was that taken by each the adminisfations under which it cross, t of which were Southern—tho one democra the other whig. Slavery had once existei >■ the R 'public of Mexico, and by her own i abolished as unprofitable. The country i acquired without any hope or expectation practical gain to the South, and its acquisil t by some objected to on that ground. These views (together with the present >■ i future freedom of the people of Californ'i introduce slaves if they should over see Gt do so) seem to us to establish on an impreg ble foundation the position of tbe Constituti' . alist, that no part of California would '* evei slave territory.” The application of the 5 -« souri compromise line would have been ent ■ ly nnavailing.as the only pa-t of tbe territ into which there was the remotest probabi'ir slavery’s being carried, is north of that 1 ne tbe narrow strip of territory below the l u. would have furnished still more peculiar faci ■ties for escape, and as leaving vastly less t< ritory open to slavery than is left open by present compromise. THE QUESTION OP PRINCIPLE. We would remark in advance on this SB . ject that tbe question of principle is not sf • ted, nor should our action bo affected, by motives of some of tho men who passed t or any measure, provided principle was • actually violated. We doubt not that some the votes on this measure were actua ed r ile and unfair motives, and that some of ' - voters would have voted for a measure ac ally violative of principle. What they wo have done on an hypothetical case should affect our action. They might reform bes an actual case arose, or be displaced better men. At any rate, “sufficient u / the day is tbe evil thereof.” Just here, too, we will make a single e< ment on that often misapplied maxim—*' time of peace prepare for war.*’ The o preparation a brave and free people need war— is arms and ammunition. Wetrust day is far distant when the free people of y South will need to have their courage etio - lated in advance of use, or their hearts p pared and drilled into the spirit necessary maintain their just rights. Tbe great principle which justified the mission of California into the Union with I anti slavery Constitution, is a principle wb the South has ever held sacred and inviolat It is one of those principles which Geor. thought proper to incorporate in the retolutio . passed by the late convention. This was 1., toe voice. So sacred is the principle, that e solitary Southern StaU, has repudiated Georgia seemed to do so, when she made admission of California the ground for call a convention. Os the fifteen Southern Sta she alone assumed this ground. Thatfac itself pregnant with meaning. Nor was assumption of this ground the will of Georp s. Bne neither spoke on the subject immedisi ■, nor through Repreienta ves sleeted on that sue. Nor did eventhe unaathorixed voice wh - spoke for her, bass resistance on sectier ;. grounds. The proposition of the origin bill, to call a Convention if she was admit',, “with a Constitution prohibiting slave; was voted down. The only ground for re-, lanee in the bill as passed, was the sparcity population —an absurd ground, if iniendee a sectional one—as objectionable to New Y as to Georgia. Let us now compare what really happe in tbe ease of California, with whataifki gilimatcly hate bean expected. We shall forget the want of a previous Territorial gacization. When the country was acquired, every e knew that it would, in some way, be divid and that the divisions woald beet length nd •