Newspaper Page Text
JOHN FORSYTH—EDITOR.
j. FORSYTH, R. ELLIS, At CO.
4
froprietors and Publishers.
■fm* Time* i* pblishMl every Tuesday Mornim*
„ ,j, c biWittC known as “ Winter’* Exchange,’’
kl i *t,te of Broad street, above Randolph, op
rt a,r*. i aimed lately in the rear of the Post-Office.
—Three Dollars per annum, payable
aJrajtee for new subscriptions.
jf 8 paper will be discontinued while any arrear
-A, are due, unless at the option of the proprietors
HU Three Dollar* and a Half, will i„ all easel
eocted where payment is not made before the
•ip.tatiaa of the subscription year.
jldrertUcmcuts conspicuously inserted at One
Hollar per uqoare, for the first insertion, and
Cents fr erery subsequent continuance
*ll Adrertiaeir.euts sent to us without speciTv
■s: the aamber of Insertions desired, will be enn
x,airl until ordered out, and charged accordingly
Advcrtiß*nent* published at the usual’
raf'*, and with strict attention to the requisitions of
th law.
merit s **aies under regular executions, mist
be aJrertise-l thirty Oays; under mortgage fi fas,
M\ty-I>ays before the day of sale.
Males of Land and Negroes, by Executors, Ad
sißitrators or Guardians, for Sixty-Days before
tbs day of sale.
of personal property (except negroes) For
ty Days.
Citations by Clerks of Courts of Ordinary,upon
spp’icatiou for letters of administration are to be
pahbshed for Thirty Days.
Citations upon application for dismission, by
Executors, Administrators, or Guardians, monthly
ter *ix Months.
Orders of Courts of Ordinary, (accompanied
with a copy of the bond, or agreement) to make
title to land, must be published Three Months.
hiatices by Executors or Administrators or Guar
disas, of application to the Court of Ordinary for
leave to sell the Laud or Negroes of an estate, Four
Month*.
Vitiers by Executors or Administrators, to the
Debtors and Creditors of an estate, for Six Weeks.
Kr Letters to the proprietors on business must
be pots paid, to entitle them to attention.
MERCANTILE.
WOODHUFF^WHITTELSEY,
¥ TiVE just received an additional supply of
SPRING AND SUMMER GOODS,
among which cm be f*and Shawls, Bonnets and
Bor ct Ribbons, Ginghams, Musiins, Calicoes, &c.
A;so a good assortment of PANAMA and LEG
noRN MATS, all of which they will sell very
low for cash or approved credit.
W. & W. have a few patterns of very fine Bareg
es, which they will sell lor about Half Price, rath
er than keep them over. LADIES call and see.
April 25, ISIS. 18 ts
BOOTS, SHOES LEATHER, &.C.
At Prime Cost.
f¥T//E Subscriber having determined to discon
finite his present business in Columbus, will
sell off lus stack on hand, consisting of all articles
usually found in a Shoe Store,
m at 3?xt.rin:j6 cost.
Toe stock u new, hoeing been mostly purchased
within the last six months . and is well worth the
attention of merchants and others, wishing to pur
chase by the quantity.
1 hare a good assortment of LASTS, PEGS,
and other Shoemaker's Findings, to which the at
tention of those engaged in the manufacture of
shoes is particularly invited.
ERASTUS REED.
Jane 20, 1848 26—ts
NOTICE ! NOTICE !!
rpiE undersigned has opened a Store on Craw*
JL lord street, two doors below Mr. Rankin’s
center, where he keeps on hand an assortment of
fine, cheap, and best Spanish, Florida and Ameri
cas Cigars, of different size and quality, which he
offers at Wholesale and Retail, at reduced prices
foe cash ; and solicits a share of patronage by the
consumers of the weed.
J AMES ESTF.VEZ.
Columbis, Ga. July 25, 1848. 31—tlo
ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY.
A HEW and valuable Book, designed for Aead
emieaand Families, with over two hundred
By Calvin Cutter, M. D. The atten
tion es Teachers is called to this new and excellent
school book. For sale at the new and cheap Book
Store, by TARBOX & MARBLE.
Angnst 25, 1848. ________________
EMBROIDERING PATTERNS,
f\f new and beautiful designs for most
w. W kinds of Worsted Embroidery, just received
by TARBOX & MARBLE.
August 22, 1848. • - t ; ’
COMPOSITION BOOKS.
ABEAUTIFIX articte. designed expressly for
Young Ladies attending school. For sals at
the New Book Store, by
August 22, 1848. TARBOX & MARBLE.
TO COUNTRY MERCHANTS,
Booksellers, and all dealers in
Stationery and Fancy Goods.
OW Do you irish to buy Goods cheap and
lore a handsome profit ? If so, you
trill call oh
A. B. MARVIN,
Importtr and wholesale dealer, 93 Wil
liam, opposite Platt-st., N. Y.
\¥7 IIEBE you ran find the ercatest variety of
T T goods suited to your trade, and which will
pay yon a good profit.
Farter Goons Combs of every variety,. Brushes
ms all descriptions, Buttons, Perfumery, Steel
Goods, such as Beads, Puisc and Bag Mountings,
Ac.; Silver. Planished, and Britannia Ware.
Ire Ststioserv. —English and American Draw
ing Papers and Boards; Tracing and Tissue Pa-
Krs; French anil English Writing, Letter and Note
per*: Music Paper; Gold and Si Tver Fancy Pa
pers; Portfolios, Work Boxes, Portable Desks,
Dressing Cases. Gold and Silver Pencil Cases, Gob
Pens, Cutlery, Inkstands, Globes, Mathematical
and Itrawinp Instruments, Steel Pens, Quills, Pen
cils. Blank Books of every variety, &c., &c., and
evrv other article in the line of Stationery, which
are offered at prices satislactorv to purchasers, by
A: B. MARVIN,
93 William-st., opposite Platt, N. Y.
S-pt. 5, IS4S. -37 —6t
MADDEN & ADAMS,
HUE reniovrd thfir Marble Works to tlic
East side of Itroad-st. near the Market-House,
where they will keep constantly on hand a choice
•election of
I.Ai-lAS AND AXIS'! HIC A N MAKBLE,
run
Grave Stones, Monuments, Tab
lets, Tombs, &c.,
And solicit a continuance of public patronage.
They are determined to sell at a small advance on
New” York prices, and lower than nny establishment
in this part of tbe country. ALL ORDERS from
the Country attended to, tbe same as if ordered in
person.
ENGRAVING and CARVING done in the
best manner. PL I STER of PARIS and ROMAS
CL hi EXT, always on hand, for sale.
Apnl 11. ISXS. , 16—tlj
PIANO FORTES.
MUSIC, Af.&r.
BRUNO &~VIRGINS,
HITE now Oil hand, and offer for salt at tlicir
Stores at
Columbus, Ga.. under the Bank of St. Mary’s.
MarMl, Ga., opposite the Washington Hall.
*i • iitrv, Ala., under the Madison House.
A J wge ass . ;me;it of Piano Fortes, from the
celebrated Manufactories of
J. lilll KKKING N't,’NN'S & CLARK,
LKNPEI. GILBERT and others.
Tianos with Coleman's improPf'f.Folian Attachment.
New and Fashionable Music :
In*-nrt; a I- ■-> toi me 1 .ano, Guitar, Violin, &c.
A- . \ bass Viols, Guitars, Flutes, Clarinets,
Flageolets, Fites, Drums, Mail Horns, Hunting
lloras ; Instruments for Brass Bands ; Violin Bows ;
fine Flutinos and French Accordeons ; Seraphines ;
best Italian, English & French Violin Strings, and
all other articles usually kept in a Music Store.
SCT A Vo. a solendid assortment of fine
po Gotti and silver VV ATCIIFS,
Jewelry and Silver Ware : Silver Pla
*.*'■ -wy ted Candlesticks and Castors; Lamps, Giron
deiies. Fancv Goods. Spectacles, Mathematical In
struments, Ruxors, Knives, Scissors; I’ISTOI.J*,
GIXS, u d Walker’s Percussion Caps.
IT Watches, Clocks. Jewelry and Musical
lines REP.UIIEIf and WARRANT 1)1).
Fucraviuc neatly executed.
Fob. 29. IB4S ■ 10—If
PELI.tmi.R’S COMPOUND EXTRACT
OF SVRSAIMMI.LA, YELLOW DOCK.
DANDELION AND Q.CDUN'S-!)FLIGHT.
r |’ , DIS U a prrnaralion probably superior to
A M* o *! ot all tue Mi ones offered to the pub
lic for all diseases caused by impure blood, or for
cutaneous affections of any kind, or atfections of the
L<e and Kidneys, or acute Rheumatism.
We know the proprietor to be an boneat, skilful
nod capable Pharmaceutist and he has prepared a
Medicine which without advertisement or recoui
meßda.-QB is gradually obtaining secure favor with
practising Physicians. It i put up iu large bottles
and for sale by the subscribers.
September 5, 1848. POND & WTLLI'OX.
ALPINE HORN RI Kk'iTl.H.
4 FEIT ropirt of this much Hilmiml piece,
a a arranged, printed and pub.islicd by H. Ilcrn
rrei-’r, price 25 cent* —For sale at
t !• VRLES REPS’ Music Wareroom.
March ISIS. i
VOLUME VIII. |
POETRY.
MAIDENHOODS
BY 11. W. LONGFELLOW.*
Maiden ! with the meek,b(own eyes,
In whose orbs a shadow lies!
Like the dusk in the evening skies!
Thou whose lochs outshine the sun,
Golden tresses, wreathed in one,
As the braided streamlets run !
Standing with reluctant feet
Where the brook and river meet!
Womanhood and childhood fleet!
Gazing with a timid glance,
On the brooklet’s swift advance,
On the river’s broad expanse !
Deep and still, that gliding stream,
Beautiful to thee must seem,
As ihe river of a dream.
Then why pause with indecision
When bright angels in thy vision
Beckon thee to fields Elysian )
Seest thou shadows sailing by,
As the dove with startled eye,
Sees the falcon’s shadow fly ?
Ilear’st thou voices on the shore,
That our ears perceive no more,
Deafen’d by the cataract’s soar ?
O ! thou child, of many prayers I
Life hath quicksands—life has snares I
Care and age come unawares !
Like the swell of some sweet tune,
Morn is risen into noon,
May glides onward into June.
Childhood is the bough whore slumber’d
Buds and blossoms many number’d;
Age, that bough with snow encumber’d.
Gather then each flower that grows,
When the young heart overflows,
To embalm that tent of snows.
Bear a lilly in thy hand ;
Gates ofbrass cannot withstand
One touch of that magic wand.
Bear through sorrow, wrong and ruth,
In thy heart tue dew ofyouth,
On thy lips the smile of truth.
Oh ! that dew, like balm shall steal
Into wounds that cannot heal,
Even as sleep out eyes doth seal;
And that smile, like sunshine, dart
Into many a sunless heart,
For a simile of God thou art.
THE CHOICE.
Hurrah ! hurrah 1 hurrah boys)
Cass and Butler are our choice.
Or on the lines ofCanada—
Or in the walls of Monterey—
They have unfading laurels won,
And mighty deeds of valor done.
Hurrah I hurrah ! hurrah boys I
Cass and Butler are our choice.
Throughout the western wild* .afar,
The voice of Cass quell’d savage war,
He brought the pride o! Britain low ;
Brave Butler bled in Mexico.
Hurrah! hurrah! hurrah boys I
Cass and Butler are our choice.
They every peril, danger braved,
Their country’s honor, glory saved )
And ill the nation’s councils rose
Against the plots es inward loes.
Hurrah! hurrah! hurrah boys I
Cass and Butler are our choice.
On a proud height their civic name
Stands even with their martial fame ;
Not so Old Zack—tho’ honest, brave,
lie never sat in council grave.
Hurrah! hurrah! hurrah boysl
Cass and Bailer are our choice.
Whig ammunition ail was spent
In nominating President— - * ‘
For Vice, New York fill’d up the space*
By putting wadding in the place.
Harrah ! hurrah ! hurrah boys !
Cass and Butler are our choice.
The man We vote both speaks and fights
For commerce frefeand sailor*’ right*—*
Where Lafayette and Count.De Grasse
Were born, there spoke the galjant Cass.
Hurrah ! hurrah! hurrah boys I
Cass anil Butler are our choice..
Quintuple treaties—right of Bearch—
No more retards our onward march I
O’er every land and sea wo pass
Oot freedom word is Lewis Cass.
[Young- Democracy.
POLITICAL.
SEVERAL LIVES OF GEN. TAYLOR.
In as much as whiggery was galvan
ized into renewed life by discovering that
there were two lives of General Cass
afloat differing a little from each other, and
could not help Hoorbacking over the dis
covery, we desire them to give us some in
formation about the various lives of Gener
al Taj’lor that are before the country.
A friend of ours says there cannot be less
than TWENTY, if he includes the book
called “ Taylor and his Generals,” and the
several “ Taylor Almanacs” that have
come under his observation; “ and he
says that no two of these Taylor biogra
phies and eulogies” agree in any of their
parts, not even in giving the character
snd results of his few battles. They all
seem designed to represent the different
“ FACES” which tho General has presen*
ted to the political world—there being one
“life” to tickle the “Natives’, —one to
gain the support of the “ultra partisan
Whigs”—one to catch the votes of gulla
ble or marketable Democrats—one to
wheedle the Albolitionists and Wilinot
Proviso men—one for anti-war-and peace
under-any - circumstances -men and an oth
er for the war men, and advocates of sla
very at the South ! Now here is some
thing for Senator Mangimi to waste
the people’s time and treasure in making
a speech about, and here is something de
manding a few paragraphs in explanation
from the scrupulous Whig letter writers !
Twenty different lives of general Taylor,
in the market, and no two of them agree
ing exactly iu any of their parts ! Well,
that number ought to bo sufficient for the
supply of all the factions that may be array
ed against Democratic rule and Democrat
ic progress. —JUbttny Patriot.
THE “NO-FARTV’ PARTY'.
At a recent Mass Meeting at Warren
ton Springs, Fauquier county, Virginia,
Mr. Brent made a most happy and amus
ing speech, and concluded with the follow
ing capital hit itr illustration of the Whig
tactics in 1840 and 1848. In 1840 they
had deceived the people, and why should
they not do it again in 1848? They re
minded him of the old woman who had lest
her husband, who was drowned, and, in
die midst of her lamentation, the news was
brought toiler that the river had been drag
ged, and the body of her venerable com
panion found in the mud, covered over with
fishes. The old lady wiped away the tears
of distress, and quaintly remarked, “that
they had better set the old man again ?”
[ Charleston Mercury,
Greeley cf The New York Tribune
‘thinks that “ General Taylor, having con
sented to run for President, ought to resign
his commission at once, and devote his lei
sure, thus acquired, to the study of those
questions of civil policy wherewith he is
pi no danger qf becoming too familiar.”
Francis P. Blair, the editor of the Globe and the
legatee of Gen. Jackson's political papers, opposes
the nominees ot the Baltimore convention, lie is
out ami out against Cass and Butler,and will prob
ably support Van Buren. This truly comes under
tbe hand of defection in high plages,-
Enquirer.
<H§e stil'uml>us
SPEECH OP MR. BERRIEN,
OF GEORGIA,
ON THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE BILL.
In Senate, July 2G, 1848.
Mr. President: It is with great reluc
•iance that I consent to occupy the time of
the Senate, even for a very brief period,
at this late hour of the night, and after so
long and laborious a sitting. In doing
this, sir, I yield to the wishes of others,
rather than consult my own inclination,
and will esteem myself particularly fortu
nate, if, after the very discursive debate
which has taken place, I can recall the at
tention of the Senate to the real question
which this bill presents for our considera
tion. This will be accomplished in the
simplest manner, by recurrihgto the state
of the debate on the Oregon Bill at the mo
ment when the select committee was rais
ed, and the motives then openly avowed as
influencing the Senate in raising it.
Sir, we had before us a bill providing for
the government of the Territory of Ore
gon, in which there was contained a pro
vision which asserted indirectly the power
of Congress to legislat e on the subject of
slavery, and to inhibit its existence in a
Territory. I advert to this fact as well
for the purpose of recalling it to the recol
lection of she Senate, as to repel an asser
tion which has been reiterated in the
course of this discussion, that it has been
provoked by the South ; and I avail my
self of the occasion to say that such au im
putation is entirely inconsistent with the
fact. A brief reminiscence will prove
the truth of this assertion. The Territo
rial Committee presented to us a bill for
the establishment of a government in Ore
gon, and Senators pressed upon us the
consideration that the condition of that peo
ple imperatively demanded the protecting
arm of this Government. We of the South
replied to you, Give to Oregon such gov
ernment as her necessities require, but do
not taunt us by the useless assertion of a
power which can have no practical opera
tion there. The provision in relation to
slavery was inserted into this bill for one
of two purposes : It was either a wanton
exercise of power to accomplish no legiti
mate object, or it was introduced to acquire
the authority of precedent for the exertion
of the same power in relation to Mexico
and California. We said to you omit this
provision, which is admitted to be useless
so far as the people of Oregon are concern
ed, and you may pass the bill with what
ever speed you choose to give to it. Your
refusal imposed upon us the necessity of
moving to strike out the section relating to
slavery, and thus this discussion originat
ed. It is the North then, and not the
South, which must be responsible for any
consequences which may result from it.
The debate proceeded, and various dis
cordant propositions were presented to the
Senate. Northern Senators asserted the
uncontrolled, unlimited power of Congress
to legislate for the Territory. We denied
the existence of that power in the extent
which was claimed for it. They maintain
ed, that, even in the absence of legislation by
Congress slavery could not exist in Oregon,
because, as they contended, it is an institu
tion contrary to Nature, existing only by
statute, and therefore necessarily local.
We questioned the correctness of this po
sition ; hut we said to our opponents, if
you have confidence in your opinion that
slavery cannot exist where it is not pro
tected by positive statute, act upon your
conviction; forbear to legislate; strike this
provision from the bill, and it will pass
without opposition from the South. Gen
tlemen were unwilling to rely upon their
own repeatedly avowed convictions.—
They insisted upon legislating where they
asserted that legislation was unnecessary,
and, as a consequence* there admitted that
it was useless.
In the midst of this protracted discus
sion, the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Clayton,) actuated by motives whiclTfound
a cordial response from a majority of the
Senate, proposed to raise the select com
mittee, the result of whose labors is before
you. And now, sir, I inquire for what
purpose was that committee raised, if it
was not with the hope of avoiding this ex
citing discussion on the subject of slavery?
If we could have anticipated the rhetorical
displays* alike violative of truth and deco
rum, which have been exhibited in this
discussion ; if we could have foreseen that
the occasion would have been seized upon
to utter denunciation against this institu
tion, which, if true, would put every man
connected with it beyond the pale of hu
manity, what motive could we have had
for consenting to jaise this comnpttee ? Sir,
I had hoped, I continue to hope* notwith
standing the opposite feeling heretofore
manifested in this debate that the attention
of the Senate will be directed, not to ex
travagant, distorted, unfounded calumnies
in relation to slavery, but to the questions
presented by this bill—-the mode of concilia
tion which it proposes.
Mr-. President, there are some minor ob
jections.to this bill, to which I will first
very briefly advert. It is said that the
boundaries of New Mexico have not vet
been definitely settled, and that until this
is accomplished it is improper to establish
a government for that Territory. Sir, the
answer is a plain one. The terms of this
bill are equally applicable to that Territory,
whether it be of larger or of smaller di
mensions. Nay, the fact of the existence
of the claim of Texas to a portion of New
Mexico, furnishes of itself a strong reason
for its organization. It is fit that the in
terests of the United States should be pro
tected thus by their own officers, and that
the Territory should net be left in the
anomolous condition iu which it now is.
Again, it is said that the right cf appeal
which is provided by this bill is illusory;
that the limitation of it to cases where the
value in controvers)’, exclusive of costs, ex
ceeds two thousand dollars, will prerent
its exercise by a person suing for his free
dom. Sir, if Senators will examine the
case mentioned by the Senator from South
Carolina, (Mr. Butler,) they will see that
this difficulty is altogether imaginary. 4n
that case the Supreme Court decided that
when in a petition for freedom the appeal
was taken by the petitioner, the requisition
as to value did net apply, because there
the question of freedom was the ground of
the appeal, and that could not be appreciat
ed by money; but where the defendant
was the appellant, as his right of property
was the matter in controversy, it must be of
the money value required by the act; but,
sir, having acquiesced in this bill, I desire
to see its provisions fairly carried out, and
will therefore readily assent to the amend
ment by the Senator from Maryland, (Mr.
Johnson,) or any ether which may be ne
cessary to accomplish the object.
But, again, it is objected that this is an
evasion of our duty ; a transfer to the Su
preme Court of a responsibility which we
ought ourselves to assume. Mr. Presi
dent, this is a misapprehension. Congress
forbears to exercise a doubtful power by
legislating on this subject. It leaves the
conflicting claim? which have given rise to
uil exciting discussion (n this chamber, on
• ‘ !•
“THK CHIOS OF THK STATSB AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF Tllfi STATES.”
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 12, 1848.
the footing which they stand under 1 the
constitution and laws. When a case arises
under these, the Court, in the exercise of
its appropriate jurisdiction, will take cog
nizance of it; but this would be equally
true if you were to legislate on the subject.
ou will not deprive that court of juris
diction, or impose it upon them, by legisla
ting or by refusing to legislate. If we ab
stain, it is because experience has taught
us, in the course of this protracted discus
sion, that we cannot come to any satisfacto
ry result by legislating on the subject of
slavery in these Territories.
And now, having stated, and I hope sat
isfactorily answered, the minor objections
to this bill, I proceed to present my own.
It is by no means acceptable to me, sir.
If I had been free to choose, the rights of
my constituents should have been placed
on a very different footing. The fact that
a Southern planter emigrating to ene of
these Territories, and carrying with him
his slave property, is liable to be harass
ed by vexatious litigation, constitutes a se
rious objection. The disposition to ac
quiesce in a bill containing such a provi
sion, is an evidence of the strength as well
as the sincerity of our desire to ad just this
unhappy controversy. I have yielded my
assent to it, from a consideration that a de
cision in a single case would settle finally
the principles applicable to all ; and that
that decision may be promptly had. Ques
tioning, as I do, the power of Congress to
legislate on the subject of slavery, the pro
visions in this bill in relation to the Terri
tory of Oregon are by no means accepta
ble to me, and, standing alone would not
have received my vote. As part ofa mea
sure of peace and conciliation, they are
presented to me in a different aspect. I
know the deep interest which is felt on
the subject—how much it concerns us all
that it should become amicably adjusted.
In the history cf all Governments cases
have occurred which were net contemplat
ed and were not therefore provided for by
the organic law. This, I think, is such a
case, and feeling that the safety of the
people is the supreme law; that the con
tinued agitation of this question may en
danger the peace and harmony cf the
Union, I yield my constitutional scruples
to the ardent desire which I feel to test the
efficacy of this measure as one of peace
and conciliation.
Even this poor boon we are not permit
ted to accept. The Senator from Ohio,
(Mr. Corwin) declares that, with his con
sent, no Southern man shall be allowed to
emigrate to any one of the territories of
the United States, taking with him his
slave property. The inhibition applies
not only to the present, but all future time;
not only to territory already acquired, but
to whatever may be acquired hereafter.
Whether the acquisition be made by con
quest or by purchase, the blood anj trea
sure of the South must be contributed in
their full proportion, but all right of parti
cipating is to be denied them. The Sena
tor does indeed admit that what is acquir
ed by rapacity and military violence, inav
be subject to distribution, on the principle
of “ honor among thieves”—rather, it
would seem, for the purpose of giving
scope to his anathema against the mode
of acquisition, than from any deference to
Southern rights. Nevertheless, it is an
admission which authorizes me to inquire
if the opinions of that Senator as to the
mode in which the territories of New Mexi
co and California were acquired, have un
dergone a change ? He voted with me
in favor of the resolution which I submit
ted to the Senate, as an amendment to the
three million bill, and against the bill itself.
He voted with me to strike cut that part of
the boundary in the treaty with Mexico
which gave these territories to the United
States ; and failing in these modes of resis
tance, he voted with me against the treaty
itself. In all these cases we asserted that
the object of the Administration was to
coerce Mexico to submit to this dismem
berment hy the terror -of our arms ; that it
wouldJie an acquisition by conquest, which
was alike hateful to us both. Has he
changed this- opinion? Does he believe
noAv that these territories have been fairly
acquired by purchase ? that they have been
freely yielded by Mexico ? that they have
not been extorted by the terror of ourarmS?
Or does he still believe, as he was Wont to
do, that they have been wrested by force
of arms frohi a foeblte republic—that it is an
acquisition by conquest ? If so, the admis
sion of the Senator destroys the argument,
and renders quite harmless the sentimental
and vituperative rhetoric with which he
has assailed the rights of the South.
I have been gratified by the reply which
the Senator from Ohio has been enabled to
giveio the inquiry addressed to him by the
Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Johnson,)
that he is unconscious of having used the
language attributed to him by that. Sena
tor, and that, if used, (as it certainly was)
he now disclaims it. Having entertained
sentiments of respect and good will for the
Senator from Ohio, he will add to my
gratification if he is enabled also to dis
claim, or willing to recall, another portion
of his remarks. In speaking of slavery
as it existed in the Southern States, I ad
verted to the affection which subsisted be-,
tween the colored nurse ahd the child com
mitted to her care. The Senator was
pleased to speak of that portion of my re
marks in terms of eulogy, and as having
fjr a moment beguiled his judgment and
led him to believe that this was indeed
the patriarchal institution which it was
represented to be. He proceeded to say
that ho was awakened from his delusion
by tne inquiry of the Senator from Florida,
(Ylr. Westcott.) m relation to the power
of the territorial legislatures, under the
provisions of this bill, to establish patrol
laws, which, he said, were enacted in the
South, “to prevent these affectionate
nurses from throttling their young mas
ters.”
Mr. Corwin. I did not suppose the
Senator from Georgia could have so mi-’un
derstood my meaning in the manner in
which I presented the contrast referred to.
All that 1 said on the subject was to pre
sent the necessity of watching these slaves,
in the form of illustration, in a playful
way.
Mr. Berrien. Mr. Presidcnr, I leave
this part of the subject with a single re
mark ; that such levity was, in my judg
ment, unsuited to the occasion ; that the
wit which sparkles, is that which inflicts
no wound, and that calumny is not divest
ed of its odious character because it is ut
tered in the form of sarcasm.
Let us pass to tbe consideration of the
more important grounds of opposition to
this bill. The interests which it involves
are sectional, and this discussion of it has
unhappily become so. Northern Senators
oppose it, because it surrenders what they
are pleased to denominate the rights of the
non-slaveholding States, while those South
ern. Senators to whom it is unacceptable
rest their opposition on the ground that it
surrenders the rights of the South. Sure
ly, sir, this must be a bill of very singular
properties, to be open to such directly op
posite objections, The claints of the North
and South are exactly opposed, and yet it
is said to surrender both. Now, sir, this
cannot be. One class of disputants or the
other, must be in error.” Iff’ my judgment
they are both so. ,
To Southern friends I desire to submit
this simple suggestion. The bill abstains
from legislating on the .vexed question of
slavery. It leaves that to be decided by
the people of the Territories, when they
are in sufficient numbers to be admitted as
States, and are engaged in forming their
State constitutions. In the mean time, if
any question of freedom or slavery should
arise the judiciary will take cognizance of
it, not by virtue of any provision in this
bill, but in the exercise of their pre-exist
ing jurisdiction. All that it does in this
regard is to speed the decision of the case
by the appellate tribunal. In what sense
this can be said to be a surrender of South
ern rights, I am totally at a loss to under
stand. In a Government like ours, that
which is properly called a right is some
thing substantial—capable of being main
tained in judicature, and thereout—some
thing which a court of justice would be
bound to recognise. To say that we have
no right which the highest judicial tribu
nal would recognise, is to admit that we
have no right at all, but such as Congress
may be pleased to confer upon us—is to
concede in its whole extent the argument
which is urged in support of the right of
the North to the exclusive enjoyment of
these territories. Now, sir, Ido net enter
tain this opinion. If I did, if I thought
that in strict law our right could not be
maintained, with the conviction which I
have of the undoubted equity of the claim
of the South to participate in all acquisi
tions made of the expenditure of the com
mon blood and treasure of all the States, I
would have remained silent and would
have left the argument to be sustained by
those who were to profit by its allowance.
I have asserted the claim of the South, and
I am not willing to return to my constitu
ents and tell them that I have asserted that
claim, but had not sufficient confidence in
its validity to trust it to judicial decision.
If we have no right to carry our"slaves into
these territories without the permission of
Congress, (and that is the position in which
this argument places us,) we may abandon
at once the idea of having any share in
them, for the Missouri Compromise was
rejected by the select committee, and will
be by the House whenever it is offered.
But let us examine the argument which
denies this right. It runs thus :
Slavery exists only by force of local
statutes, and is not protected beyond the
limits within which they operate. Th
laws of a conquered country continue in
force until they are repealed by the con
queror. Slavery has been abolished in New
Mexico and California, and cannot be re
established there without the sanction of
Congress—hy the existing law, and the
enactment of a law of slavery.
Now, sir, it is not true in point of fact
that slavery exists or has existed only by
force of local statutes. The fact has been
assumed in certain judicial decisions, and
has been reiterated here, but it is contra
dicted in others, and is utterly at variance
with the historic record of the original
States. Whoever will consult this, will
find that slavery existed in all the colonies
before any law was passed to authorize it.
It was introduced into them by the cupid
ity of the mother country, (seeking to
avail herself of profits of the African slave
trade and of the market which the colonies
afforded for the sale of slaves,) not only
without any local law to aurthorizeit, but in
the face of the remonstrances of colonists,
and of acts passed by local Legislatures,
which were negatived by the royal Gov
ernors. When, in process of time, it be
came necessary to regulate this peculiar
class of people, and to distinguish be
tween those who were free and those who
were-slave, such laws were passed* but
slavery existed long anterior to their en
actment. The ease of Georgia is stri
king’in this particular. That colony was
settled in 1732 under the government of
trustees, which continued For about twenty
years, when they surrendered their char
ted, aiid it became a royal province; Ih
1735, the trustees passed ah act prohibi
ting the use and importation of negtoes
into the colohy, yet ih despite of this, they
were introduced from South Carolina ; so
that, when the goverhment of the trustees
ceased, it was deemed advisable to repeal
the prohibitory act. But the first law re
cognising the existence of slavery in that
colony, was passed in 1770, some twenty
years after; Such, on examination, will
be found to have been the fact, I doubt
not, i;*i all the colonies; There is an ex
press recognition of it in a case decided in
Louisiana,-in which the court say, It isan
admitted fact that slavery has been permit
ted and tolerated in all the colonies establish
ed in America hy the mother country. And
again : Slavery existed in the colonies long
before any-legislative act of the mother coun
try authorizing their introduction, except
the character of the African company,
and before any colonial act had passed de
claring its existencei
In a case decided in Virginia, the court
say : The slavery of the Africans lias ex
isted from the time of bringing them into
the colony—in many States by express
enactments declaring them slaves, in oth
ers by custom.
In Virginia it is certain that slavery ex
isted long before any local laws were pass
ed to authorize it—nay, notwithstanding
the Provincial Legislature attempted to
impose a tax which would amount to a
prohibition of their importation; and so
little ioundation is there for the assertion
that slavery exists only by force of local
statutes, which has so often been made on
this floor, that in the case from Louisiana,
to which I have first referred, the ccurt
say; It may be laid down as a legal axiom,
that in all Governments, in which the
municipal regulations are not absolutely
opposed to slavery, persons reduced to that
state may be held in it.
The foundation cf the first proposition,
the assumed fact on which it rests, is there
fore, taken from it. It is not true, as we
have seen, that slavery exists only by
force of local statutes. It existed in these
colonies long anterior to any local statute
in relation to it. Those statutes recog
nised and regulated, but did not ertablish
it. The principle stated by the Court in
Louisiana, to which I have referred, was
that on which it rested. The persons
brought to the colonies by the African com
pany had been reduced to slavery, accor
ding to the laws and customs of their own
country, either as captives in war, or in
whatever ether mode, and there being no?
municipal regulation in the colonies oppos
ed to if, were held in that condition. The
remaining branch of this proposition, that
slavery cannot exist beyond the limits of
the State in which it is established, I will
consider presently.
The next proposition by Senators is this:
The laws of a conquered country remain
in force until they arc altered by the con
queror. It is not necessary to deny this
position, but it is desirable to understand
it. A country subdued by force of arms
is held as a conquest until the right of
the conqueror is acknowledged by a trea
ty of peace, or until so long a time has
elapsed as’ to destroy the riarht of post li
mine of the nation from whom it has been
wrested by force of arms. If it lias been
yielded in the treaty of peace, the terms
of that treaty settle the condition of the in
habitants. Now, that New Mexico and
California arc the fruits of conquest
that Mexico has been compelled to
yield them by the terror of our arms,
and for the preservation of htr nationality
—is a proposition which Ido not doubt.
But she httsyielded them and a definite trea
ty of peace has setlled the condition of their
inhabitants- They no longer stand upon the
footing of a conquered people. They were
left by the terms of that treaty free to choose
betweenJMexico and the United States. If
they had adhered to the former, they would
have continued to enjoy the benefit of Mex
ican laws by a removal to some other part
of Mexico. If they choose the latter, they
became at once entitled to the privileges
of citizens of the United Slates, and in due
time to be admitted as members of the
Union. Can those privileges be enjoyed
in subservience to Mexican laws? A cit
izen of the United States has the privilege
of worshiping God according tojthe dictates
of his own conscience. The laws of Mex
ico prescribe the only form in which that
worship is aiiowed. A citizen of the
United States is entitled to his personal
liberty; his lands and tenements, goods
and chattels, are liable for the payment of
his debts, but his person is exempt. For
non-payment of debt the laws of Mexico sub
ject him to slavery, which can only be
terminated by the certificate of the credi
tor that the debt has been discharged. Are
Mexicans who have been elected to be
-1 come citizens of the United States still
subject to these laws ? Are citizens of
the United States who have emigrated or
may emigrate to these territories to be
subjected to them ? Who will affirm this?
Let it remembered that, in no one of the
cases which have been referred to by
Senators, was the question we are con
sidering distinctly in issue.
The opinions on which they rely are the
obiter dicta of the learned judges who ut
tered them. In the case decided by Lord
Mansfield, the question was, whether the
King, by virtue of his royal prerogative—
that is, independent cf Parliament—could
impose the duty or tax which was the sub
ject of controversy. It was a question of
British constitutional law, and was the on
ly one decided in the case. In the case of
Canter, the inquiry related to the validity
of a decree in a court of admiralty in Flor
ida, established by the Territorial Legisla
ture, under the authority cf Congress ; and
the questions which it was necessary to
decide were the right of this Government
to acquire territory* alid the consequent
power to govern it. In the case of Stroth
er and Lucus, the point decided was, that
the inhabitants of Louisiana were entitled
to the protection of their property, as well
under the treaty as by the law of nations,
and, in determining the question of title, to
have ihe benefit of those laws under which
it accrued. The distinct question wheth
er the laws ofa country which is acquired
by treaty, incorporated into the United
States as an integral portion of it, whose
inhabitants are declared to be entitled to
the privileges of citizens of the U-. States,
and for which a Territorial Government
has been established by Congress—the
question whether those laws continue to
exist and to operate prospectively, has not,
1 think, been decided. In relation to the
past, they are certainly effective to protect
rights acquired under them; but, in relation
to the future, the laws of the United States
and those made by the Territorial Legisla
ture, under the authority delegated to them,
are the enty recognized laws of the Terri
tory, unless Congress Shall otherwise pro
vide, Accordihgly, in the act establishing
Territorial Governments in Louisiana and
Florida,’there is in each case an express
provision continuing the pre-existing law&,
under certain restrictions.; If without this
provision they would have been in force,
why .was it made ?
But, Mr. President, is it quite certain
that slavery is abolished in Mexico? Ido
not speak now of peonage, or white slavery,
but of the African race. • The Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. Clarke) has exhibited
the decrees of the Mexican President and
Congress’ of the 15th September, 1829,
and of 1837. Now, it is very clear that
slavery had not been abolished by the first
act, or there would liave remained no slaves
to be marwmit/edhy the second. And yet
it provides that “the owners of slaves man
umitted by this,(the second) act shall be
indemnified for the interest they hold in
them,” &c. i It is certain, then, that there
were slaves in Mexico in 1837, notwith
standing tho decree abolishing slavery in
1829. The truth I suppose to be that these
decrees were acts declaratory of the will
of the Government, to he carried into effect
when its financial condition permitted.—
They did Hot mean to deprive the owner
of his prpperty without indemnifying him.
Accordingly, in the second decree, they
provide for an appraisement and the issue
of scrip to the owner, payable at the. Treas
ury. This appraisement was to be made
by “duly considering the personal quali
ties of the slaves.” Now were the apprais
ers to do this unless - the slaves were pro
duced to them, and hdw could they be pro
duced ifthey became free co-in stanti on
the .publication of the decree, and before
the appraisments were made, and of course
at liberty to go wherever they might think
proper. ,1 suppose, therefore, looking
merely to these decrees, that the abolition
of slavery in Mexico enacted by them re
mains to be completed by the appraisement
of “the slaves, and the indemnification of
their owners, and that until this is done
they are inoperative, or rather their oper
ation, is incomplete.
And bow, sir, having offered to the Sen
ate such suggestions as occur to me on the
questions we have been examining, I turn
to the consideration of ihat which is in my
judgment most important—the right of
every citizen of the United States, to re
move with his property, of whatsoever
kind, to any Territory of the United States.
He who denies this, is prepared to deny
the right of all, to participate equally in
that which has been acquired by the uni
ted efforts of all; to assett, as a legislator,
what as an individual he would blush to
affirm, that the majority of a joint associ
ation have a right to appropriate exclusive
ly to themselves the whole gains of the
copartnership. The farmer of the North
may emigrate to these Territories with his
family and household goods, with his ap
prentices and hired laborers, his herds and
his flocks, his property cf ever}’ descrip
tion. Why is not a like privilege accor
ded to the Southern planter? lam told
that negroes are not property beyond the
limits of the States in which the owner re
sides : that beyond these limits they are
considered as persons, over whom the own
er can exercise no dominion. Mr. Presi
dent, I have before pointed cut the fallacy
| Dumber 38.
of this position, but I desire again to expose
‘it to the view of the Senate.’ Sir,- no case
has been, no case can be produced to Sus
tain it. Certain State courts hate affirmed
that a slave brought with the consent of
his otvfier within the limits of a State,
whose laws forbid slavery, thereby becomes
free; The correctness of these decisions
may well be doubted, So far as they apply
to a citizen of the United States transiently
passing through such States, not resident
therein; but, waiving this,- it must be obvi
ous to every Senator that they fall very
short of the position which they are addu
ced to maintain. They do hot decide that
the slave becomes free by passing beyond
the limits of the State where hie master re
sides, but by entering within the limits of
a Stale whose laws forbid slavery: To
sustain the position which is contended for
here, it is necessary to produce a case
which decides that a slave becomes free
by passing into a Territory where there is
no law prohibiting slavery—into a territo
ry which is the common property of all
the people of the United States; whose in
habitants owe a common allegiance to a
Government whose constitution and laws
do not prohibit, but expressly recognise the
proprietary interest of the master in his
slave; Such a case has not been and can
not be produced. The precise converse
was decided in the Supreme Court of Lou
isiana, in the case to which I have before
referred. The learned judge who pro
nounced that decision stated it as a legal
axiom', that in all Governments in which
tiie mhnicipal regulations are not absolute
ly opposed to slavery, persons reduced to
that State may be heid in it. If, then, the
abolition of slavery has not been completed
in Meiico, or if; as I suppose, Mexican
laws will have ceased to exist, under the
provisions of the treaty, from the establish
ment of territorial governments in New
Mexico and California; and the extension
of the laws of the United States over them,
this is, then, the precise case suggested by
the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in which
persons previously reduced to slavery, may
be held in it.
I have said that slaves are recognised as
such in the constitution and laws of the
United States. They- are recognised both
as persons and ns property. As pci-sons,
they- constitbte an element of representation
giving political rights to their owners
which they would riot otherwise possess.
As property ; they are liable to taxation,
and have been subjected to it whenever
you have resorted to direct-taxes. Your
laws provide for the taxation ofslaves, and
the collection of the tax by distress and sale
by your officer, of the slave so taxed.—
Under the operation of these laws, slaves
are now held who have been purchased
from your officer, under warrants issued
by your command. They have been sold
at your instance, and the proceeds of the
sales have been paid into the National
Treasury. You are daily repeating this
operation by the sale of slaves under exe
cutions founded on judgments recovered
against defaulting officers. Do you mean
to deny the title -which has been given by
your command, under the authority of your
laws, while you retain in your Treasury
the price of the slave ?
Again: slaves are recognised as property
by your navigation, laws. You provide
for their transportation coastwise, from the
port of any State, to “any port or place
within the limits of the United States.”
You require certain things to u i> i, y
the owner, and thereupon your officer, un
der the authority of law, grants him a per
mit to transport his slave expressly to any
port or place within the limits of the Uni
ted States, to be sold as a slave, or to be
held to service or labor. Now consider
the operations of these laws oh the ques
tions before us. A citizen of Savannah
holding a slave, the issue of one purchased
by him from your officer, under ti sale for
direct taxes for which he haspaid the price
which you hold, goes before the collector
of that port, and; having complied with the
requisitions of the law, obtains from him a
permit to transport that slave to Monterey,
a port or place within the limiW of the U.
States, there to be sold as a slave, or to be
held to service or labor; and having your
title-to this slave, and you having his mon
ey, he has also your permit to carry him
there as a slave, tell me what authority is
there in any territory of this Union which
can override and nullify that of the Su
preme Government on which it depends,
and from which it derives whatever power
it possesses ? Holding a title to this slave,
given by your officer under the authority
of your laws, while the price which he has
paid yet remains in the National Treasu
ry-having yriur permit to carry him there
to be sold as a slave, or to be held to ser
vice or labor, what authority in that terri
tory, over which you have exclusive do
minion, can wrest from the owner the right
which he has thus acquired to the labor
and service of this slave ?
‘• - From the Albany Patriot.
Messrs. Editors : —A friend has called
my attention to a- paragraph in an editori
al of the Albany Courier—“ Who is old
Seaborn but a deserter? and what are
Iverson, Flewellen, Mercer, and Wellborn
but deserters ?” The editor of the Courier
hopes, doubtless, to make us infamous by
this gratuitous charge. We shall see.—
Does he mean to say, that 1 deserted frnrfi
his party ? I was never a whig, thank
God. Does he mean to say that I desert
ed from the State-rights party ? . I was the
last man left of that proud party, and saw,
with tears in my eyes, the editor and his
associates trample our glorious banner in
the dust—as the Japanese once did the
Christian Cross. Ycu, Mr. Courier, and
l were once State-rights men together. If
I deserted to the democrats, you deserted
to the whigs. If, l deserted to a domestic,
Georgia party, whose interests and politi
cal opinions were identical with mine, you
deserted to a Northern alien party, (for
there was never a whig South of the Poto
mac until you became one,) whose inter
ests, opinions, instincts, and sympathies
were all adverse to us. Did I ever desert
my political principles? Never—so help
me God. Can you, Mr. Courier, say the
same ?, Come now, no evasion, or myst.fi
cation. A plain, direct, categorical answer
is desired. Do not plead infancy; and tell
me you knew nothing about politics un
til 1840, as many of your party do. Hoa
ry-headed whigs, only eight years old ! A
better plea, (because mote veracious,) is,
that you and your pariy got so drunk on
hard cider in 1840, that you not only
knew not what yori did at the time, but al
so forgot much of your previous history.
Amidst the revelry of that debauch, you
tore and trampled in the dust your own
State-rights banner, and ranged yourselves
under that of the whigs; rap railing away
to the tunes of Protective Tariff, National
Bank, and Internal Improvements. At
the same time, the democratic party, (be
tween whom and ourselves, there had
been littleorno difference cn national poli
tics, only in regard to Nulification, and
that issue had passed away,) spread their
banner, (a sac simile of cur own,) to the •
breeze, and striking up the old familiar
tunes ofanti-Tariff, anti-Bank, &c., invited
us to join them, on the terms of Liberty*
Equality, Fraternity. The fierce strif*
about Nullification and minor matters of
State policy, had engendered in the breasts
of many State-rights men, a personal hatred
and detestation ; and the oiler was, conse
quently rejected with supercillious con
tempt ; such as, I fancy, Pat felt when
his donkey attempted, as he believed, to
fraternize with him irra social ride ; Tht*
ass, in kicking away the flies, hung a foot in
one of his stirrups, which, Put observing,
“ Aye,” said he if you are going to
mount I’ll get down, for by the powers I’ll
not ride double with you.’*
“ I will not allow myself to believe that
the editor, (for whom I have a personal re
spect,) would knowingly and with malice
aforethought, bring a false accusation
against another ; and I am, therefore, driv
en to conclude, that the immoderate use of
hard cider has obtunded his perceptions.—
Surely if he knew that he lived in a glass
house, he would not throw stones at others.
That he may not get into such a scrapo
again, I propose to sketch him out a short
course of study, in order that he may com
pare his former with his present principles;
riot doubting, that this labor of love, will bo
received in the same kin?! spirit in which
it is offered; Before entering on his stu
dies, I respectfully recommend to him, the
following short formula of prayer;
“(} ! wad some powor the gillie gie us,
To see ourselves as others see us ;
It wad free monv a blunder free us,
And foolis notion.”
Let me call his intention to tho resolu
tions of Maj. Wood, of Mclntosh, introdu
ced into the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 7th,
1832:
“ Be it therefore resolved by the Senate, }-<■., tho
State of Georgia declares, that the Tariff legisla
tion, foundod on the principleofprotectinn, is con
trary to tho spirit of tho Federal Constitution, BSc.*
Lbt me remind the editor, that Maj.
Wood was a leading Union Senator, and
the resolutions will inform him, that tho
Unioii party, as well ns the State-rights
party, declared that a Protective Tariffwao
unconstitutional;
I ask the special attention of the editor
of the Courier, to the proceedings of thp
great anti-. Tariff convention, which assern
bled at Milledgevillc; Nov. 12th, 1832:
because, that has ever been considered aa
one of the most authoritative councils of tho
party. Mr. Forsyth and fifty-one other
delegates seceded in a body, from that great
convention, and forthwith united with tho
Union party. They left a paper on the ta
ble, in which they protested against tho
right and authority of the convention, (from
defects in its organization,) to bind the peo
ple of the State, to measures w hich they
proposed to adopt* These seceders did
not differ at all from the convention, in re
gard to the unconstitutionality of the Tar
iff ; and they and their constituency formed
a large part of what was, subsequently,
called the Union party. The editor will
hence perceive, that the parties agreed aa
to the unconstitutionality of the Tariff, and
disagree only a6 to the “ mede and meas
ure of redress.”
The convention appointed a committee
of twenty one cf whom Mr. Berrien was
chairman, to report resolutions. Mr. 8.,
the author of the great Free Trade report
at Philadelphia, was the ruling spirit in
this convention, and his rctolutions, a?
chairman ofthe committee wc.qunanimous
ly adopted. The first resolution says,—-
“ That the Federal Government is a confedera
cy formed by the States composing the same, for
the specific purposes expressed in the constitution,
and for those alone.”
“ 4th. That the Federal Government Is a govern
ment, the powers of which arc expressly limited by
the constitution which created it, &c.”
“ 7th. That the Act laying duties on imposts, pass
ed in July, 1832, as well as the several acta of
which that is amendatory, in so far as it transcends
the purposes of revenue, and docs operate suhstaiM
tially for the protection of manufactures, is an exer
cise of power not granted by the constitution, but a
plain and palpable violation ofthe true intent,
meaning and spirit thereo . &c,”
“ Btli. That taking tho payment of the national
debt as the period atler which the present Tariff of
duties, s > far as it trancends the purposes of reven
ue, and is designed lor the protection of domestic;
manufactures, can find no plausible pretext in our
constitutional charter, &c.”
“ 9th. That the people of Georgia cannot submit
to the permanent protection of domestic m:.r.nfac
tures by duties imposed for that purpose on the im
portation or 6 „ V, | ■
such as are among the necessaries uflifc : that tac-v
cannot submit to the adoption of the principle on
which such duties arc imposed,, as a permanent
principle of federal policy, but will feel bound to
resist the same’ by the exercise of all thoiv rights
one of the sovereign members of this confederacy
&c.”
The foregoingextractsfrom the old Tes
tament Scriptures of the whig party, ao
commended to the careful study of the ed
itor of the Courier. They are too explicit
to need comment “He who runs mav
read, and the wayfaring man, though u
tool,” cannot mistake their meaning.
On the first of January, 1833, Mr. For
syth laid before the Senate of the United
States certain resolutions of the General
Assembly of the State of Georgia, passed
in December, 1842, and sillied by Thom
as Stocks, Pres. Senate, and Asbury Hull,
speaker, and Wilson Lumpkin, Governor,
calling upon the several States to hold a
convention, to amend the constitution, on
the following as well as other points, viz:
“ 3d. That the principle involved in a Tariff for
the direct protection oi domestic industry may be
settled.”
“ 7th. That the power of chartering a 15 ink, and
of granting incorporations, may l.e expressly giveu
to, or withheld from Congress.”
“Bth. TliaJ the practice of appropriating money
for works of Internal Improvement, may be either
sanctioned by an express delegation of power, or
restrained by express inhibition.”
The above resolutions show, that both
parties concurred in opinion, that tint
Bank, Protective Tariff, and internal Im
provements were unconstitutional.. Tho
late Win-. 11. Crawford, cue of Georgia’s
most distinguished sons, a moderate man,
and opposed to Nullification,originated the
project of an United States Convention.—
In his letter, dated “Woedlawn, Sej t, Gth,
1832,” and which may be found at page
44, U; S. Telegraph, vol. vii., he says,
“The same men. in convention and Con
gress, would probably act differently. In
convention the question would bo*, what
power shall be granted ; in Congress it is
what power has been granted to the Fede
ral Government. In convention the mem
bers from the South would say, all wo
want is protection from robbery and pillage
under color of law ; to this we have submit
ted for the sake of peace, harmony, and
union, as long as we can; we aro now de
termined that such robbery and pillage
shallend*&c.” Further on he says, “at
one tirpe I had made up my mind to bear
the evils of the Protective System, under
a belief that they would cure themsedv's,
and therefore be but temporary ; the ibc
trine lately advanced in Congress has chang
ed my mind, &c.”
Again: whilst the bloody-bill was under
consideration in the House of Representa
tives, Febrnarv, 1833, the Hon. Thomas
Foster, a State-rights representative from
Georgia, addressed the House, and amengst
other things, said:
“But, Mr. Speaker, I have an argument to nrpe
against the main provision!* of this bill, winch ad
dressed itself particularly tp those gentlemen who
believe in the unconat tutionality ofthe protective
system. This bill is intended to provide for the
execution ofthe existing Tariff laws, whether the
proposed modification takes place or not—which
laws have been declared by nearly all the Southern
States to he unconstitutional. This I understand
my colleague, ( Mr. Waynne) to admit: If lam
mistaken, he will correct roe. (Mr. Wayne said,
he h.id expressly admitted tie protective system to
be unconstitutional.) I am glad that I did ot
misunderstand my colleague, &c.”
But not to weary tho editor of the
Courier with too long a lesson, let its
come down to more modern times. Is Ike
Georgia Legislature, in 1838, when brtfel
parties were quarrelling alxui which wr
the best State-rights men, Mr. Meriwether,
(the author, or, rather inventcrT.f the poli
cy Yf operating privately .) delivered u
public speech on the su!.--Treasury resolu
tions. It may be found in .the Georgiy.
Journal, No. 22, Vol. xxx. In thaUpeech*
he takes occasion to say,
“ I have another objection to the crigiral rco-