Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

tii i: .southern Is published every Thursday Morning, XX COLUMBUS, OA. BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBERS, BDfTOil AXO PROPUIETOU. To whom all coinmuiucaliiuis must be directed, poet paid. Ojjice on Randolph Street. Term') of Subscription. Qua copy twolvo months, in*advance, - - £2 50 Not in advance, -3 00 w “ Six “ “ - 150 \\ here the subscription is not paid during the year, 15 cents will la.* charged lor every month’s delay. No subscription will Ito received f>r loss than six months, and tioim discontinued until all arrearages are paid, except at the option of the proprietor. To Clubs. Kirc copies twelve months, ... §IOOO Ten “ “ “ 10 00 ZAP The money from Clubs must in nil cares ac company the, names, or the price of a single subscription Will be charged. Rates of Advertising. One Square, first insertion, - - - §1 00 “ “ Each subsequent insertion, - 50 A liberal deduction on these terms will be made in favor of those who advertise by the year. Advertisements not s[>eeilie<l as to time, will bo pub lished (HI joi ‘nd, and charged accordingly. Monthly Advertisements will bo charged as new Ad vertisements at each insettion. Lejal Advertisements. N. B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Kx e.cut<rs, or Guardians, are required by law to bo held on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 in the forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court House in tho county in which, the land is situated. No tices of those sales must he given in a public gazette Mx rv days previous to the day of sale. tvalcN of NkijKoiis mu -t he made at a public auction On the first Tuesday of the mouth, between the usual hours of sate, at the place of public sales in the county where the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship,may have boon granted, first giving sixty Imys notice thereof in one of the public gazettes of this State, ami at the door of the Court House, where such sales are to be held. Notice for the sale of Persona! property must be given in like manner forty* days previous to the day oi sale. Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must be. publisher! forty days. Notice that application will bo made to the Court of! Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must bo published for roc a .MONTHS. Notice for leave to sell Xi.nitons must be published for Fvrj: months, before any order absolute shall be made thereon by the Court. Citations for Letters of Administration, must be pub lished thirty days—for dismission from administration, monthly six months —for dismission fiom Guardianship, rr.TT DAYS. Ror.Es for the foreclosure of a Mortgage must be pub lished monthly for four months —for establishing lost papers, for tlio rci.r. space of three months —for com pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a Bond has been given by tile deceased, the full space of THREE MONTHS. Publications will always be continued according to thceo legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered. SOUTH F.RN SFNTINEL Job Office. nAVIXG received anew and extensive assortment of Job Material, we arc prepared to execute at this ollieo, all orders for JOB WORK, in a manner which can not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms, and at the sliorre-t notice. We feel confident of our ability to give, entire satisfac tion in every variety of Job Printing, including Books, Business ('arils, Pamphlets, / till I frails, Circulars, Wanks of every description, Hand Pills, Bills of Ijailing, Posters, tj*<\ djv. fye. In short,a?! descriptions of Printing which can ba ex ecuted at any olliec in the country, will be turned out with elegance and despatch. Comity Surveyor. r |MIR undersigned informs his friends and the Planters I of Muscogee county, that he is prepared to make ellicial surveys in Muscogee county. letters addressed \ to Post Office,Columbus, will meet with prompt atten tion. WM. F. SEKRELL, County Surveyor. Office, No. 4 Telegraph Building, Broad St. Columbus, Jan. 31,1850. 5 ly W. & W. F. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEYS at law, OOLl’jftl'US, GKORGI A. WILEY WILLIAMS. WM. IN WILLIAMS. Oct. IT, 1850. 21 B JAMES FORT, ATTORNPY AT LA FT, HOLLY SPRINGS, MISS. July 1, 1350. 27 Cm Williams & Howard, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLI’MBrSj GEORGIA. ROP.T. R. HOWARD. CIIAS. J. WILLIAMS. April 4, 1850. 14 ts .!. 1). LEONARD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, TAI.BOTTON, GA. WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent c,unties. All business entrusted to his care will meet with prompt attention. April 1, 1850. 14 ly KING & WIN.NEMORE, Commission Merchants, MOBIT.F, ALABAMA. Dec. 20,1540. [Mob. Trib.] 15 tl GODFREY A SOLOMONS, Factors ami Commission Merchants, BAYAXXAH, GEORGIA. JAMES n. OOP!"KEY, E. W. SOLOMONS. It E r E 11 K N CEL JtEV. J AS. JC. EVANS, REV. SAMVEL ANTHONY, I Savannah. Talbot ton. Jlltit;WAY A. (11'NnY, N. OVSEI.V fc SON, Columbus. Moron. July 25 30 Cm. j THIS PAPER is manufactured by run Rock Island Factory, NEAR THIS CITY. j Columbus. Feh. 23. 1850. ‘J tt _ NORTH CAROLINA Hutual Life Insurance Company. LOCATED AT RALEIGH, N. G. G|T!IE Charter of this company gives important silvan- . 1 tagesti* the assured, over most other companies, j The hiisbaml can insure his own life for the sole use and , t*enetit of his wile and children, free from any other j claims. Persons who insure for life participate in the j profits which are declared annually, and when the pre mium exceeds §3O. may pay one-halt in a note. Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value tor one or five, years. Applications for Risks may be mmh'to Agent. Columbus, Ga. fTy” Office Ft Greenwood <Sn Co.’s W arehouso. Nov. 15,1810. WANTED. lAA AAA !'*• RAGS. Cash paid for clean cot 11 ‘ V/ * * ton or linen rags—l cents, per pound, when delivered in quantities of 100 pounds or more : and 31 cents when delivered in small quantities, toroid hemp,bagging, and paces of rope. If cents, delivered either at Rock Island Factory or at their store in Co lumbus, in the South corner Room ol'Oglethorpe House. D. ADAMS, Secretary. Columbus, Feb. 28,1850. 9 tl a. a Globs Hotel, jML BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA. BY j. WILLIAMS. March 14,1850. ts Marble Works, East side Broad St. near the Market House, COLUMBUS, GA. HAVE constantly on hand all kinds of Grnre Stones Monuments, ‘Tombs and Tablets, of American Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving done on stone in the best possible manner; and all kinds „f Onmta Work .1. I(ADDEN p. g.—Plaister of Paris and Cement, always on hand for sale. .. r Columbus, March 7, ISeO. 10 tt YOL. I. Speech of lion, L. Clieves, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ! Delivered in the Southern Conven tion at Nashville, Nov. 14, 1850. V\ e meet on a melancholy occasion. It is to devise the means of defending the South* ; ern States against a great and alarming dan* : gor, with which we are not threatened by a | foreign foe or a common enemy, but by our fellow citizens, whom fraternal feelings, whom fidelity to plighted faith, and whom gratitude for great benefits—which, more titan all oilier causes, have made them groat, wealthy, and powerful—should have made our hearty friends and our devoted allies in all adversity. Instead of which wo find them our most un just oppressors, our bitter and unappeasable enemies. Having deprived us practically of all power under the common government which hound us together, they arc aiming at the subversion of our dearest tights, the de struction of our most valuable property, and the desolation of our country. Our enquiry will, of course, boos South ern Eights, Southern Wrongs, and Southern Dangers. The general rights of the South ern States are those of equal, independent, unabridged sovereignties. Our independent sovereignty was asserted from the beginning of the government, and maintained triumph antly, within a few years after the adoption of tin’ constitution of the United States. The old federal doctrines of strong government and constructive powers were put down. In the south and west there was but one voice on the subject. Such was the devotion to State independence, such the generous spirit of the south and west, as expressed in the ! resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky, in 1798, that, had not the dangers then contemplated, though not amounting to a tithe of those by which we are now threatened, been averted at the polls, it would have been done by force. The base idea of taking “ the best we could ; get,” entered into no mind. The only qnos- J lions were, what were our rights, our whole j and unabridged rights, and how they should j be maintained. The universal public scorn j would have scathed, with the power of the ! vivid lightning, the dastard who would have j consented to accept compromises, or talk of taking a fragment of those rights as “the best we could get.” Mho would then have dared to propose submission to our equals ? Who would then have been mean enough even to deliberate on such degradation ? But the noble spirit of that day seems to be extin guished, and unless it can be roused, you are destined to become “ the basest, meanest of mankind.” You will suffer the most con spicuous infamy that ever characterized a people. You will cease to be a people, and your homes and hearths will be occupied by those who are now your slaves. The danger, however great, which we suf fer is, nevertheless, from our own creature. The States have all sovereignty. They have only granted to the Union, as their agent, in trust, the execution of certain limited func tions. This great and portentous power which now lumgs over us, would he dissipa ted like a cloud, if it only covered constitu tional ground. It surprises us, on investiga tion, to see 1 ow little sovereignty is vested in a government that now looms, as the sail ors say, immensely large. It has no distinct identity. It has not even a name of identity. It has no power, under the Constitution, to at qu’re by conquest o: - otherwise an inch of ter ritory, except for the seat of government, and, with the consent of the States, for forts and arsenals. This was the doctrine of the fed eralists, who are the present free soilers, when Louisiana was acquired, and it is a sound constitutional doctrine. The appropriation of that territory, in the form of now States, was merely by the acquiescence of the several independent States in whom it was vested. It is no more authorized by the constitution of the Union than was the Missouri compro mise, which excluded slavery beyond the line of 3l deg. 30 min., which is wholly founded ! on the acquiescence of the several states. — ! ‘lime,with that acquiescence, has given validity ; to these transactions. According to sound con- ! stitntional law, California is not, and cannot be a State, without the acquiescence of each and every State of the Union. Whether she is a State or not, may yet he a question, be fore “ the great argument” pending between the South and the North shall be finally con cluded. But admitting that California is a State, and tluTt, according to the forme of the Union, her admission is valid ; her introduction, mi ller all the circumstances, with the exclusion j of slavery, is the most prominent of the re- j cent wrongs that the South has suffered. It j was tyrannical—it was fraudulent—it was i insulting. The territory was acquired by | your blood and treasure, to, a much greater ; extent than by those of the section of coun try which has bereaved you of all share in it. Can any tyranny be greater than to rob you of it ? You bad as full and clear a right ; to it, in equity and law, as you have to the : soil of the States which you occupy and cul tivate : and the miserable pretences under which you have been excluded from it, only increase the injury by the insults which they constitute. It is said that the admission ot California is not inconsistent with the Con stitution, by which is meant merely that Con gress has the power to admit anew State into the Union. The highest violation of the Constitution is to employ the use of its forms to violate its spirit. The great object of such institutions is the security of the rights of the citizens. Now, the admission of California was expressly with a view to destroy your property in the territory, and to make it in strumental in destroying slavery within all the States. Is it not farcical, then, to say it was constitutional l Had they come into your domestic territory and turned you out of vour homes, it would not have been a clearer violation of right, or more unjust, though the violence might have been greater. The manner, too, eminently bore the im press of tyranny. The military power, of which all free States arc, or ought to be in the highest degree jealous, was the im mediate instrument used for its accomplish ment. A subordinate officer, in regular rank not exceeding, I believe, the grade of a col j onel, calls upon a population, contemptible in number, disqualified iu character, whether recent squatters or the simple and ignorant conquered people, to perform the great work of statesmen, to appropriate to their own use a vast territory equal to the aggregate extent of many of the largest States of the Union, j embracing all our ocean border, all our forts and harbors on the great Pacific, to one foot of which not one, nor all of them had a right. Does the history of. nations, from the earliest record to the present time, furnish any thing like a parallel to it ? Was ever a peo ple treated with such utter contempt by one branch of their government I These grave and learned legislators form a constitution and demand admission into the l nion, and begin by a violation of the Con stitution of the Union in making a claim to two representatives instead of one, and con trary to an express article of that instrument, which required that the mode and manner of their election should have been previously prescribed by the Legislature of the State. Their haste was too great even to wait for the establishment of a Legislature. In better times, when your old, well tried and establish ed citizens respectfully applied for admission into the Union, such extravagances were not dreamt of, nor would they have been tolerated: yet Congress admitted this monstrous defor mity, with none of tho probationary tests which had always before been required, with a haste which forbade all investigation, bv the people of tho Union, of tho physical character of the community, or the fitness of the people to form a State, or the manner in which these pretended rights had beeen exer cised. The miserable juggle of non-inter vention was played off. It was alleged that Congress had no power to control the small and motley population which wantonly pre sumed to do this great political act. llow false, how impudent an assertion ! Congress had undoubtedly a right to govern and dictate the mode and manner of their admission into the Union, whether they had the power to make California a State or not, which, as has already been shown, is at least very ques tionable. All other States have gone through a probationary course; but California, even in its swaddling clothes, in hasto and with violence, is forced into the Union with all these and many more imperfections on its head, under the absurdity of non-intervention. Os this puerile fancy any man of common sense would be ashamed. Yet I understand that the paternity of it belongs to a distin guished gentleman, who very modestly as pires to be put at the head of the Govern ment of the United States, and that his prin cipal claim on the Southern States is founded on this great invention. Statesmen, now-a- I days, invent principles to suit occasions as readily as our eastern friends invent instru ments for the paring of apples, or the making of pins, and though without their usefulness or merit, wo as readily adopt them. One might suppose they had been diligent students at the Academy of Lagado. It has been as serted by this distinguished gentleman that the meagre group of Californians had a right, uncontrollable by Congress or any other pow er, to form themselves into a State, and, of course, appropriate to their own use this vast territory, the whole ocean coast, and the most valuable mines in tho world; and if this great inventor be right, there are no rights of do main reserved to the United States; for ac cording to him they are a sovereign people. Is it not monstrous, even iu language, to hear such an assemblage of persons as these were, called a peotde, by which is meant a State, and to say that, before their admission into the Union, they could exercise a sovereignty over a large portion of the continent ? California did not belong to them any more than it did to the Grand Turk. It was con qneredby the people of the United States, and ceded to tho people of the United States in sovereignty. The sovereignty thus ceded was vested either in the United States as a consolidated body, or in the States collective ly as independent sovereigns. If the former, the population of California could not budge an inch except under the authority of the government of the United States, which had all tho powers of an absolute sovereign over them. If the latter, then the like powers were vested in the States, under whose ac quiescence the government of the Union could control them, as was done in the case of Louisiana. If this Senator he right as to the [lower of the population, they could have ro anuexed the territory to Mexico, instead of tho United States. Why not ? According to him, they were not under the control of tho United States, or any other sovereign. The true question is, was California fairly admitted into the Union The negative of this proposition has, l think, been abundantly proved. But Igo on. A large portion of the small population of the territory was de cidedly opposed to the formation of u State, and desirous of a territorial government; but they were silenced by the grossest misrepre sentation. An agent of the general govern ment was sent to California to co-operate in the formation of a State which should ex clude slave labor. He was a secret agent, so far as the people of the Union or the legisla tive power of the Union was concerned. No one doubts what lie was sent there for, or what he did, notwithstanding the arts with which the transaction was covered* No trace of his instructions can lie discovered; all that we can learn is, that he understood the views of the President and his cabinet; and notwithstanding all denials to the con trary, no one doubts that his business was to advance the great work of bringing this terri tory into the Union ns a non-slaveholding State. Was not this a gross fraud upon the South ? In better times tho President and his ministers would have been impeached for this gross abuse of power, and if justice had been done, would have been dismissed from office. To lull the South into security or ac quiescence, it was asserted with the utmost confidence in Congress, and by all the agents and presses of the free soilers, that the South had no interest in the question, ns slave labor could not he employed in the territory. Now this is an absolute falsehood. There is no portion of the United States in which slave labor could be so usefully and profitably em ployed. Mining is the proper labor of slaves, and for that purpose where they have existed, 1 they have been employed in all countries and I times. On this point the slave owners would have ! thought for themselves, and soon have dissi j pated the error and misrepresentation. But they were met by another misrepresentation, j which, I think, shall prove to have been equal | ly as false, by those who had the power to i make their opinion prophetic: that slaves entering the territory, would be, by tlfat act, ! emancipated under the Mexican laws, which ! were alleged to be of force in the territory. By this assertion, coming from such a source, : the slave owner was intimidated ; and before COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 5, 1850. lie had time to look around him, the contri i vanco of a free state estopped him. The j slaveholding States were thus deprived of ; vast advantages which their slaves would : have yielded them. These advantages have been enjoyed by all the vagabonds of the world, and even by foreign convicts. Now, this opinion 1 believe to have been as un founded as that the territory was unfitted for slave labor. The alleged law of Mexico was declared j by revolutionary and military governments, in which the people of Mexico had no agen cy. Tho first act simply declared that slave ry was abolished. Within a very short time, (this fact proving tho ephemeral, unstable and unauthoritaiive character of those gentlemen,) under anew constitution, as it was called, taking no notice of the first, treating it ns if it had never existed, it was repeated that slave ry was abolished, and that tho owners should bo compensated for their property. This compensation was equitably, and, I think, in ! legal construction, a condition precedent, of the performance of which there is not a tithe of evidence. Can slavery then be said to have ceased in Mexico? California was a distant territory unconnected with Mexico, (except, perhaps, by military compulsion,) with probably not a slave in it ; for all the ! negroes in Mexico did not exceed six or eight thousand, and they wore in the ports of Vera Cruz and Acapulco, and the hot regions in tho vicinity of the sea coast. Throughout Mexico generally, it is said, a negro was as rare a siglit as in London or Paris. Peonage there substituted African slavery and was, in itself and still is, practically, an abject state of slavery. The validity of such a law, un der all the circumstances, in California it self, among the original population, may be considered very doubtful. But, admitting it to he a valid law, enacted by a just, free and established government, it could not be al lowed in a conquered country, to contravene a great and fundamental institution of the conqueror. Such was slavery in the United States when California was ceded. When the union of the States was consummated, I believe there was but one State in which slavery did not exist, and in almost every pago of tho constitution it is recognized and guaranteed. It is represented on the floor of the House of Representatives—it is taxed in the imposition of revenue. The restoration of slaves, as property, is guaranteed. Unlike all other property, it is made a prominent and visible character of the State. Is it not, then, a great and fundamental institution of the conqueror, having no reference to particular States or localities, but embracing Massa chusetts as well as Louisiana ? If prejudice could he laid aside, in the investigation, would it not be admitted that it could no more be affected by a law of the conquered country than that which secures to all the people of tho States the freedom of their religious opin ions ? Now, tho unquestionable laws of Mexico would deny this right, if they were obligatory in the ceded territory; yet, it would bo deemed little short of insanity to assert such a proposition. When the con stitution of the United States was adopted, (and that is the era to which wo are to look, in seeking for the true meaning of the instru ment,) the whole civilized world recognized and protected this property in all places and under all circumstances where other property was protected. In a decree of the greatest and ablest administrator and expounder of national law that tho ago produced, (Lord Stowell, better known as Sir William Scott,) lie says, “ Let mo not bo misunderstood or misrepresented as a professed apologist for tho practice, [the slave trade,] when I state facts which no man can deny, that personal slavery arising out of forcible captivity is co eval with the earliest periods of tho history of mankind; that it is found existing, (and as far as appears without animadversion,) in the earliest and most authentic records of the hu man race; that it is recognized by the codes of the most polished nations of antiquity ; that, under the light of Christianity itself, tho possession of persons so acquired has been, in every civilized country, invested with the character of property and secured as such by all the protection of law ; that solemn treaties have been framed and national mono polies eagerly sought to facilitate and extend the commerce in this asserted property; and all this with all the sanctions of law, public and municipal, and without’ any opposition, except the protests of a few private moralists, lil'lc heard and less attended to in every coun try, till within these very few years, in this particular country This decree was delivered in ISI7, more than a quarter of a century after the consti tution of the United States had been in com plete operation, and confirms all the princi ples of our political compact with our sister •States on this subject. But the frec-soil States, with an inexpressible arrogance and fury, simply reply, that there can lie no pro perty in man ; while the laws of God, both in the Old and New Testament, the laws of all mankind and the constitution, falsify in the most palpable manner this their fundamental proposition. They say that there is a law above the constitution ; that if the scriptures sustain the institution of slavery they are a lie ; and the laws and practice of all nations and of all times they do not even deign to notice. It is thus seen that no property is more distinctly and favorably recognized by all laws, human, divine, municipal and nation al ; that with us it is eminently a fundamental and national institution. But this pretended law of Mexico, the mere fume of revolution ary anarchy, having no relation to, or opera tion in California in its conquered state, can not invalidate all the sanctions which secure this property ; which, let it always be remem bered, does not depend on the laws of par ticular States, but on the constitution and laws of the Union. The authority of the States, it is true, has been employed in some j instances to prevent its entrance into them, j and, I admit, has not been questioned; but if j it were anew and open question, it is difficult | to sec how it could lie sustained. Ido not mean to contend that its retention in those States could not he prohibited: but I am, | perhaps, leaving the direct consideration of ; the question before us, which is, the effect of tho supposed law of Mexico on this property I ; within this territory. The law of nations ! 1 giving a temporary and limited operation to j ; such a law within the conquered territory, is j only protective of the conquered inhabitants, and there ends. It is a charitable limitation j of the rights and power of the conqueror; a ! mere limitation of unquestionable right and . power. It has no pretensions to control the rights and interests of the conqueror. There will not be found in all the libraries of the law, or in the narrations of history, any pre ; tension of that kind. The language of Bur j lamaqlli, is; “Even were wo to strip the van* | quished entirely of their independency, we may still leave them their own laws, customs and magistrates, in regard to their public and private affairs of small importance,” and we may not —and, in strictness, there is neces sarily some positive act, express or tacit, to allow this operation, even this limited opera tion of the laws of the subdued people. Is there any doubt but that in the fullness of the power of the conqueror even this limited operation of his power does not oxist ? It only exists as a conservative favor, not a right I confidently helievo that no enlarged legal mind, capable of taking a comprehen sive view of national law, would for a mo ment recognize tho operation of this law on the security of tho property of slaves car ried into California before it was admitted into the Union. But if it were admitted that this law would have the alleged operation, what would have been the duty of a just and paternal government; a just government,con sulting and protecting all the l ights of all tho people; of a government such as a free people ought to consent to live under and sustain ? Undoubtedly, to have immediately invalidated such a law. But so shadowy a pretence has been made an instrument to deny to almost half the nation the fair employment of their property. Wo need not ask why; because it is audibly declared that the object is to des troy that property, to abolish .shivery, to fence the slave States around by what they call free States, and to imprison this population within limited bounds, so that its labor may become unprofitable, the property less valuable, and its management more difficult and hazardous, and thus to persecute the holders until they shall abandon it. It is unnecessary to enumerate more of the atrocities which are exhibited by this act of legerdemain, (the admission of California,) for it would be a gross abuso of the language we speak, to call it a regular act of an estab lished government of modern civilized times. But the magic is as clumsy as it is wicked. It can deceive no one. It lias neither sem blance nor reality. It would disgrace tho wand of Prospero. The hideous features, however, of this po litical deformity are nothing when compared with the dangerous spirit which abides within it and the motive which governs it. They aro no less than the entire and speedy abolition of slavery. Now, let any man contemplate the character and extent of this proposition. Language fails to portray it. None but a Northern fanatic, or a torpid Southron, can hear it littered without a feeling of horror. Some idea of it may be gained byrecalling the sufferings, the massacres and the banish ment, in poverty and misery, of tho white proprietors of Hayti, and tho present rule of his sable majesty, tho emperor Faustin the First. Tho beautiful and prolific South and South-west is to bo desolated, its white inhab itants massacred, or flying from their abodes in beggary and misery, unsheltered from the pitiless storm, and without the comforts or the subsistence of life. The country possessed by some emperor bearing and exulting in the euphonious title of, perhaps, Cully the First, i Such, or worse, if worse lie possible, will be the inevitable effects of our glorious Union” in the hands of “les amis des noirs,” an ominous name, of which tho very sound would seem to affright the southern mind from its propriety, if it were not absolutely torpid. Nor let those of tho South who have no direct interest in slave property, hug to their bosoms tho sweet unction that they can evade the common fate. Every southern interest must perish with tho slave institution. Hou ses, lands, stocks, moneys at interest, must all bo submitted to this fate. These horrors hav? nothing appalling to the minds of free soilers. An appeal was made to the greatest man of this diabolical fraternity, a man now no more, but whose spirit still lives. He was told of these horrors, and particularly of the destruction of the masters. His reply was, “Let them come, though five hundred thou sand lives should perish.” This is more dia bolical than the declaration of some Marat or Robespierre, in tho fury of tho French Revolution, who said, “Thousands of lives are a small sacrifice for the establishment of a principle.” But it is said it is not intended to disturb tho security of slave property in tho established States. This is absolutely false. They have declared a thousand times that their great end and aim is universal emancipa- ! tion. Nor can they limit their operations, for, as John Randolph pithily said, fanaticism has no stopping place. It may not be the view of all the free-soilers to bring about these ca lamities ; but they are sowing the tempest and we must reap tho storm which the moderates will have no power to control. In fact, do they not all declare that their object is the utter abolition of slavery throughout the Union? And if their views really went no further than to pen it up within restricted limits, do they not thereby disturb the secu rity of the property, when they render it less profitable, less valuable, and more difficult of management? What their object is, and what J they believe they have already accomplished, j is declared in tho following extracts taken ( from two public journals of great circulation j and authority. The New York Sun, a neutral paper, of j larger circulation than any other journal in j the United States, has the following, touching the recent acts passed by Congress: “Undoubtedly there will be clamor and clatter from the extreme and fanatic Southern members—it is to be expected—but the final result may be written down with certainty. Their decision [i. e. the acts passed by Con gress] will be the doom of slavery in the Uni ted States. Its final suppression is near at hand, and may be looked upon as one of the most triumphant battles ever fought and won, yet recorded in the world's history. It will have been a victory without bloodshed, a vic tory of principle over habit and association — of right over wrong.” The above opinion of a Northern paper will not be weakened in it3 force by the fol lowing from the London Times, a paper that can hardly be supposed to have any interested motive in misrepresenting the true character and inevitable tendency of the measures of the late session. The Times says: “Slavery may, in consequence of these mea sures, be considered as doomed in the United States, and men now living may see its utter extinction within the white territories of the ; Republic; An obstinate opposition to this ‘in evitable tendency on the part of the South may delay, but cannot ultimately prevent this result. Another consequence may, indeed, attend their opposition which possibly their a niter and pre judice will not allow them to contemplate.” Wo suppose by this is meant, the horrors of St. Domingo. The next great atrocity committed on the constitution and the rights of the States is, the excision of the territory of the State of Texas. This is worse, in my judgment, than the affair of California. The most sacred principle of the constitution is the inviolability of the State sovereignty. The constitution does not authorize the smal hfit interference of the General Government,* except, perhaps, in tho vague clause which secures to enh State a Republican form of Government A State may violate every article of tho Constitution, and there Is not in that instrument any power of interference granted to the General Govern ulO-Ut. If one state were to make war upon another, no right of interposition is given to that Govern ment. Incidentally, through the judiciary, the practical exercise of state sovereignty may he controlled; but only where the rights of individuals are concerned, and the judg ments of courts are to be executed. In all cases which affect the sovereignty of states, their relation to tho General Government is the same as between two independent, equal sovereigns. This view may, perhaps, be con sidered as.zrcw. lam not aware that it is so. But be that as it may, the constitution maybe searched in vain for anything in derogation of it. It may be asked, what power, then, exists to control a state in (he exercise of unjust power? The answer is, none, but that to which all sovereigns arc subject. Thank God! the framers of the constitution did not contemplate any control of tho sovereign States. Nor can Congress pass any law abridging this sovereignty. To prove to de monstration how little power Congress has to acquire territory, it is only necessary to quote tho following section of tho Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regula tions respecting, the territory or other proper ty belonging to tho United States; and no thing in this Constitution s/util be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” This clause proves that the framers of the constitution admitted no power i:i the gov ernment of the Union, even to make laws respecting the acknowledged and indubitable territory and property of the Union, without this special authority; and the saving clause seems to provide, with great, but just and wise jealousy, against the possible encroachments of the government of the Union. After read ing this clause, with what reason and propri ety can it be urged that Congress shall ac quire of itself, and under tho constitution, so vereign rights over a conquered territory ? Let any provision in the constitution bo point ed out in which there is even a squinting at such a power. If the territory cut off from Texas did not belong to that State, it certainly did not belong to the political entity called the United States, but to tho independent States of the confederacy, as independent States, per mi el per tout. But though this argument cannot be refuted, it will bo met with tho rc lmke of power, and will be no stumbling block in the way of those who are governed by a law above the constitution. I shall speak of tho right of Texas hereafter as an indubitable right. But suppose it to be doubt ful ; who shall decide the question of its vali dity ? It is tho right of a sovereign; and where shall we find any power in Congress to decide on questions of the sovereign power of the States? Certainly not in tho constitu tion of the Federal Government. In tho President? Unquestionably so fearful and despotic a power is not invested in him. But who, then, shall decide ? I answer, it is a question of sovereign right, to be decided by equal sovereigns, by negotiation and agree ment between Texas and the other States. It never was intended to make tin* government of the Union an absolute despotic power to decide such controversies. It was a govern ment granted with fear and limited by jeal ousy. But to show how feebly such consid erations govern tho chief magistrate whom accident has put abovo us, how little of a statesman and how poor a lawyer he is, we find him, by his more will, superseding tho authority of Congress, if it has any, deciding the question, and threatening to enforce a title thus adjudged, by arms. Ilia authority to use military force in a question of sovereign right, he strangely finds in a law most clearly inten ded only to enforce the execution of judicial judgments in personal and individual contro versies. Now,as to the right and title of Texas. Tex as claimed the territory, under the constitution of tho State, ns a conquered territory. The United States acknowledged the boundaries which she claimed. The treaty of annexation was executed with a map of the country exhibiting these born - daries, made in the topographical bureau of the tJ. States, lying before the negotiators at the time; and the U.S. agreed to use their power and influence to establish these boundaries, as nearly as they could, in their negotiations \\ itli Mexico. I know it may be said that these boundaries were not expressly recognized in the treaty of annexation ; but the reason for it was that the U. States, while it recognized them tacitly, would not agree likewise to guar antee them in extenso. That tlieU.S. distinctly recognized them is proved by the memoir at tached to tho map, which states that “The present boundaries of Texas are defined by an act of the Texan Congress, approved Dec. ID, 1830, to be as follows: “Beginning at the mouth ofthe Rio Grande, j thence up the principal stream of said river to its source; thence due north to the 4'2d degree of north latitude ; thence along the boundary line, as defined in the treat\ be tween the United States and Spain, to the’ be ginning.” The reason for not expressing specifically the boundaries of Texas is given in a letter of Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, to Mr. Green, our representative in Mexico, dated April 19, 1844, in which ho says: “To make the terms of the treaty [of annexation] as little objectionable to Mexico as possible, the Government of the United States had left the boundary of Texas without specification ; so that what the boundary should be might be an open question, to be fairly and fully dis cussed and settled according to the rights cf each and the mutual interest and security of the two countries.” Thus there is not the shadow of doubt that the Government of the United States recognized the boundary claini- ed, as the basis of the negotiation on the part ot Texas in the stipulated negotiation with Mexico. Every act of our government, un til the expiration of Mr. Polk’s administra tion, confirmed this. Our army took pos session of the bank of the Rio Grande, as Texas tenitoryvand when it was assailed, de fended it as such. The President, in his mes sage to Congress, called the advance of the Mexican army beyorul<he Rio Grande an in vasion of our territory, that is, of tho territo ry of Texas. Congress, by a very largo majority, declared war on that ground, ami by that war the territory in question was de fended as tho territory of Texas. It was acknowledged by Mexico by a treaty of ces sion to the United States, the ostensible bel ligerent power and tho trustee of Texas for the purpose. But the title of ‘Texas was good, independent of this cession. If the territory in question was not actually a bat tle-field, the enemy retreated beyond it, be fore the release of Santa Anna, by his order. The Texans claimed it in the most solemn manner; and actual possession has never been deemed necessary to support a title, by nations, to remote territory. Great Britain bus not in actual possession, and never in any maimer put foot ou, a great portion of the ter ritory of her foreign dominions, £?o of Russia, and so of other governments. Tho abandonment by Santa Anna and the officer next in command, supported by eight or nine years’ distinct and unabatod claim, U in itself sufficient. But the question is be tween the United States and tho State of Tex as. Now, the United States have, again and again, in every shape, acknowledged the boundary claimed bv Texas, both before and after the war with Mexico; and sh.J’ fie bo permitted to dispute it? In the strictest law between individuals*, tho party standing in the place of tho United States would be estopped from making a demand in opposition to tho claim of the other party. To attempt it would be deemed a gross and infamous fraud. Can it be less so in a nation ? The pretence is that it formed a part of the old province of New Mexico ; but this was distinctly known to the United States anterior to all her ac knowledgments of the title of Texas. Re sult s, the attempted usuipatiou isnot confined to the territory ionnerly included in Nov/ Mexico, hut is to embrace a large portion of the undisputed territory of Texas; and for this, no pretence of right is even suggested ; no motive is assigned ; hut the government de sires to have it. The motive is, nevertheless, perfectly obvious. It is to further the policy and the plans of the abolitionists. It is to en viron the slave States. Wo have seen that the government of the United States has no power to acquire territory. Let us now look a little into the means resorted to for the pur pose of accomplishing this object. We seo the military again employed in fraudulent at tempts to establish another free soil State.— That failing, the President, without consult ing Congress, determines the question of right most uncourteously, as well as without the shadow of authority in him to do so, threat ens the uso of tliebaj'onet, and through Con gress, offers a bribe to Texas; and with tho sword in one band and a bribe in the other, dictates to a free and sovereign State tho dis memberment of her territory, prescribes pre cise limits to tho excision without consulting her, and fixes a very short time within which she is to submit. The greatest tyrant in the world could not have proceeded with more indecency, or with grosser insult. Will Texas submit ? lias she no self-respect left ? Is sho not pledged to tho Southern States to preserve this territory for the purpose of sustaining the equilibrium of tho Union, and will she now consign it to a purpose which will destroy it ? Who brought Texas into the Union ? The South. Who expended their blood and treasure to sustain her inde pendence and to defend her from the menaces of Mexico and the bloody revenge of that nation? The South. And Texas, for this paltry bribe, is to desert those who supported her in the hour of distress and peril—and, to subserve the ambition and fanaticism of those who would have sacrificed her, she, an in dependent State, is to submit to the dictates, tho fanaticism and ambition of her own worst enemies, to give up her lands to a vast extent, and her natural boundaries and her honor. No State in tho Union, with so short a history, is entitled to a more brilliant fame. But let her submit to this insulting and degrading dicta tion, to use no harsher term, and where will she stand ? This assault upon Texas is, at the same time, a deadly blow at all independ ent State sovereignty; and without that safeguard, there cannot be conceived a great er despotism than the government of the U. States is likely to become. Indeed, it is so already, if the views I have presented have any foundation in truth. But in the case of Texas, as in that of California, the great deed of iniquity is tho object and the ultimate ten dency of the measure. Is it not avowed that the purpose of it is to environ the slave States with institutions at war with tho se curity and value of tho property of those States, as well as the destruction of the pow er of those States in the confederacy ? to humble you, to govern yon, to stab you tu the heart ? I dismiss the subject of Texas. ‘The next aggression is the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia ; and this will he, perhaps, a question of constitu tional difficulty with some minds. It Would seem, however, if tho constitution is to he constructed like other instruments, that the law is constitutionally unauthorized. The ter ritory belongs alike to all the States ; all the citizens of all the States have a right to bring their property into it, and to use it therein for all the purposes of which property is suscep tible. It will not be asse/ted that Congress lias the power to prohibit the introduction, within the District, of .the manufactures of Massa chusetts, or the cotton and rice of the South ern States. Now, it cannot he averred with truth, that there is any property more sacred, or better protected under the constitution, than the property in slaves. The constitu tion is imbibed with none of those prejudices against this property, which has grown essen tially since its adoption, as well in Europe as in some of the United States. llow, then, can it be pretended that the owner of this property shall be precluded from the use of it in the leading characteristic of all proper ty, namely, the sale of it? Certainly, I would say that prejudice and not reason can make any distinction. But in discussing the constitutionality of the law, we do not meet the great ground of objection which is the purpose and example of tho law. Here, as in the preceding grievances, the object is the advancement of abolition. Is it not noto rious that it is intended and valued merely as an entering wedge, that it is to be followed up by the abolition of the property in the Dis trict, and that these arts shall form examples for other acts of interference with this proper ty ? Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. We shall no doubt very soon hear of a proposition in Congress for regulating the slave trade be tween the States ; and the surplus slaves of Virginia and North Carolina will not be al lowed to pass to the new and unsettled coua- NO. 49.