Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

POLITIC AL . EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER, At Bullii’o, X. Y., -May, 1851. Gentlemen ! I contend, and always have contended, that after the adoption of the Con stitution, any measure o f the Government cal culated to bring more slavery into the United States iras beyond, the power of the Consti tution, and against, its provisions. That is my opinion, and it always has been my opin ion. It was inconsistent with the Constitu tion of the United States, or thought to be so, in Jefferson's time, to attach Louisiana to the United States. A treaty with France was made for that purpose. Hut Jefferson’s opinion at that moment was, that an altera tion of the Constitution was necessary to enable it to be done. In consequence of considerations which I need not now recur to, that opinion was abandoned, and Louis iana was admitted by law, without any pro vision or alteration in the Constitution. At that time I was too young to hold any office, or take any share in the political affairs of the country. was admitted as a slave State, and became entitled to her rep resentation in Congress on the principle of a mixed basis. Florida was afterwards ad mitted. Then, too, i was out of Congress; I had been in it once; 1 had nothing to do with the Florida treaty, or the admission of Florida. My opinion remains unchanged, that it was not within the original scope or design of the Constitution to admit new States out of foreign territory; and that, for one, I never would consent; and no matter what may he said at the Syracuse Conven tion, or at any other assemblage of insane persons, / never would consent, and never have consented, that there should be one foot of .stave territory beyond what the old thirteen Stairs had at the time of the formation of the Union. Never, in ver. The man cannot show his face to me and say he can prove that I ever departed from that doctrine, lie would sneak away, ami slink away, or hire a mercenary press, that he might cry out, what an apostate from liberty Daniel Web ster has become. (Laughter and cheers.) He knows himself to be a hypocrite and a falsifier. Hut, gentlemen, 1 was in public life when the proposition to annex Texas to the United States was brought forward. You know the revolution in Texas, which divided that country from Mexico, occurred in the year 1835 or ’So. 1 saw then, and I do not know that it required any particular fore sight, that it would be the very next thing to bring Texas, which was designed to be a slaveholding State, into this Union. I did not wait, i sought an occasion to proclaim my utter aversion to any such measure, and 1 determined to resist it with all my strength to the last. Mow, gentlemen, it is not for your edification, I am sure, that I now re vive what I have before spoken in the pres ence of this assembly. I was in this city in the 3’oar 1837, and long before 1 left New York on that excursion, in the course of which l went to the South and returned here, my friends in New York were kind enough to offer me a public dinner as a testimony of their public regard. I went out of my way, on that occasion, for the purpose of showing what I anticipated in the attempt to annex Texas as a slave territory, and said it should be opposed by me to the last extremity. And in Niblo’s Garden, in March, 1837, 1 made a speech. Well, there was the press all around me. The Whig press and the Democratic press. Some spoke in terms commendatory enough of my speech, but all agreed that 1 took pains to step out of my way to de nounce in advance the annexation of Tex as as slave territory to the United States. I said, on that occasion: “ Gentlemen! we all see that, by whomso ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- j bolding country; and 1 frankly avow my on- ‘ tire .unwillingness to do anything that shall extend the slavery of the African on this con tinent, or add other slaveholding .Slates to the Union. When I said that 1 regarded slavery as a great moral and political evil, I only used language that has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slaveholding JStates. I shall do nothing, therefore, to extend or encourage its further extension. We have slavery already amongst us. The Constitution found it amongst us.—- It recognized it and gave it solemn guaran ties. To the full extent of these guaranties, we are all bound in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. Ail the stipulations con tained in the Constitution in favor of the , slaveholding States which are already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as de pends on me, shall be fulfilled in the fullness of their spirit, and to the exactness of their letter. Slavery, as it exists in the States, is beyond the reach of Congress. It is the con cern of the States themselves. They have never submitted it to Congress, and Congress has no right or power over it. I shall con cur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication or purpose which shall interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the exclusive authority of the several States over the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. All this appears to me to be a matter of plain and imperative duty. But w hen we come to speak of admitting new States, the subject assumes anew and en tirely ditFereut aspect. Our rights mid our •duties are then both different. The free States, and all the States, are then at liberty to accept or reject. When it is proposed to bring new members into the political part nership, the old members have a right to say on what terms such partners are to come in, and what they are to bring along with them. In my opinion, the people of the United States will not consent to bring in anew, vastly extensive, and slaveholding country, large enough for half a dozen or a dozen States, into the Union. In my opinion, they ought not to consent to it.” Gentlemen! I was mistaken. Congress did consent to the bi inging in of Texas. They did consent, and l was a false prophet. Your own State consented, and the majority of the representatives of New’ York consented. 1 went iuto Congress before the final consum mation of the deed, and there I fought, hold ing up my hands, and proclaiming, with a voice stronger than it now is, my remonstran ces against the whole of it. But you would have it so, aud you did have it so. Nay, gen tlemen, I will tell the truth, whether it shames the devil or not [Laughter.] Persons who have aspired high as lovers of liberty, as emi nent lovers of the Wiimot Proviso, as emi nent Free-soil men, and who have mounted over our Leads, and trodden us down as if we were mere slaves, they are the men that brought Texas into this country, insisting that they are the only true levers of liberty ; and yet that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I declare it before you this day. Look to the journals. With out the consent of New-York, Texas would not have come into the Union, under either the original resolutions or alterwards. But New York voted for the measure! The two Senators from New-York voted for it, and turned the question, and you may thank them for the glory, the renown, and the happiness of having five or six slave States added to the Union. [Great sensation ] Do not blame ine for it. Let them answer who did the deed, and who are now proclaiming liberty, j crying up their free soil creed, and using it 1 for humbug and trading purposes. Gentlemen ! who aided in bringing in Tex- j as? It was all fairly told to yon, both before- j hand and afterwards. You heard Moses and ! the prophets, [laughter,] hut if one had risen from the dead, such was your devotion to that policy at that time, that you would not have heard him or listened to him for a moment. J do not, of course, speak of the persons now here before me, but of the general political tone in New \ork, and especially ot those who are now Free-soil apostles. Well, all that I do not complain of; but l will not, now or hereafter, before the country or the world, consent to he numbered among those who in troduced new slave power into the Union. I did all in my power to prevent it. [Ap plause.] Then again, gentlemen, the Mexi can war broke out. Vast territory was ac quired, and the peace was made; and, much as I liked the war, I disliked the peace more, because it brought in these territories. I wish ed for peace, indeed, but I desired to strike out the grant of territory on the one side, and the payment of the twelve millions of dollars on the other. That territory was unknown. 1 did not know what it might be. The plan came from the South. 1 knew that certain Southern gentlemen wished the acquisition of California, New Mexico, and Utah, as a means of extending slave power and slave population. Almost every thing was un known about the country. 1 did not fall into their idea much ; but seeing a quarrel, and, as 1 conceived, seeing bow much it would distract the Union, l voted against the peace j with Mexico. I voted against the acquisi- j tion. 1 wanted none of her territory—Cali- \ fornia, New Mexico, nor Utah. They were rather ultra-American, as 1 thought. They were far from us, and 1 saw that they might | lead to a political disturbance, and I voted | against them all, against the treaty and against I the peace, and l am glad of it, rather than have the territories. Seeing that it would be an occasion of dispute, that by the contro- | versy the whole Union would be agitated, Messrs. Berrien, Badger, and other respecta ble and distinguished men of the Jjouth, voted against the acquisition, and the treaty which secured it; and, if the men of the North had voted the same way, we should have been spared all the difficulties that have grown out of it. We should have had the peace, with out the territories. [Applause.] Now, there is no sort of doubt, gentlemen, that there were some persons in the South who suppos ed that California, if it came in at all, would come in as a slave State. \ou know the extraordinary events which immediately oc curred. You know that California received a rush trom the Northern people, and that an African slave could no more iive there than he could live on the top of Mount Hecla. Os necessity it became a free State, and that, ; no doubt, was a source of much disappoint ment to the South. And then there was New Mexico and Utah. Y\ hat was to be done with them ? Wh}\ gentlemen, from the best investigation I had given the subject, and the reflection 1 had devoted to it, I was of the opinion that the Mountains of New Mexico and Utah could no more sust iin American slavery than the snows of Canada. I saw it was impossible. I thought so then; it is quite evident now. Therefore, gentlemen, when jjt was proposed in Congress to apply the Wiimot Proviso to New Mexico and Utah, it appeared to me just as absurd as to apply it here in Western New York. I saw that the snow hill?, the eternal mountains, and the climate of those countries would never support slavery. No man could cany a slave there with any expectation of profit. It. could not be done; and as the South regarded the proviso as merely a source of irritation, and by some as designed to inflate, 1 was not willing to adopt it; and therefore 1 saw no occasion for applying the Wiimot proviso to New Mexico or Utah. I voted accordingly; and who doubts now the correctness of that vote? The law admitting those Territories passed without any proviso. Is there a slave, or will there ever be one, in either of those Territories? Why, there is not a man in the United States so stupid as not to see at this moment that such a thing was wholly unne cessary, and that it was only calculated to irritate ami to offend. And lam notone who is disposed to create irritation, or give offence to our brothers, or to break up fraternal friend ship, without cause. The question was open whether slavery should or should not go to New Mexico or Utah. There is no slavery there: there is not the shining face of an African there. If is utterly impracticable and utterly ridiculous to suppose that slavery could exist there, and no one, who does not mean to deceive, will now pretend it can ex ist there. Among the many good stories told of that ecclesiastical wag, Sydney Smith, the following is one which we believe has never appeared in print, and which we give upon the authority of a gentleman representing himself to have been present at the occur rence. Mr. Smith had a son, who, as is frequently the case with the ofTshots of clergymen—(we suppose from a certain unexplained antago nism in human nature) — —ne in virtue’s wap did take delight, But spent his days in riot most uncouth, And vex’d with mirth tiie drowsy ear of night. Ah, me ! in sooth he was a shameless wight, Sore given to revel an ungodly glee!” So fast indeed was this young gentleman, that for several years he was excluded from the parental domicil. At length, however, the prodigal repented, and his father took him home upon his entering into a solemn engagement to mend his ways and his man ners. Shortly after the reconciliation had taken place, Mr. Smith gave a dinner-party, and one of his guests was Sumner, the pres ent Bishop of Winchester. Before dinner, the facetious clergyman took his son aside, and endeavored to impress upon him the necessity of his conducting himself with the utmost propriety in the distinguished compa ny to which he was about to be introduced. “Charles, my bov,” he said, “I intend plac ing you at table next to the bishop; and 1 hope that you will make an effort to get up some conversation which may prove interest ing to his lordship.” Charles promised faith fully to do as his father requested. At dinner the soup was swallowed with the usual gravity. In the interval before the fish, hardly a word was spoken, and the silence was becoming positively embarrass ing, when, all of a sudden, Charles attracted the attention of all at table to himself, by I asking the dignitary upon his right if he i would do him the favor to answer a scriptu ral question which had long puzzled him. Upon Doctor Sumner’s promising to give the best explanation in his power, the questioner, with a quizzical expression of countenance, | begged to be informed, “How long it took Ne buchadnezzar to get into condition after he returned from grass ?” It is needless to say that a hearty laugh echoed this professional inquiry on every side, and how unanimously young Smith was voted a genuine chip of the old block. Scnitljmi Bmimd. COLUMBUS. GEORGIA: FRIDAY MORNING, SEPT. 3,1852. Change of Publication Day. Our next week’s paper will be issued on Thurs day morning. We make this change, at some expense to ourselves, for the accommodation of our subscribers in Stewart, Randolph, Early, and Baker counties. Changes in the mails have ren dered this change in our publication day necessary. Education in Columbus. Wo call the particular attention of our readers to the advertisement of Prof. Millar, in to-day’s pa per. A great many people write bad bands— “shocking bad hands”—so bad that neither they themselves, nor any body else can make them out. The Professor is prepared to correct the “habit” and they owe it to community to avail themselves of his assistance. Messrs. Plane and Mallary are about to open their Schools, and as it is important for pupils to at tend at the commencement of the session, we refer their patrons to their respective advertisements. Life Insurance. Life is exceedingly uncertain at this season of the year. John Munn, Esq., is prepared to insure its continuance for a mere pittance. See his adver tisement. Acknowledgments. Tließt. Rev. Stephen Elliott, Jr., will please ae eopt our thanks for a copy of his Address on Hor ticulture, delivered before the Southern Central Ag ricultural Society in October last. Like all the productions of this eminent Divine, the Address is distinguished for its taste and elo quence. The Bishop has the enviable faculty of “painting the Lily and giving perfume to the Violet ” But amid all this profusion of beauty, the Horticul turist will find in the Address, more praet eal informa tion on the subject of Southern Horticulture, than in any work which has yet issued from the Southern press. We hope to see it universally copied into our Agricultural papers. Miss Pauline Ridgeway lias presi nVd us with two apples grown by her grandfather, in Chambers county, Ala , which measured thirteen inches in cir cumference. She will please accept our thanks for her kindness. The Late Freshet—Damage to the Crop. The Chattahoochee river has been higher than it was ever known to be at this season of the year.— The Coweta, IJpatoie, Oswichee, and other “bends,” have been submerged, and thousands of acres of the best fields of corn and cotton on the river, have been irretrievably ruined. The creeks running into the river have been out of their banks. Much of the swamp lands have been flooded, and many Mills and Bridges swept away. Our Factories have been idle since Saturday last—indeed, the raging billows of tiie Chattahoochee swept through tlie lower sto ries of the “Variety Works,” and “Winter’s Pal ace Mills.” No serious injury, however, is appre hended from tiie rise in the river at this place. Fair of the Georgia and Alabama Agricultural Society. We understand that tiie prospects for a great gath ering at the Fair of this Society, to come off, in this city, on the Glh and 7tli of Oct., is very flattering. The premium list has never been excelled at ti e South, except by the Southern Central Society.— The citizens have become aroused to tlio importance of those Fairs, to the prosperity of our city, and ar e rendering tiie Society efficient aid for tiie premiums, &c. Surely, if the citizens of Macon can afford to give four or five thousand dollars, two years in suc cession, for tiie Fair of tiie State Society, we c. n render a pittance to our own Society, which em braces all tiie counties around us, both in Gcoigia and Alabama. The location for the Fair is an ex cellent one. The Court House and its spacious grounds. We hear from all quarters, notes of pre paration. There will be a fine display of Stock, and we have heard some mysterious crowing among the feathered bipeds, which indicates a poultry show. — We also learn that the Ladies will make a splendid display of their handiwork. We understand the Amateur Band has volunteered its services for the occasion, and take it altogether, we shall look for a gala time. Friends from the country, come and see us, on the Gth and 7th of October ! Soule on the American Fisheries. “We tender our acknowledgments to the eloquent Senator from Louisiana for a copy of his able and eloquent speech upon this subject. As it throws much light upon it, we will give it a brief notice. By tiie treaty of 1818, the United States “re nounced forever any liberty theretofore enjoyed or claimed by their inhabitants to take, dry, or cure fish with’ii three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's Dominions in North America,” not included in certain boundaries specifically defined in the treaty. Under this clause of the treaty, tiie British au thorities insist that England has a right to draw a line from headland to headland, and to capture ail American vessels engaged in fishing inside of said line. Mr. Webster says, in his comments upon the treaty, that “it was undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of 1818, to make so large a concession to England, since the United States had usually considered that these vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to American fishermen as free as the sea itself, to within three miles of the shore.” This unguarded language of the Secretary of State, Mr. Saule regards as a surrender of the whole subject of controversy, and ably and conclusively contends that the words of the treaty “are most clear and precise ; tiie very terms, the appropriate terms, for expressing that which it was intended they should convey. Had our negotiators spoken of bays and harbors, without specifying what bays and harbors they meant we should remain excluded from, there might be room for doubt and for dispute.— But they did not so speak. On the contrary, they distinctly pointed to the specific places of exclusion, the bays , creeks , and harbors of his Majesty's Do minions. The question then recurs, how far does His Ma jesty's Dominions extend over the sea? The answer is in part contained in the following splendid descrip tion of the sea, which is only equalled by the in spired Psalmist: “ The earth,” says the Psalmist, “was given to the children of men ; but the sea is of God alone.” The sea is, from its very nature, unsusceptible of human own ership. The idea of ownership implies that of exclu sive possession—and of consequence, the right of using the thing owned, at will—and not only that, but the right ot excluding others from its possesion, and the ne cessity of so excluding them, that the possessor may make his ail the advantages it can yield. The sea has none of the characters that could constitute it in owner ship ot any man or nation. Its immensity, its fluidity, must forever prevent its being subject to possession. It may be turned to profit, it is true, but by each, and by all of the human species, without itsenjoyment by some impairing or diminishing its enjoyment “by others. Its capacity is incommensurable. There is no volume that can exhaust it. Thousands of fleets inay be sunk in it to-day, and to-morrow it will again ingulph millions of others, without ever being filled or notably compressed. There are no signs, no marks through which to attest its occupancy. Even those frightful, though majestic leviathans that now plough it over, in all directions, leave not beliind them any trace of their passage. The rolling wave paddled back, as they move on, wafts away from its surface the last vestiges of their march. To make a thing yours by possession, you must pos sess in continuity the same thing. Identity in the thing owned constitutes one of the main elements of posses sion. Afield, a forest, maybe upturned, and altered, and transformed ; they will still be the same field, the same forest. Not so with the ocean, so unceasingly changing in its form, place, and surface ; now sinking its upper layers in the uttermost recesses of the deep, and then upheaving others from her lowest bed to the sur face, as it to spread them to the light of Heaven in glo rious exultancy. Its inexhaustibility renders itsexelusive enjoyment not only useless, but impossible. Yon may take from it for years and ages, with thousands and mil lions of men ; you may seize upon its pearls, and its cor als, and its salts, and its fishes—you but envelope its powers of production and multiply the yielding* of the mine from which you draw, fly the decrees cf God, the ocean is of ail men. Nations may undertake to ex plain and interpret those decrees ; they cannot abrogate them. Mr. Soule however admits that the rights of the territorial sovereign over the sea, extend, by fiction of law, as far as his power can physically reach. — The rule of law is, terra dominium finitur übi fin finitur artnorum vis, the domain of land ends where the force of arms terminates ; that is, within cannon shot, or three marine miles. In this con struction, Galiani, Ilubner, Kluber, Vattel, Azuni, and Grotius, all concur. These limits to maritime jurisdiction, according to the learned Senator, were sanctioned by the trea ty of 17S0, were acknowledged in the marine regu lations adopted by Tuscany, in 1778, by Venice in 1779, and are re-affirmed in those published by Russia in 1757, and by Austria in 1803; and indeed in every convention which lias been signed since the closing of the last century. If such be the measure of supremacy to which a nation may pretend over a littoral sea, we have a meaning for the words “ coasts, bays , creeks , or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in North America,” as used in the treaty of ISIS.— They include only those which communicate with the ocean by straits less than six miles wide, all oth ers are part of the ocean, which, by the decrees of God, is the property of all men. The question is lure entirely solved and put at rest. It only remains to ascertain how distant be the headlands at the entrance of the Bays of Fundy, of Chnleurs, and elsewhere in which seizures of American vessels have been made. They are, as all the world knows, more than six miles wide, and are as free to American fishermen as to those of Great Britain; and ail captures made in them are against law, and good cause of war, unless satisfaction is ten dered by the Government of England. The learned Senator further supports his argu ment by the fact that the American fishermen have enjoyed the right of fishing in these waters, from time immemorial. lie says: It is not denied, is it, that tiie liberties which England now attempts thus violently to wrest from us have bcon I r iet e and by our fishermen from time immemorial?— They were liberties acknowledged in the treaty of 1733, a- pre-existing to it; liberties ictained against most in si lions and daring pretensions at the peace of Ghent, where they were not even suffered to be drawn into ques tion ; liberties enjoyed before and after the convention of 1813 ; liberties allowed, though under an ungracious, but unadmitted profler of iavorand grace, in 18-15 ; and yet, all at once, without pevious remonstrance, or the least notice, this, our lung possession, this, onr solemnly stipulated right, without whoso recognition the peace of 1783 could have never been concluded; which our ne gotiations protected against the attaint of a query or a doubt in 1814 ; which oar envoys thought they had on nerved and strengthened by the convention of 1813; which Lord Stanly, through sufferance, at least, consent ed to let us enjoy after 1845, a* we enjoyed it before, is to be brutally torn away trom us. as usurpation and en croachment upon waters from which it would seem we are to be excluded ; our vessels are captured, condemned and sold before an explanation is sought and obtained, or asked and refused; and ali this in the midst of the most profound peace, and when England is incessantly receiving at the hands of our Government most profuse tokens and manifestations of condescendence. The object which the British Government has in view, in arraying within sight of the fishing grounds, the imposing armaments, whose appearance has cre ated such alarm, is thus forcibly portrayed by Sena tor S >ule : There is that, with nations whose fortune it is to have thrived and prospered under the assumption and exercise ot rights which were not theirs, that they grow infatua ted with their too easily earned successes, and become rash, and daring, and reckless; ever ready to jump over abysses of difficulty in pursuit of a cherished object, and in the extravagant conceit that whatever they wish to attain it is in their power to grasp, and that whatever tb.ey grasp is legitimately theirs. Such is England.— She knows where, lies the secret and the great fountain of your power. She loathes to see those naval nurse ries of yours, almost stuck to her shore, those hives of whizzing seamen pitched upon the waters of what she would have you call her sens, and her gulfs, and her bays, as so many advanced posts watching over tire deep, that none may dare to claim its mastery, and hold it n thraldom. She cannot but look with extreme jeal ousy and concern on the growing pro-perity of this country She may think that it were well for her, if she could bar its progre-s, while it has not yet reached its acme. Who can say that in some of those wild dreams that come, at times, o.erthe mind and darken the intellect of nations, she has not conceived that by timely interposing, she might perchance slacken our march, arrest the tide of our fortune, and assign limits to our greatness? 1 will not say that she Ims. Still, how are we to conciliate her well known sagacity with the intention attributed to her of coercing us into a treaty by so insulting a premonition of her purposes and designs >. Depend upon it, Mr. President, she has been emboldened by her late triumphs in the Nicaragua and Mexican questions; and she may expect to deter us from holding on to onr rights in the fisheries, as we w.u-e deterred, it is said, by ominous warnings, from en tertaining the proffer, lately made to persons in high places, of ilei impatient to throw themselves in our lap. If this be true, it is a burning disgrace to the statesmanship of the Administration. Very differ ent lessons might have been learned from the pve ccden's so nobly set by their lion-hearted pr deces sors. In this short sketch we have done great injustice to Mr. Soule. His speech abounds in eloquence, in learning, in statesmanship, and exhibits a patriotism which knows no sectional limits when wrong and outrage are perpetrated upon any American citizen. Such is the common feeling of State-rights politicians ; while they are prompt to repel wrong, especially upon .their own section, they will also uphold the rights even of their enemies, if they are covered by the Constitution of their country. Mr. Hilliard’s Speech. We regret that a misunderstanding as to when Mr. Hilliard proposed to address the people, and the inclemency of the weather, prevented a great many | persons from attending, and that the audience which | assembled at Temperance Hall on Friday night last ; was small. It doubtless acted as a damper upon the ! spirits of the speaker, as we regretted to notice a great want of enthusiasm on his part, as well as in the audience, and an absence of the flow of harmo nious periods, and flashes of brilliant fancy which usually characterize the forensic efforts of the Hon orable Gentlemen. It may be, however, that his cause was difficult to manage; at any rate, we as sure onr citizens that if they have never before heard Mr. Hilliard, they can form no proper opin ion of his oratorical ability, from his speech on that occasion. He did great injustice to himself. Y\ hen we entered the Hall, Mr. Hilliard was laboring through the Baltimore Conventions. He laid much stress upon the fact that the Whig Plat form was adopted before the candidate was nomina ted. He neglected, however, to inform his auditory that sixtv-six votes were given against it, though he laid much emphasis upon the fact that on the vote upon the Democratic Platform “a few voices were heard in the negative.” He was not less labored and lengthy in his com ments upon the position of Pierce and Scott, before j the two Conventions. “Scott,” he said, “stood prominently before the Whig Convention from the , beginning of the ballotings, and was never fur a moment abandoned by bis supporters until be was unanimously nominated, by the united voice of a ; great party ; while Pierce was not thought of until ; Cass, Buchanan, Douglas, and indeed all the great men of the party, had failed to carry a majority of two-thirds, and was only selected to save the Democ racy from dissolution.” Here, again, the Speaker’s memory was greatly at fault. He did not even allude to the fact that the “supporters” of Scott were the peculiar friends of Wm. 11. Seward, while Pierce was tendered to the Democratic Convention by Virginia, eagerly seized upon by the other delegates from the South, and only accepted by the delegates from the North when they had lost all hopes of the nomination of either one of their favorite candidates. Having finished this branch of his subject, the brilliant orator turned to the consideration of the personal claims of the two candidates,and ftice'ious ly ashed, “who is Franklin Pierce?” This was the first happy hit the Speaker had made, and was greeted with great applause. Having heard the wit ticism in 1844, we did not enjoy the joke. The an swer to the query and the few sentences that fol lowed gave us no little satisfaction. He said he was “a Northern man with Southern principles,” and after making a comparison between Van Boren \ and Pierce, the point of which we did not appro- j date, he indignantly exclaimed, “such a combination was unnatural; birth, education, and association render it a moral impossibility; all Northern men are necessarily opposed to slavery ; you had as well call a nutmeg a nutmeg , because it came from Connecticut , and expect us to believe it, as to try to impress us with the belief that Franklin Pierce, the Yankee of Yankees, is friendly to the South and her institutions! It is a moral impossibility.” — These sneering allusions to the North, were of course very kindly received by a number of Northern gen tlemen, supporters of Scott, who had the pleasure of listening to the brilliant orator. \Ye thought of Fillmore, who, he assured us in another part of his speech, “was so pure, so conservative, so firm, so patriotic, that had he been nominated, he would have given him his cordial support,” and of Webster, “the greatest inti Meet of the age, whose whole life had been devoted to the country.” The Speaker now paused and addressed himself to the hopeless task of proving Pierce's unsoundness on the Slavery question. Tt.is was a grave ques tion, and we gave the Speaker our undivided atten tion. We knew that Pierce, by his votes and speeches in Congress, had “stamped with disappro bation, in the most express and unequivocal terms, the whole abolition movement,” had even voted to rejeet petitions to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia; had quarrelled with llale and defeated him for high office because he opposed the annexation of Texas to the Union as a •slave-holdfhg State ; that he had opposed Atwood, the regular nominee of the Democracy, and defeat ed him because lie wavered in bis support of the Fugitive Slave law, and was denounced and abused by every Abolition paper in New Hampshire as a politician “whose whole public career lias been char acterized by the most devout hatred for all such her esies as “free men,” “free territory,” or even “free speech” on the Slavery question—(see Granite State Whig, July 18, 1852;) find we expected, of course, that he would at least allude to some of these well known incidents in the life of Gen. P., and attempt to break the force of them upon the Southern mind, hut he never even hinted that such things had an existence. If this lie the result -f ignorance, there is great need that Mr. Hilliard should ask “who is Franklin Pierce ?” He evidently is an entire stranger to the man. But if it was a designed over sight, we ask, in all candor, was it fair, candid, or just? I Mr. Hilliard, however, instenJ'of referring to these records, read page after page from the re cords of the Legislature of New 1 lampshire, from the proceedings of Abolition meetings, sixteen in num ber, he said, held in the S‘ “ from messages of Governors, etc., etc., um-| er ,,,qrq tl> .patience Was j exhausted, and we It/ n mind to i,,,vc the roonU and sue out a warrant/ him fol . publishing in cendiary documenting strange and unaccountable, he <tU* Pierce in any shape or form, with a solitary meeting, or message , or record, from which he read! He was engaged, we thought, and so did the audience, (for a good many left, and most all got tired,) in shearing a pig, and got much noise and no wool. All this array of testimony was adduced in order that the Speaker might give an unfair; illiberal, and unjust interpreta tion to the following resolution : Resolved., That we re-affirm the sentiments and opin ions of the Democratic party, and Democratic statesmen of the North, entertained from 1776 to the present dav, in relation to slavery ; that we deplore its existence, and regard it as a groat moral and social evil ; but with, this conviction, we do not consider ourselves m ire wise than Washington, Franklin, and their associates, and, that patriotism, common honesty, and religions principle, alike bind us to a sacred observance of the compact made by those men. This resolution, it is said, was passed in .Tune, 1846, by the Democratic State Convention of New Damp shire, and was reported by a committee, of which Pierce was a member. The evident intent of the resolution is that though Northern statesmen always have been opposed to slavery in its moral and social aspect, they were bound by ‘'patriotism.'” by ‘'com mon honesty,” and “ religious principle ,” to respect and defend tlie political rights of the South, guaran tied by the Constitution. Mr. Hilliard, however, took a different view of it, and triumphantly asserted that the “compact” made with Northern statesmen by Washington and Franklin had no reference to slavery in the territories, but was confined to the limits of the States. This is the ground always as sumed by the Abolitionists. We never before heard a Southern man make so fatal a concession. We hope it was an inadvertence on the part of Mr. Hilliard. We are sure lie cannot seriously main tain so dang, rous a doctrine. He also dwelt at much length upon the opinions of the statesmen of the North, and very conclusive ly proved that the great body of the present gen eration arc tainted with abolition. He would not or could not see that the object of the above resolution was to correct the prevailing errors of Northern sentiment on the subject of slavery, by reference to the more conservative opinions of a former age, when Daniel Wf.ester voted in a minority of six iti favor of referring Abolition petitions. Turning from Pierce to Scott, Mr. Milliard pronounced him a sound man on the slavery ques tion. lie was born in Virginia, was married in Virginia, and made very felicitous allusions to a love scene between him and his lady-love beneath an “old oak tree,” and concluded by attempting to quote a stanza from that beautiful ballad, “Wood man, spare that tree,” but did not get further, how ever, than the first line. He made no allusion, how ever, to Scott’s Abolition letter to Mr. T. P. At kinson, of Feb. 9, 1843, upon which the whole weight of the charge of Abolitionism against Scott rests. Our readers will find a short extract from that letter, in our last number, in which Gen. Scott unqualifiedly asserts the right of the Abolitionists to petition Congress, and to have their petitions re ceived, referred, and reported upon ; and surrenders to Congress the right to legislate at discretion on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia. We give in to-day's paper ano her extract, in which Gen. Scott asserts that he became early impressed in favor of a gradual emancipation of slaves; and urges upon slave-holders that they are under high moral obligations “to employ all means not incom patible with the safety of both colors, to meliorate slavery , even to extermination.” This omission was j the more inexcusable as he laid much stress upon the imputed declaration of Pierce that he regarded j slavery as a great moral and political evil, and de- j plored its existence, and even called upon the friends of Calhoun to witness that that illustrious statesman had declared that whoever admitted slavery to be a moral evil, was an enemy to slavery. That was a j double-edged sword which cut both ways; the sharp- , er edge, however, was turned towards the orator, as , his candidate is a Southern man, who is perfectly j acquainted with the institution of slavery, and has had none of the influences of “birth, education, and association” to contend against in forming his opin- j ion of Southern institutions. Mr. Hilliard did not so much as allude to the Tariff, Internal Improvements by the Federal Govern ment, U. S. Bank, Distribution of the publie lands, or any other of the great political issues which have so j long divided the American people, and upon which , it js well known Fierce and Scott occupy diamet- I rically opposite ground. It may be that this silence was designed. Mr. Hilliard could not endorse Gen. Scott’s soundness upon these questions; and to defend federalism must have been regarded by him as a hopeless task before a Georgia audience. Mr. Hilliard’s description of Gen. Scott’s mili tary career was brilliant and effective, and meets with our hearty applause. We accord to him the highest praise for valor, skill, and success, lie has borne the Hag of the country in triumph over many a hard fought field—and his praise is in every land. We would not strip a laurel from the wreath that crowns his brow. But we confess that we were shocked with the indecent levity with which he re ferred to the military career of Gen. Pierce, a career, which however brief or unfortunate, lias earned for him the epithet of the gallant Pierce, from Scott himself, and which a grateful country will award to him in spite of all the jeers of all the politicians in America. We do not pretend that Gen. Pierce is a great captain ; it is not claimed for him by his friends ; even he himself modestly declared, says Mr Hilliard, that he was not cutout for a General.— Ills countrymen, however, will remember that when the party with which Mr. Milliard has acted for many years, had used every effort to dampen the fire of American patriotism, especially in the North, and had well nigh put it out, that Gen. Pierce vol unteered as a private soldier, raised a regiment even in New England, wher the war and all engag ed in it were denounced, rushed to the rescue of the illustrious Scott, then contending with superior numbers in the arduous march upon Mexico, led his command upon the breast-works of the m any, at j Contreras, and in the hottest of the fight, liis horse fell under him and crushed his leg upon thepedregal. That though utterly unable to endure the fatigue of another battle, he engaged in the hard fought field of Churubusco, and never quit bis post until, sinking under his injuries, he fainted upon the field of blood. And the reward which brave men think he deservis ! for this heroic and self .sacrificing devotion to his country, is to be taunted as a poltroon by tricky pol j iticians. A brave people ought to hiss down such allusions to the patriotic achievements of a gallant man. We have extended these remarks too far.— We seldom trespass so long upon the patience of out readers. Internal Improvement by the Federal Gov ernment—The Platform ot Georgia Parties. The sixth resolution in the platform of the Whig National Convention, and of the Webster party in Georgia, is in these words : The Constitution ve ts in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navi gable rivers; and it is expedient that Congress shall ex ercise that power “whenever such improvements are ne cessary ijor the common defence, or for the protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among the States such improvements being in every instance national and general in their character. On the 12th day of January, 1829, a Protest from the State of Georgia was laid before the Senate of the United States with due Solemnity. The ob jects and purpose of this solemn act are thus char acterized in the following resolution, which received the cordial and unanimous support of the State [lights party of that day : The State of Georgia, influenced by a sense of for bearance, and re-pect for the opinions of the other States, &c., having, in her sovereign cha actor, protested ag:d a: the tariff, and by inference, again -t its dependent mea sure, Internal Ijtprov. mknts, as being an infraction anil and in perpetual testimony thereof, deposited that pro test and demand in the archives ot the Senate ot the United States. Contrast the two platforms. The last js (fee Georgia platform, aliojm if by our noble State in the palmy days of her renown, while the great Craw ford yet lingered among us, and the name of Troup was like a blast upon a bugle-horn. This laerel platform denounced the Tariff and Internal Improve ments as infractions of the Constitution, and was placed in the archives of the Senate, by Georgia, “in justification of her character, to tl e present gen -ration and to posterity; if Congress, disregarding this pro test, and continuing to pervert powers, granted for clearly defined and well understood purposes, to eff ctuate objects never intended, by the gr at parties by whom the Constitution vv: s framed, to be intrusted to the controlling guardianship of the Federal Gov ernment, should render necessity measures of deci sive character for the protection of the people of the State, and the vindication of the Constitution of the United States.” On tlie other hand, the first platform is the last of the steps by which politicians have attempted to degrade our gallant State from her high and great position of leader of the State Rights party to the mean and grove ling position of follower of Feder alism and Fedeia’ists in the persons of Daniel Webster and Winfield Scott. It was construct ed, at least comm nrled to the people of Georgia, by Worrells an 1 Andrewses This platform insists that “revenue ought to be mainly derived from a du ty on imposts,” and that sound policy requires spe cific duties, whereby “suitable encouragement may be assured to American industry.” While it bol dly asserts that “the Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navigable rivers.” Why even the National Democratic party in their platform, repudiate these Federal heresis. Their second resolution is in these words : That the Constitution docs not confer upon the Gen eral Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements. We freely admit that the professions of the De mocracy do always correspond with their practice. But the candidate of tlie Democracy is eminently sound upon this subject. We think the records of the country will bear us out in the asset tion, that Franklin Fierce never voted for an internal im provement bill in his life J and indeed, this is one of the chief objections to Fierce in the Notthwcst On the other other hand Webster and Scott are known to entertain the wildest and most extravagant notions on this subjtet. One of the chief issues in this Presidential elec- ‘ tion is the constitutionality and expediency of inter nal improvements by tlie Federal Government. The only enquiry we propose to make is, as to the effects of the policy upon the South. Indeed, in all that we write in the present canvass, we write not as Whigs, not as Democrats, but as Southern Bights men, and we demand a careful perusal of our articles from i all of like faith. How much then has the South paid toicards internal improvements ? How much has been expended in the South on internal im provements by the Federal Government ? These are very important enquiries, and ought to be satis factorily answered by every Southern man before he votes for candidates who favors this stupendous scheme for the expenditnre of the public money. “Before the year 1824, the only appropriation of any ; considerable size for internal improvements was | $607,000 for the Cumberland road, east of the Ohio j river. About that time, the North became stronger by anew apportionment of representation, and the unfortunate concession on the Missouri question, en couraged her to new encroachments upon the South. From 1824 to 183d inclusive, the Federal Govern ment gave for internal improvements to the free States $3,194,441, or sll 43 per ten miles square, and to the slaveholding States only $957,100, or $1 57 per ten miles square. From 1834 to 1845, inclusive, the North received $7,231,639, or >ls 9•> per ten miles square, and the South $1,1 1 1,500, or $1 92 for the same erea. In the first period the North received from the Treasurer seven two times as much as the South; in the next period, eight times as much.” It will thus be seen that up to the year 1545, there had been spent upon roads, harbors, and rivers (exclusive of the Mississippi and Ohio, which are common to both sections) the sum of $15,201,223 ; and that of this sum, the South received $4 51 to improve each ten miles square of her area, or $2,- 757,816 in all; while the North got $2,805 for each ten miles square; or $1,1.43,807 in ail; that i* } our three times as much as the South received. (§ eu 44 Sen. Doc 184g—7.) Now when it is remember ed that all these large sums of money are raised by a tax on imposts, and that the South, being the great importing section of the country, pays about two thirds of the revenue of tiie Government, how can any Southern man advocate tho claims of ( . and j. dates who not only advocate the constitutionality of internal improvement, but insist that it is expedient to exercise it. It is doubtless expedient for the North, but it is death to the South ; and no man can with any propriety claim to be a Southern Rights man who will vote for cither Webster Sott. I hey and their parties stand on the same platform. It is a Northern platform to which every Southern man ought to lay his axe. I WRITTEN FOR THE SENTINEL.I Mr. Lomax: You edit an independent paper, and for that rea son I am one of your subscribers, because in V our paper [ expect to see every shade of opinion from your correspondents. You are no mercenary par tisan, bound to exclude from your columns all that may dare to differ with, and consequently offend, vour readers. For this reason yours is the only paper I take. Ido not know one other whose Editor ought to be estimated at a shilling in any market where virtue and independent public spirit are estimated, riieir principles are in their subscription list, their advertising columns, and their public pap vote. The spoils is their God. The idea of admitting into their columns anything savoring of independent political opinions would throw tlie whole fraternity, Editors, compositors, pressmen and devils, into fits. It would knock the offices into pit. W ith you I have a right to hope the case is differ ent. 1 hope you exclude from your columns noth ing decent, and in that hope 1 seek through your courtesy to intrude on the State rights men some opinions which I fear do not accord with yours, though I have not entertained them lightly, or with out serious reflection. If you differ, “strike, but hear tnc,” and let me be heard. -Mr. Pierce, Mr. Scott, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Cobb, are now fairly in the field. I include Mr. Cobb, because I look on his nomination, through his faction, of an opposition Pierce ticket, as intending nothing more nor less than to evidence Mr. Cobb’s strength in Georgia. It is a bold experiment, and I apprehend the persons e gaged in it, and their chief, are already convinced it is delicately small, and growing beautifully less. Satis de hoc. My object is to enquire wh it ought the Southern Rights men to do in this disgraceful and dirty con test for the spoils. Murk, I do not mean the outhern Rights party. Tdo not address it. It asserts rights to make a merit by deserting them. I mean South ern Rights men, who, .when they assert rights, are ready to peril all—life, fortune, and fame in their de fence—whenever, wherever, and by whomsoever they are assailed. Men who are willing to give the South what Mr. Kossuth calls material aid. What ought Southern Rights men to do in tho approaching Presidential election ? To answer this question lot me glance back on the last few years, up to tills time. In F b., 1850, the Legislature unanimously de clared that if Free Soil crossed 36 min. 30 deg. we must disrupt; for the few who opposed what they called the extreme measures of the then I.egisla ■BU’i’T'fiiade 3b*nun. 30 dog. their fighting line—even Col. Murphy. W hen the compromise measures were passed, wo denounced them as infamous, tyrannical, unconsli ’Vsr> a” 1 m”j ’ lit * disgraceful and degrading to the South, and urged secession. Mr. Toombs, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Cobb combined, to form the Union party, and under the cry of Glorious Union, Augustus got the Government, Antony the Senate, and Lepidus nothing. Tlie Union party was dis solved, and the Southern flights party vamosed. The Democratic party convened at M illedgeville, and sent delegates to Baltimore, and nominated an Electoral ticket. The Union party met, and did nothing. The Cobb faction, under tbo name of Union Democrats, met and sent delegates to Balti more, where they were suffered. Pierce and King were nominated, and the Cobb faction, to weaken Fierce and King, started an opposition Fierce ticket. Scott was nominated at Baltimore by Whigs, and Webster at Philadelphia by Whigs—and all, Fierce, Seott, and Webster, are compromise men. Now, I can see no reason why a Whig may not vote for Scott or Webster, but before God and my country, I cannot see how a Southern Rights man can vote for Fierce, trliD e chief merit is that he is, and lias been a compromise man, and supports that series of meas ures which we denounced as infamous, tyrannical, un just and unconstitutional, and disgraceful and de grading to the South. Yes — there is one way. Sur render all pretensions to patriotism, surrender self respect, and all right to the respect of others, con sent to have the finger of scorn pointed at you a* the basest of the base, and then go and vote for a friend and supporter of tlie Compromise! I know many of you purpose to vote for the Dem ocratic Electoral ticket to ..-rush tlie Cobb faction. — Do not disgrace yourselves to effect so small an ob ject, if it were necessary, but it is not neces arv. — Mr. Cobb and his faction are consigned to infamy. Every body is now eool, and every body now knows that Mr. Cobb is triply steeped in trickery—he be trayed his country, he betr. yed his party, and then he betrayed the Whigs. Let him rot—his faction is but the scum and dredge of the two old parties, the worst men from both. Then, hold off; you can show your strength better by not voting, and cm-fi the supplemental mercenaries more effectually.— There are 100,000 votes in the State; if you will hold off, you can reduce it to 80,000. Fierce will get 20 or 25, Seott 20 or 25, Webster 25 or 30. and the Cobb faction 2or 3,000. You will show yourselves as strong, I hope stronger, than either of other parties. You will preserve the prestige of hones'v, anu true patriotism, and the power of fu ture good. Vote for Pierce, and you merge your selves with a body you cannot respect, lose your identity and self-respect, and with it all power ot fu ture Usefulness. Then, come out from among tliQ wicked—hold off—thi re can be no election in Geor gia by the people, no matter which course you pur-- sue, and the vote of the State will be lost. Dm Legislature cannot elect—because there can be no Legislature without a Senate—there can be no Senate, for the Senators elected in 1851 were elected to, represent districts—the change of the Constitution has abolished the districts, and Senators cannot rep resent non-entities. Moreover, the Senate must consist of 99 members under the amended Constitu tion, and if the last elected Senate were to attempt to represent counties, they cannot form a quorum. Again, I say, Southern Rights men, hold off 1 TEPON. General Fierce—North and South. What Half. Says. —John P. Hale, in his recent letter declining to become the Freesoil candidate for the Presidency, speaks thus of the position of fl>° democratic party, and of Gen. Pierce : Every demand of slavery has been complied vvith every threat, however insolent, has been met with cra ven and cowardly submission, until, emboldened by success, she has nominated her candidate tor tne i re-i ----dency, who bases his claims to public favor on the gtoun that no act or record of his life has ever been found w opposition to her demands. A Letter from Gen. Pierce. —W e copy in another place the correspondence between Mr. De* Leon and Gen. Pierce, in relation to a “campaign story,” which the Whigs have been making much of in the South. We never had the smallest re spect for the story, an 1 have taken no notice of it. Gen. Pierce's publie life has been marked by con sistency, candor and directness, and lie is too litt.a chargeable with ambition to allow us to suppose tlu* those qualities were only a mask and deception. They were undoubtedly the sincere expression of bi* native character, and we are bound to Lae bis p 1