Newspaper Page Text
6
/
f"Jfti"- 7 /r?fi m*T
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. h
MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1820.
No. 7.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
(on Tuesdays)
BY S. GMLYTLAXD if R. M. ORME,
at three dollars, in advance, or
four DOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION
OF THE YEAR.
Advertisements conspicuously inser
ted at the customary rates.
MR. REID'S SPEECH
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION,
In the House of Representatives, 2 ith Jan.
Mr. Reid, of Georgia, next addressed
the House. That this was a question
deeply interesting to that quarter of the
union whence he had the honor to come,
was the only apology he urged for of
fering his opinions to the committee.
This subject (he continued) is said to
be delicate and embarrassing. It is so :
and particularly in one point of view.—
The sentiments, to which the heal and
ardor of debate give expression, will not
expire here, like the broken echoes of
your hall! They will penetrate to the re
motest corners of the nation, and may
make an impression upon the black po
pulation of the south, as fatal, in its ef
fects to the slave, as mischievous to our
citizens. This is not mere idle surmise.
In a professional capacity, I was recent
ly f oncerned for several unhappy beings,
who were tried and convicted of a viola
tion of the laws, by attempted insurrec
tion. They had held conversations, as
the testimony developed, with certain
itinerant traders, who not only poisoned
their minds, but incited them to rebellion
-—by proffered assistance. Such influ
ence have the opinions of even the most
depraved and ignorant white men upon
this unfortunate race of people. But
the subject is neither delicate nor em
barrassing, as it is considered to imply
reproach, or a high offence against the
moral law—the violation of the liberty
■Of our fellow man. Such imputations
« . pass by us
"as the idle wind, which we respect not.”
They are “ barbless arrows shot from
bows unstrung!” The slave-holding
states have not brought this calamity up
on themselves. They have not volun
tarily assumed this burthen. It was
fastened to them by the mother country,
notwithstanding the most earnest entrea
ties and expostulations. And, if gentle
men were well acquainted with the true
state of slavery in the south, (I speak
particularly of Georgia, for my informa
tion extends little farther) 1 am very sure
their understandings would acquit us of
the charges which their imaginations
prefer.
An honorable gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Smyth) remarked yesterday, inci
dentally, that the debate of the hist ses
sion upon this subject occasioned Geor
gia to interdict emancipation by an act
of her legislature. The honorable gen
tleman has been misinformed. The act
of 1818, to which he has allusion, was
designed more completely to carry into
effect the provisions of the law prescrib
ing the manner of manumitting, and
which had been enacted several years
before. It may be proper to remark,
that the discussion of the bill to admit
Missouri had its commencement, at the
last Congress, some time alter the ad
journment of the Georgia legislature.—
Certain it is, that the statute book of that
state contains no law, by which it is de
clared that slaves cannot be made free.
Sir, the slaves of the south are held
to a service which, unlike that of the an
cient Villain, is certain and moderate.—
They are well supplied with food and
raiment. They are “contentand care
less of to-morrow’s fare.” The lights
of our religion shine as well for them as
for their masters; and their rights of
personal security, guaranteed by the
constitution and the laws, are vigilantly
protected by the courts. It is true they
are .often made subject to wanton acts ot
tyranny; but this is not their peculiar
misfortune! For, search the catalogue
of crimes, and you will find that man—
the tyrant—is continually preying upon
bis fellow man : that there are as many
while as black victims to the vengeful
passions and the Just of power! Believe
me sir, 1 am not the panegyrist of slave
ry. It is an unnatural state; a dark
cloud which obscures half the lustre of
our free institutions! But it is a fixed
evil, which we can only alleviate. Are
we called upon to emancipate our slaves ?
1 answer, their welfare—the safety of
our citizens, forbid it. Can we incor
porate them with us, and make themand
ns one people ? The prejudices of the
north and of the south rise up in equal
strength against such a measure ; and
even those, who clamor most loudly for
the sublime doctrines of your declara
tion of independence, who shout in your
ears “all men are by nature equal!”
would turn with abhorrence and disgust
from a party-colored progeny! Shall we
then be blamed for a state of things to
tvhich we are obliged to submit ? Would
it be fair; would it be manly; would it
ke generous ; would it be just; to offer
fontumely and contempt to the unfortun-
*1* man who wears % cancer in his bo
som, because he will not submit to cau
tery at the hazard of his existence ? For
my own part; surrounded by slavery
from my cradle to the present moment, I
yet
“ Hnte the touch of servile hands;
“ I loathe the slaves who cringe around,”
and would hail that day, as the most
glorious in its dawning, which would be
hold, with safety to themselves and our
citizens, the black population of the
United States placed upon the high emi
nence of equal rights, and clothed in the
privileges and immunities of American
citizens! But this is a dream of philan
thropy which can never be fulfilled; and
whoever shall act, in this country, upon
such wild theories, shall ceaso to be a
benefactor, and become a destroyer of
the human family.
It is said, however, to be high time to
check the progress of this evil; and that
this may best be done by inhibiting
slavery beyond the Mississippi, and par
ticularly in the Missouri, which prays to
be admitted a state into the union. It
is important to consider, if this project
be consistent with the constitution of the
United States. The states formed the
constitution, in the capacity of sovereign
and independent stales, and the constitu
tion is the instrument by which they
conveyed certain powers to a general
government. This is evident, not only
from the nature of the government form
ed, and in every line of the constitution,
but it is a doctrine distinctly asserted in
the 9th and 10th articles of the amend
ments. The enumeration in the con
stitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people ;” and, “ the pow
ers not delegated to the United States by
the constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states re
spectively, or to the people.” Hence,
it will follow, that the several states re
tain every power not delegated by the
constitution to the general government;
or, in other words, that in all enumerat
ed cases, the several states are left in
the full enjoyment of their sovereign and
independent jurisdictions. The author
of the Federalist (which work is admit
ted to contain a correct exposition of the
principles of the constitution) has said,
“ that with respect to the extent of its
powers, the government cannot be deem
ed national, since its jurisdiction extends
to certain enumerated objects only, and
leaves to the several states a residuary
and inviolable sovereignty over all other
objects.” In aid to this conclusion, if
any thing were necessary to sustain it, it
may be cited, as a maxim of sound na
tional law, that sovereign states can only
be deprived of their rights by voluntary
consent or by conquest. It woulJ seem,
then, that the constitution must be con
strued strictly, whenever the rights of
the state sovereignties become the sub
ject of dispute ; and strictly, where the
right of personal liberty, or personal se
curity, or private property are question
ed.* Because the citizen of the Uuited
States is the citizen also of another in
dependent government, whose laws he
is bound to obey, unless, where this du
ty has been transferred to the general
government, by the express words of the
constitution itself. If it were otherwise
we should find the United States contin
ually engaged in a struggle with the
states, to enforce the obedience of the
citizen. Such contests, itis easy to per
ceive, would tarnish, if not destroy, the
golden chain by which our federative
government is held together. . They
would lead to gradual usurpations of
power, by which your constitution would
be made a dead letter, and your repub
lican institutions exist only in name.—
Proceeding upon these principles, let
us endeavor to ascertain in what part of
the constitution that power is delegated,
which would authorize you to adopt the
amendment proposed by the member
from New-York. The grant of powers
to the Congress is chiefly contained in
the 8th section of the 1st article, and
you will certainly not hnd therein any
authority to inhibit slavery in any part of
the union, in any territory, or in any
state about to be admitted into the union.
The 9th section commences with this
clause: “ The migration or importation
of such persons as any of the states now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall
not be prohibited prior to theyear 1808;
but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such importation, not exceeding ten dol
lars for each person.” It may be said,
very plausibly ; that the words “ migra
tion” and “importation” are here used
synonymously; but let us give to every
word in the clause an appropriate mean
ing, and then we will see whether the
word “ migration” is the little source
whence mighty effects of evil are to flow
upon the country! Certainly, the fram
ers of the constitution desired to destroy
a traffic, of all others the most cruel and
iniquitous : a trade stained by the blood,
and drenched in the tears of humanity!
By inhibiting “the importation after
1808 of such persons as any of the states
then existing thought proper to admit,”
* Vide Tucker’s Blackstone.
it ivas intended to convey a power to
prevent the introduction of Africans in
to the United States. By inhibiting the
“migration,” after 1808, of such persons
—for the constitution, it appears to me.
still refers to Africans—and 1 express
this opinion with deference and humility
—may it not have been intended the
more effectually to provide against eva
sions of the laws interdicting the impor
tation of slaves? The object was to
prevent the accumulation of this species
of property. It was well known to the
founders of our government, that as soon
as the importation was declared to be il
legal, the slave merchant would resort
to every artifice which ingenuity and
avarice could devise for the purpose of
effecting a violation of the laws. Sup
pose him to place Ids slaves upon a fo
reign territory, adjacent to tike United
States. They are permitted or instruct
ed to pass the boundary, and, when
within our limits, an associate in villainy
is ready to receive them. In the pos
session of this person they are found,
and he is put upon his trial for import
ing contrary to law. He defends him
self by proving an alibi—by shewing, us
far as negative proof can show, that he
had in no wise been concerned in the
importation. But it is objected, that the
fact of possession, with the circumstan
ces of language and complexion, will pro
duce an inference of his guilt not to be
mistaken. What then? Base as he is,
will he not entrench and fortify himself
by perjuries and subornations of perju
ry ? Will he not make out a case by
which it shall appear that the victims of
his cupidity sought a protection which
he could not w ithhold—that they migrat
ed, and were not imported ? What then
is the effect of the United States’ statute
which only prohibits importation ? The
strict construction of the penal law will
not permit it to reach the case. The
result must be, that the luckless Africans
are left to the operation of the state, laws,
and, in all probability, sold as slaves,
thereby advancing the evil which the
legislature was endeavoring to destroy.
May it not have been to guard against
such frauds, shifts and artifices, that the
word “ migration” was inserted in the
constitution ? But the meaning of this
word is fixed and limited by the express
words of the clause in which it occurs,
“'ihe migration of all such persons as
any of the states now existing think pro
per to admit.” To what description of
persons does the constitution allude?
But one of two answers can, it seems to
me, be rationally returned to this ques
tion. The allusion is either to Africans
who were the proper subjects of the
slave trade, or white persons coming
from foreign lands. If this lie so, how
can the constitutional provision be so far
wrested from its purpose as to be made
to apply to the removal of slaves from
one state to another, or to a territory—
slaves, who are recognized as the ob
jects of property by the constitution it
self? If the solemn covenant of our li
berties can be thus abused, it is no long
er to be esteemed oracular, or, if it re
semble an oracle, it is only because its
responses are involved in doubt and ob
scurity.
1 find nothing more to afford even a
colorable pretext for the proposed re
striction, until we come to these words :
“ New states may be admitted into the
union.” The single word “ may” is sup
posed to be the depository of the power
so anxiously sought; and, it is said, if
Congress can admit a new state, the
constitution being silent as to the condi
tion to be imposed, the state about to be
admitted may be fastened with any con
dition not especially interdicted by the
constitution itself. This is a non scqvi-
tur. It is a conclusion most lame and
impotent; in direct hostility with the
letter as well as the spirit of the consti
tution ! It is not enough that the con
stitution is silent, to authorise the Con
gress to speak or to act; fur Congress is
the creature of the constitution, and must
look to it for open, declared, and posi
tive direction. What the constitution
dictates is to be done ; what it prohibits
is to be avoided ; but, when it is silent.
Congress possesses not authority to di
rect citizens or states. These must,
then, be controlled by their own inde
pendent. governments. Let it be remem
bered that the constitution, being in de
rogation of state rights, must be constru
ed strictly. This clause of the 3d sec
tion of the article, then, only allow s to
us the power to receive or reject, with
out qualification or condition, a state
making application to be admitted into
the union.
But there is a condition, without which
a state cannot be admitted into the un
ion ; ami it is to be found in the 4th sec
tion of the 3d article: “The United
States shall guarantee to every state in
this union a republican form of govern
ment.” “ Guarantee,” means, if I at all
understand the signification of words, “to
undertake that certain stipulations shall
be performed.” These stipulations ran
only be found in the constitutions of the
states, where they must constitute “a
republican form of government." If
this be so ; then, at the moment a new
state is admitted, the same guarantee
which applies to the original states ex
tends to her also. She must, consequent
ly, have been in the possession of “ a
republican form of government” at the
time of entering the union '; because it
would be preposterous to imagine that
to be guaranteed of which she was not
possessed—that to be secured to her,
which in fact, had no existence. It re
sults, then, that without “arepublican
form of government” u state cannot
come into the confederacy ; and is not
the necessity to possess it a sine qua non,
or condition, without which the new
state cannot be admitted ? Sir, this con
dition, being expressed, operates to the
exclusion of every other. “ Expressin
wins est cxclvsio alterius," is a sound
maxim both of common law and common
sense.
But, it is objected, slavery is incom
patible with that “ republican form of
government” which the 6tate admitted
must possess. We must receive words
according to the intention of those who
utter them. And we must giye construc
tion to the constitution, by considering
all the parts of that instrument together.
South Carolina and Georgia were slave
holding states at the time the constitu
tion was framed and adopted, and yet, in
its eye, these were considered to possess
republican forms of government. Be
sides, the right of the citizen to possess
slaves, is expressly recognized by the
instrument of which we speak. 1 need
scarcely advert to the 2d section of the
1st article, wherein the representation
is determined : to the permission to im
port, unttl a given period, in the 9tli
section of the first article : and to the 2d
section of the 2d article, where the re
lations of master and servant are distinct
ly asserted. It is evident, then, that a
state of domestic slavery was entirely
out of view, when the founders of the
confederation determined to “ guarantee
to the several states a republican form of
government.”
The Constitution of the United States
is plain and simple; it requires no supe
riority of intellect to comprehend its
dictates ; itis addressed to every under
standing ; '* he who runs may read.” It
is, then, a proof of the absence of all au
thority for the proposed measure ; when
its advocates, and some too, of great
names, fly from clause to section, and
from section to article, without finding
“ rest for the sole of the footwithout
fixing or agreeing upon any one line,
phrase, or section, whence this power
for which all contend may be brought
into existence. And it is perfectly na
tural that this effect should be produc
ed. A search for the philosopher’s
stone might as soon be expected to end
in certainly.
But it is argued that Congress lias e-
ver imposed restrictions upon new states
and no objection has been urged until
this moment, if it be true, that only one
condition can constitutionally be impos
ed, it would seem that any other is null
and void, and may be thrown off by the
state at pleasure. And then this argu
ment, the strength of which is in prece
dent, cannot avail. Uniformity of deci
sion for hundreds of years cannot make
that right, which at first was wrong. If
it were otherwise, in vnin would science
and the arts pursue their march towards
perfection ; in vain the constant pro
gress of truth ; in vain the new and
bright lights which are daily finding their
way to the human mind, like the rays of
the distRiiistars, which, passing onward
from the creation of time, are said to be
continually reaching our sphere. Malut
usus apolendus cst. When error appears,
iet her be detected and exposed, and let
evil precedents be abolished.
It is true that the old confederation,
by the 6th section of the ordinance of
1707, inhibited slavery in the territory
north west ol the Ohio, and that the
states of Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana, have
been introduced into the Union, under
this restriction.
Sir, the ordinance of ’87 had an ori
gin perfectly worthy of the end it seems'
de-tined to accoifcdish. It bad n - au
thority in the articles of confederation,
which did not contemplate, w ith the ex
ception of Canada, the acquisition of ter
ritory. It was in contradiction nf the
resolution of 1780, by which the states
were allured to cede their unlocated
lands to the General Government, upon
the condition that these should consti
tute several states, to be admitted into
the union upon an equal footing with
the original states. It is in fraud of the
acts of cession, by which the states con
veyed territory in faith of the resolution
of ’80. And, when recognized by acts
of Congress, and applied to the states
formed from the territory beyond the
Ohio, itis in violation of the constitution
of the United States. So much for the
efficacy of the precedent, which, al
though binding here, is not, it would
seem, of obligation upon Ohio, Indiana,
or Illinois, or, if you impose it upon
Missouri. It is not the force of your le-
gni provisions which attaches the res
trictive 6tli article of the ordinance to
the states I have mentioned. It is the
moral sentiment of the inhabitants. Im
pose it upon Missouri, and she will in
dignantly throw off the yoke, and laugh
you to scorn! You will then discover
that you have assumed a weapon that
you cannot wield—the bow of Ulysses,
which all your efforts cannot bend. The
open and voluntary exposure of your
weakness will make you not only the ob
ject of derision at home, but a bye-word
among nations. Can there be a power
in Congress to do thnt which the object
of the power may rightfully destroy ?—
Are the rights of Missouri and of the
Union in opposition to each other ? Can
it be possible that Congress has authori
ty to impose a restriction which Missou
ri, by an alteration of her Constitution,
may abolish ? Sir, the course we arc pur
suing reminds me of the urchin, who,
with great care and anxiety, constructs
his card edifice, which the slightest touch
may demolish—the gentlest breath dis
solve.
But let us stand together upon the ba
sis of precedent, and upon that ground
you cannot extend this restriction to Mis
souri. You have imposed it upon the
territory beyond the Ohio, but you have
never applied it elsewhere. Tennessee,
Vermont, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missis
sippi, and Alabama, have come into the
Union without being required to submit
to (he condition inhibiting slavery ; nay,
whenever the ordinance of ’87 has been
applied to any of these states—the ope
ration of the 6th article has been suspen
ded or destroyed. According, then, to
the uniform tenor of the precedent, let
the states to he formed of the territory
without the boundaries of the territory
northwest of Ohio remain unrestricted,
and in the enjoyment of the fulness of
their rights.
Thus, it appears to me, the power
you seek to assume, is not to be found
in the constitution, or to be derived
from precedents. Shall it then, without
any known process of generation, spring
spontaneously from your councils, like
the armed Minerva from the brain of Ju
piter ? The Goddess, sir, although of
wisdom, was also the inventress of war;
and the power of your creation, although
extensive in its dimensions, and ingeni
ous in its organization, may produce the
most terrible and deplorable effects.—
Assure yourselves, you have not autho
rity to bind a state coming into the Union,
with a single hair! If you have, you
may rivet a chain upon every limb, n
fetter upon every joint! Where then 1
ask is the independence of your state go
vernments ? Do they not fall prostrate,
debased, covered with sackcloth & crow
ned with ashes before the gigantic pow
er of the Union ? They will no longer,
sir, resemble planets, moving in order,
around a solar centre, receiving and im
parting lustre. They will dwindle to
mere satellites, or thrown from their or
bits, they will wander “ like stars con
demned, the wrecks of worlds demolish
ed !”
The ordinance of’87 has been called,
and is called, in your laws, an irrevoca
ble compact with the good people be
yond the Ohio. Sir, there is a compact
equully irrevocable; as 1 think, more
so, which governs the destinies of the
extensive region beyond the Mississippi.
I mean the treaty of 1803, by which
Louisiana was ceded to the U. States.-—
This 13, indeed, a compact formed by
two independent nations, parlies able to
contract. The ordinance of’87 was a
mere legislative provision, by which you
bound your vassal, who could not op
pose your wishes, who was in your pow
er, and subject to your authority. It pos
sesses not the force and effect of a so
lemn treaty.
The third article of the treaty de
clares, that “ the inhabitants of the ce
ded territory shall be incorporated in
the Union of the United States, and ad
mitted ns soon as possible, according to
the principles of the federal constitution,
to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad
vantages, mid immunities, of citizens of
the United States.”
How are the inhabitants to be “ in
corporated in the Union of the United
States ?” Certainly by admitting the
territory to which they belong as a state
or states into the Union “according to
the principles of the federal constituti
on.” 1 confess myself so dull, as to Le
able to give no other construction to the
words of the treaty. Argument is of
none effect when it attempts to make that
which is self evident still more apparent.
These inhabitants are to be placed, too,
in a political situation, in all respects e-
qual with that of our own citizens. It
follows, then, that citizens of the United
States having the power, under the con
stitution, to possess property in slaves,
and to remove that property whitherso
ever thr y will, the check or limit upon
this power, being imposed only, by the
state sovereignties, the inhabitants of
Louisiana cannot be fairly in possession
of “all the rights, advantages, and im
munities, of citizens of the U. States ”
unless they possess this also. The trea
ty of 1803 is the supreme law of the
land, and must be obeyed. Obedience
consists in admitting Missouri, which is a
part of the then territory of' Louisiana,
as a state into the Union, upon the sol*
condition, that she shall possess a repub
lican form of government.
There are some, 1 understand, who
think Congress has the power to impose
this restriction upon the territory of the
United States, although it cannot be for
ced upon a state, at the moment of ad
mission, and they find their text in the
following words of the constitution
“ Congress shull have power to dispose
of, and make all needful rules and regu
lations respecting the territory and other
property belonging to the United States.”
Without stopping to enquire, how far a
provision excluding slavery comes with
in the meaning of “ needful rules, and
regulations ;” how far, under authority
to make rules and regulations respecting
the territory of the United States, Con
gress can make laws affecting the rights
of property ; how far the citizen of the
south, who lias an equal claim w ith his
brother of the north, to the lands on the
west of the Mississippi, can be deprived
of the constitutional privilege of enjoy
ing his property in that country ; it is e-
nough for me, "that the treaty of 1803 in
terposes, to prevent the enactment of
any condition interfering with the liber
ty, religion or property of the inhabi
tants of Louisiana, The article 1 have
just quoted, after providing for the in
corporation of the ceded territory into
the Union, runs thus. “ And in the
mean time they (the inhabitants) shall
be maintained and protected in the free
enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
the religion they profess.” Now, slave*
were property at the time of the ratifi
cation of the treaty, and therefore with
in its meaning. Giving tothe words “in
the mean time” the construction they
would seem to demand, it must follow,
that, until the inhabitants arc “incorpo
rated in the Union, according to the prin
ciples of the federal constitution,” their
right to possess this species of property
is guaranteed by the treaty. It cannot
be said to the slaveholder who becomes
an inhabitant of Louisiana, “ you shall
leave your slaves behind you.” Hi*
ouly and conclusive reply is in the word*
which I have read. He bids you pre
serve that good faith which the law, the
dignity of which is settled by the consti
tution, inculcates. He insists, that, up
on the instant lie becomes an inhabitant
of Louisiana, bis right to his slaves i*
both recognized and sanctioned. Ho
surely does not insist in vain, for all ci
vilized governments respect, or affect to
respect, the solemnity of treaties....
Can you refuse obedience to this, after
the high language which you have used
towards the Spanish Court ? If you do,
even the gravity of the adored Ferdi
nand will relax into a smile, I dare not
say of contempt, but certainly of distrust.
I beg leave to offer a few words upon
the expedience of this amendment, and I
decline myself at a loss to divine the mo
tive which so ardently presses its enact
ment. It is said that humanity, a tender
concern for the welfare, both of the
slave and his master, is the moving prin
ciple. And here I cannot refrain from
repeating the words of a periodical wri
ter, as remarkable for his good taste, as
the justness of his sentiments : “ The u-
sual mode,” says he, “ of making a bad
measure palatable to a virtuous and well
disposed community, is that of holding it
up as conducing to some salutary end,
by which the whole people are eventu
ally to be greatly benefited. It is thu*
that every mischievous public measure
is sheltered behind some pretext of pub
lic good.” But it is a question which
deserves consideration, whether, if sla
very be confined to its present limits, the
situation of the master or the slave, or
both, will be made better ? Will not the
increased number of slaves, within a giv-
en space, diminish the means of subsis
tence ? Will not the number of masters
diminish ns the number of slaves in
crease ? And what are the consequen
ces ? Extreme wretchedness, penury,
and want, to the slave : Care, anxiety,
imbecility, and servile war to the mas
ter! Then, indeed will be produced
what the advocates of this amendment so
much deprecate—tyranny, in all its
wantonness, on one hand ; despair and
revenge on the other. At this moment,
the situation of the southern slave is, in
many respects, enviable. Adopt youg
restriction, and his fate will not be bet-,
ter than that of the mastiff, howling all
day long from the kennel, where hi*
chains confine him. But, let the dap-,
pled tide of population roll onwards to
the west. Raise no mound to interrupt
its coarse, and the evil, of which we on
all sides so bitterly complain, will have
lost half its power to harm, by disper
sion. Slaves, divided among many mas
ters, will enjoy greater privileges and
comforts than those who, cooped within
a narrow sphere, and under few owners,
will be doomed to drag a long, heavy
and clanking chain, through the span ok
their existence. Danger from insurrecx
tion will diminish. Confidence will gronr
between the master and his servant.—
The one will no longer be considered as
a mere beast of burden; tW other «a q