Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

SOUTHERN TRIBUNE' FLISLIsIIEt) WEEKLY, B» WSI . B . H A KRIS OA . \VM. B HARRISON, i ASD s Editors. \VM. S. LAWTON, ) From the Federal Cnion JUDGE JOII.HSO.VS LETTER. Macon, June 28, 1850. Dear Sir: —A number of your friends here, reposing great confidence in vour political in telligence and patriotism are very desirous of having tour views in reference to the great and important question that now agitates the public mind. We allude of course to the Slavery Question, and as it is presented to us in Mr. Clay’s so called Compromise Bill. Is this political nostrum, as it lias been aptly called, a measure that ought to satisfy the South,or is it a very thinly disguised fraud upon our consitu tional rights ? What measure ought to satisfy the South ; and ought the 36 deg. 30 min., to be the extreme limit of our concessions ? Is this a practical question or not,—slavery in the ter ritories? tome Southern men contend that it is not. By nswering any or till these questions, or any other that might striae you in reference to them, you will greatly oblige, Your friends, LARKIN GRIFFIN, JOHN J JONES, R A L. ATKINSON, A. II COLQUITT, JAMES M GREEN, SAM L J RAY. Hon. 11. V. Johnson, Milledgeville. Mir.t-F.DGEFii.t.K, Ga , July 4, 1850. Gf.nti.kmes lam honored by the receipt of your letter of the 28th ult., asking my views of the Slavery Question, “as it is presented to us, in Mr. Clay’s so-called Compromise Bill.” As I entertain no opinions which 1 have not honestly formed, so 1 have none which I hesitate one moment to express. Since my election to the Bench, I have sedulously stood uloof from party politics—l shall continue to do so. But the questions propounded in yout lerrer, are not of that character. Slavery, in all its aspects,rises above party. It is too important, too organic, too vital to the well-being of the South and the harmony of this great Con federacy, for its deatiuy ever to he linked with the mutations of party. Thus regnrdingit, Ido not depart from the course prescribed for myself, by returning a prompt and frank response to your call. You present three propositions upon which you desire my opinions, viz: 1. Is Mr. Clay’s compromise bill, “a meas ure that ought to satisfy the South; or is it a very thinly disguised fraud upon our Constitutional rights?” 2. “What measure ought to satisfy the South, and ought the line of 36 deg. 30 min., to be the extreme limit of our concessions?” 3. “Is this a practical question or not—slavery in the territories?” These questions open a wide field for discus sion— one which cannot be explored in a com munication of reasonable length. I beg you therefore to excuse me, if I should draw largely upon your patience. In older to decide undctatandiugly, whether the South ought tube satisfied with Mr. Cl tv’s compromise, it is important to keep constantly in mind, the true ground of controversy between the North and the South. Our la'e war with Mexico resulted in the acquisition by the United Slates, from that Republic, of the provinces of Calfurnia and New Mexico comprising an area of territory, larger than the original thirteen States of this Union. It is the fruit of common toil, common blood, and cornmmon treasure; and consequently it is the common property of the several Stales of this Confederacy— per my et per tout— each having an undivided interest in the title and enjoyment us the whole. Such is the doctrine of the Slaveltolding Slates, solemnly proclaimed by popular meetings and legislative assemblies. Nor do I know, that it is seriously questioned by the Northern States, us an abstract proposition. Indeed, it is so obviously sound, that few politicians, will hazard their reputations, by gravely controverting it. It is further insist ed by the South, that tin: States of the Union arc co-equals—that each is entitled to an equal participation in the territory thus acquired, and that the citizens of each have an equal right to emigrate thither, with their property of whatso ever description. But the North,though profes sing to recognise the equality of the Slates and thesr common interest in the territories, yet in- j sists, that from their entire surface, slavery shall be prohibited by Congress, which rs tantamount loan exclusion of the people of the South, and an appropriation of the whole to the free States. The contest waxes warm between the two sec tions. Serious alarm for the integrity of the U nion is awakened, F->r the sake of harmony, the South is willing to yield much, by way of compromise. What sort of compromise then, ought she to accept? For what is she contending? Is she warring against the Wilrnot Proviso as a mere abstraction, devoid of practical, positive evil ? By no means;—site is struggling for her rights in the territories of the United States—:he right of her citizeus to emigrate to them with their slaves. She not only opposes the Proviso, but every measure which will produce similar re sults. Holding these positions, she cannot ac cede to any compromise which does not recog nise the co-equality of the Southern with the Northern States, in all their relations to the con federacy. She ought to l/c sutisfied with noadjust merit, which does not secure to her, beyond dispute, a portion of the territories in question and give finality to this painful and ptrilous contest. lines the disposition, which Mr. Clay’s bill proposes to make of these territories, accom plish this object ? If 1 thought so, I would sup port it with all my heart. For the sake of the Union, 1 would be content with far less than an equal partition of the territory, especially, if, along with it, the equality of the Southern fcftates be recognised. What then arc the provisions of this bill, in reference to these territories? It proposes to admit California as a State, with her present or ganizalion and boundaries, and to provide terri. torial governments for Utah and New Mexico, irrespective of the Wilrnot Proviso. Now, where is the Southern man who seriously be lieves, that this measure of legislation will se cure one foot of territory to the slaveltolding States? I have never seen it pretended by any Southern Senator, who has advocated the hill in debate, that such would be its effect. Is not rfte absence of such a pretension an eloquent, hut fearful silence? Is it not equal to a humili ating confession, that the South loses all? The only argument urged in its favor, so far as 1 have neon, is intimidation on the one hand, and des pondency on the ether. Southern men in Con gress are threatened, that unless this hill shall pass, California will be admitted separately , and trembling under the rod, Southern men in the subdued feelings of despair, consent to vote for it, "as the best that cun be done." Would to God, they would take courage and oppose it to the bitter end, under the conviction which will, i-n due time come upon them, that if that, is the best that can. be done, rue bust is no better THAN THR WORST. It is insisted by some, that Mr. Clay’s hill is the alternative of the plan proposed'by the Ad ministration, It is contended, that the defeat ol the former, necessarily secures the adoption ol tlk: laltot. Tliis is a false issue It is based upon tlic assumption that the South is hound to sal mil to one or the other of ihese schemes I yield to no such assumption. In behalf of the South, as an individual, I accept no such issue. I reject it as unworthy her honor and humilia ting to her pride. The presentation of the ques tion under this aspect, uiay be a very good way to rally the opponents of the President, at the tocsin call of party, in support of Mr. Clay's measure, with the view of crippling and weaken ing his administration. But fur higher than this, is the stand point from which the Southern statesman should contemplate this question With him, it should be regarded as sacrilege to associate with it, the idea of party. The only issue which lie can accept, is the defeat of Mr. Clay's bill on the one baud, and, as its only al. ternatire, justice to the South, on the other. To me, Gen. Taylor's plan is not more odious, be cause lie is the leader of a Whig administration, and Mr. Clay’s not more acceptable, because like “a wolf in sheeps’ clothing,” it comes bap tized with the misnomer of compromise Asa Southern man, I scorn both. The South is not bound to submit to either—if she wills it, she has the power to defeat both. Ido not there fore view them in contrast. Mr. Clay’s bill is the measure before the country, and the course of the South in reference to it, should he decided by an examination ofit upon its merits. In certain quarters, also, powerful appeals are made to the Democratic party to unite in sup port of this measure, in order to save their own honor and that of the administration of Mr. Polk. They are told that they brought about the an nexation of Texas—that the annexation of Tex as led to the war with Mexico—that the war with Mexico resulted in the acquisition of these Territories—that the acquisition of these Terri tories is the occasion of this fearful controversy between the slaveholding and non-slevcliolding States; ergo the Democratic party are mainly responsible for the existing state of things, and consequently arc under very peculiar obligations to cherish a spirit of compromise and concession. If 1 were disposed to look at this question as a party man, i should deprecate most bitterly an appeal based upon such premises. It is a plain and downright endorsement of the accusations brought by the Whig, against the Democratic party. It admits to he true tho odious charges with which the former has assailed the latter.— Such an appeal from a Whig source would he perfectly natural, hut to see it from Democratic vuarters, is truly surprising. Asa Democrat, 1 would regard such ait argument as a dishonor t<> niy parly; and however I might recognize their general obligations to do all that is in their pow er to save the Union, I would protest against the reasons urged for any peculiar obligation to sup port Mr. Clay’s bill as au admission of allega tions ofdishonor. But I make no appeal to any parly. It is tin worthy the statesman—unworthy the true Democrat—unworthy the Southern man— unworthy the momentous theme. 1 look at the country as she is—t bo state of things ns they exist. I stop not to inquire which party is res ponsible for the past or the present It is suffi cient fur me to know, that the South is threa tened witli degradation and ruin by a miserable misnamed compromise, patched up and advoca ted by men too suppliant to contend for the right and too timid to face responsibility Asa party man, 1 trust my position is well understood, and therefore I need not sick to show my zeal lor democracy, by an attempt to associate the duly of the South in her present emergency' with ei tlior its past history or its future honor. M\ motto is, let till parties of the South he united for the sake of the South, and with unyielding firmm ss let them demand justice, for the sake of the Union. But the Southern opponents of Mr. Clay’s hill are asked, whether they do not admit the right of the inhabitants of a Terrslory in forming a State Constitution, to decide for themselves, whether they will tolerate or exclude slavery ? And shall we reject California, because she has thought proper to prohibit slavery by her consti tution ? Does not Mr. Clay’s hill carry out fully the Southern doctrine of non interference, in re ference to Utah and New Mexice ? These ques tions arc plausible and specious. But they en tirely ignore the facts and considerations which expose their fallacy. AsaSouthcrn man, I would not oppose the admission of California, because Iter constitution prohibits slavery On this subject, in a speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 28th February, 184!), 1 expressed the follow ing sentiments, and 1 repent them here : “Let it not he inferred from what I have said that 1 would oppose the admission of a State in to the Union on the ground of its being a free State. I have no such feeling. If California and New Mexico shall lie required to submit to tho usual probation of the territorial condition ; if, by just legislation on the part ol Congress, the South he allowed a fair chance to participate in the formation of their civil and social system; if the door of emigration he thrown open alike to the citizens of all the States ; and then, if tlie climate and productions of those regions, with out Congressional interference, shall exclude slavery, and at a proper time the people shall form State constitutions prohibiting its existence, I would cheerfully vote for their admission, even though they he free States.’’ If it be asked then, why I oppose the admis sion of California as a State ? I reply, because it is not a Territory, in the legal or political im port of that term. True, it is Territory that is, property of the United Slates. But it is not a Territory, defined as to boundaries by Congress, who alone has the right to prescribe and fix them. It is not a Territory organized into a temporary government, by Congiess, who alone lias the right thus to organize it. 1 oppose it, because the people there are not, in any consti tutional sense, inhabitants thereof. They have, as a people, no permanent interest in the soil no political rights over it. Tho great mass of them are adventurers, who have gone there, without any intention of permanent location, but simply to prey upon the mines, which are the common property of all .lie States. They have no right to appropriate to themselves the entire domain, to organize a State and fix the character of the institutions, domestic, civil and political, which will control and shape its destiny for all future time. The whole movement is a most palpable and unauthorized usurpation. To ad mit it ns a State, under soelt circumstances, is riot only to sanction and ratify such usurpation, but to inflict deep, permanent and degrading in justice to tho South. All this might be tolerated, if all things had been conducted fairly towards both sec tions of the Union. But Congress has pursued such a course as inevitably and effectually, to prevent emigration from the Southern States to Califor nia, and thus to exclude them, from an equal voice, in the formation of tho constitution w hick she offers. They nave refused to organize Ter ritorial governments. They have ever held the Wilrnot Proviso, in terror, over the heads of the Southern people. They refused to adopt, what is known as the “ Clayton Compromise,' by which the South was \vi lling to submit her rights under the Constitution, to the adjudication of the Supreme Court of the United Stoles. They have persisted in denying, that the Constitution, by virtue of the Mexican Treaty efeession,extend ed over the Territory acquired. And when it was proposed by Mr. Walker, a Senator from Wisconsin, in February, 1849, to extend the laws and Constitution over tt, by legislative en actment, it was rejected by a decided and inex orable majority. Such conduct—so unjust, so iniquitous—while it has deterred emigration from the Southern, has encouraged and stimula ted it, from the Northern Slates, and has result ed in the eoiigregaiiou of thoa-amls upon thous ands of tree soil adventurers, who wi.hout anv nerinancnt i- mi the soil, without anv in tention of making it their home, being still citi zens of the Stales w henc e they came, have ar rogated arid usurped to themselves, the high pre rogative of wresting from tho Stales, the sove reignly of the domain, formed a State constitu tion, and now demand immediate admission into the Union, with the threat of separate indepen dence, if their modest request ho not uncondi tionally granted Mr. (Ray’s bill sanctions and ratifies all this, under the deceptive garb of com promise, and calls upon the South, in the name of harmony and for the sake of the Union, to co operate in her own disfranchisement and degra dation. Was such injustice and insult, ever of fered to a people claiming to be freemen ? Is it not amazing,that every Southern heart is not fired with indignation, and every Southern arm nerved to undying resistance ? But I deny, that the constitution which she presents, is a fair expression of the wishes of the people ofCalifornia. It was concocted and urg ed through the Convention in hot haste, without a deliberate consultation of the popular will.— The object of the Convention was speedy, im mediate admission into the Union ; and they discarded every thing which might possibly pre sent an obstacle to its consummation. They knew, that they could not be admitted if they offered a eonsiitution that tolerated slavery. It is an undeniable fact, that the people of that por tion of California, South of the parallel of 36 deg. 30 min. North latitude, did not desire a State organization ; they preferred the territorial con dition, and so intruded their delegates. In proof of this, I inseit extracts from the remarks of gentlemen who were delegates to the Conven tion, taken front the printed journal of its pro ceedings. Mr. Gwin used the following language, page “Sir, are we not here forcing a State govern ment upon a portion of the people ofCalifornia, whose delegates have, by their recorded votes, staled the fact that their constituents are unani mously against a State government, and in favor of a Territorial organization ? Do you not ex pect and require that they shall sustain this gov ernment, and become apart ofit? If not, let us require their delegates to retire from this con vention, ripply to Congress fora territorial gov ernment, and exclude them from our State boun dary. Gentlemen affect to believe that, in ta king in a large extent ofcountry not represented here, and from which no opposition to our action has become known to us, we are not doing a great ad of injustice to those people; when at the same moment, we have here before us the direct protest against a Slate government, of a portion of the inhabitants of this Territory who arc represented. But do we stop —do we refrain from committing this act ofinjus'ico ? No, sir, we go on and include them ; we never think of excluding them. They bear the expense of a Stale government, while they prefer a Territo rial government ; but, rather than submit to a separate organization, or run the ri-k of getting no government at all, they waive their objection and act with us.” And again, page 197 : “We all know what 36 deg. 30 min. is. It is the great hone of contention. North of that t here is no contest ; South ofit there is a contest. It gentlemen will look where this linn strikes the Pacific, they will see that not a solitary vote was cast by a delegate in this convention South of that line, except those cast against a State government. The Representatives here from that region are unanimous in their votes against tho establishment of a State government. If w e include the territory these delegates represent on tho coast, why exclude the barren waste be yond, where no w hite man lives ? \Ve take a way the substance and leave the shadow. Let us take the whole territory or stop at that line. If we stop at that line, we mutilate the conven tion by excluding the members South ofit.’’ Page 184, Mr. Semple, the President us the Convention,said : “I feel under some obligations to repeat a con versation which has a direct bearing upon this matter. There is a distinguished member ofCon gress, who holds his seat from one of the Slates of the Union now in California. With a desire to obtain all the information possible in relation to the stale of things on the other side of the mountains, I asked him what was the desire of tho people in Congress. 1 observed to him that it was not the desire of the people of California to take a larger boundary than Sierra Nevada, and that we would prefer not embracing within onr limits this desert waste on the East. His reply was : “For God’s sake, leave ns no Terri tory to legislate upon in Congress.” lie went on to state then that the great object in our form ation of a State government was to avoid further legislation—there would he no question as to our admission by adopting this course : and that all subjects of minor importance could afterwards be settled. 1 think it my duty to impart this in formation to the convention. The conversation took place between Mr. Thomas Butler King and myself.” Now why was it, that the people South of 36 deg. 30 min. were opposed to Stale organization and asked not to be included within the limits of the Stale proposed to he formed ? Why wastlie line of 36 deg. 30 min. designated ? Is there no. tiling significant in this fact? Can the object be mistaken ? Does any man doubt, that it had reference to slavery ? Can the conviction be resisted, that they desired to decide that ques tion for themselves, free from the controlling in fluences ofthe populous regions of San Francis co and the gold mines * I must venture a single other quotation, to show, that the people were not fully represented in the Convention. Mr. Bolts,another delegate held the following language, page 193 : “Fes, sir, 1 am told there are thirty thousand freemen in this extent of country East of the Sierra Nevada, which you propose to include in your limits. Are they in the district ofSomona, or Sacramento, or Monteroy ? Thirty thousand freemen unrepresented ! Do you know, sir, by what vote ot my constituents I sit upon this floor? I will tell you. 1 received ninety-six votes—l, who am modestly requested to legislate for thirty thousand people I never saw, am sent lure by ninety.six vines. My colleague, it is true, who makes this proposition, received some twenty or thirty more ; and as for the remainder of my colleagues, 1 believe they are even worse off than 1 am.” With these stubborn and significant farts bla zoned to the world,who can say, with truth, that, in opposing the admission of California, 1 repu diate the doctrine, that the people of a Territory in forming their State Constitution, have the right to decide, for themselves, the question of slavery? So far from litis, whilst on the one hand, I refuse to sanction and approve the ini quitous conduct of Congress, which has resulted in the exclusion of the South ; on the other, I insist, that the voice ofthe people of California, South of 36 deg. 30 min. shall he fairly consult ed. I insist, that it shall not he suppressed and its utterance choked, by the heartless gan<> of public plunderers from tho free States, who swarm about tho gold diggings and environs of San Francisco, like hungry vultures round a pu trid carcass. That portion of Mr. Clay's hill which seeks to bring in California as a State, with her present boundaries, is to me unuttera bly odious. I thiuk it ought to bo to every Southern men. It is a fraud upon the South. It is a fraud upon the people ol California, South of 35 deg. 30 min. If that part of Mr. Clay’s hill, which establish es Territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, constituted a portion of a plan of eoni promise, otherwise acceptable, I would not hes itate to vote for it, were lin Congress It is free from the Wilrnot Proviso. It prohibits the Ter | tutorial legislatures from passing any law, res pecting the tJtablisliincnl or abolition of slavery And, as amended, it provides, that when they shall apply, they shall be admitted Into the L nion, whether their constitutions permit or for bid slavery. In a word, it leaves the question of slavery prOcisely where it was left by the “Clayton compromise.” While I had the honor of a seat in the Senate of the United States, 1 voted for that bill. I did so, under the belief then and now entertained, that by the Constitu tion, a citizen of the South has the right to carry liis slaves into any territory ofthe United States; that the Mexican lais prohibitory of slavery, w ere abrogated by the ratification of the Treaty of peace, and therefore, whatever is recognized as property in the States, by the Constitution, would be construed and adjudged to be properly by the Supreme Court, in the Territories. I have seen no argument,from any quarter to shake these opinions. I would, therefore, under simi lar circumstances, give the same vole again as a measure of compromise. But because Mr. Clay’s scheme contains one feature which were tolera ble, that is no sufficient reason why 1 should sanction it as a w hole. The admission of California, as she is, is the grand desideratum with the free soilers. This done, and the whole Pacific coast, with its unsur passed harbors and incalculable commerce, and the broad area ofCalifornia, with its inexhausta hie mines, are secured to the grasping appetite of Northern cupidity. They know full well, that, flanked by Oregon on the North, and California on the \V est —both boundless fields for the opera tions of abolition fanaticism and rascality, Utah and New Mexico will fall an easy prey to their machinations. Hence, they may well afford to forego the Wilrnot Proviso in reference to them, when by so doing, they secure all that is most valuable, and perhaps all that is worth a contest. The next proposition of the so called compro mise, is to cede to New Mexico, about 140,000 square miles of Texas, to soothe thd wrath of free soil fanatics, who choose to believe, that the boundary ol'the hitter does not extend to the Rio Grande. I shall not stop to discuss the question of boundary between Texas and New Mexico. I believe it is properly the Rio Grande. Before the war, ibis was a question of controversy be tween the United States and Mexico. Since the war, it has become a question between Texas and the United Stales. Thus considered, the United States, by its own acts and admissions, is forever excluded and estopped, from deny ing the claim of Texas to the liio Grande. The act de claring tho war admits it. and the Treaty reco"-- nizes it. To deny and contest it now is iniqui tous and without apology. What pretext then, can there be for purchasing it, unless it he to pander to the caprice of Northern fanaticism ? I shall also waive a consideration of the con stitutional right of Congress to make the pur chase, and come directly to a brief statement of my objections to the proposition. Whatever may be the object ofthe framers of tlie bill, its effect will be, to convert that which is now slave, into free territory. It is to he add ed to and form a part of New Mexico, anil thus brought under the control of such Mexicans as remained in that Territory after the Treaty, and removed from under that dominant slavery in fluence whieli now prevails in Texas. And if such were not the design of the Committee, and there were any sincere desire to tender a propo sition ofComprontisc, just and fair, why not erect this 140,060 square miles into a separate territo rial government ? The reason is obvious. It is now under the jurisdiction of laws which tole rate slavery. The slaveholder ofthe South can remove there in safely. Such Territorial organ ization would result in the formation of one or two if not more slave States. But this will not do. It must he placed under the guardian care ofthe tutelary gods who are to preside over the fate of New Mexico. But this proposition is worse than Punic faith to the South. Texas vvasannexed to the United Slates, under resolutions, solemnly recognizing tile Missouri Compromise, by which it is stipu lated, that such States as may bo formed South of 36 di g. 30 min , shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as each State, asking ad mission, tuay desire. Now upon what principle of justice, can a subsequent Congress disturb and defeat this compact ? Admitting their right, is it equitable, is it consistent with good faith anil public honor ? If there he a necessity for such a purchase, (which I deny,) to quiet the ques tion of boundary and to avert a conflict between the Federal and State authorities, does not good faith demand, that no disposition of the Territo ry so purchased, should he made, hut what is compatible with the true spirit and meaning of the resolutions ofannexatien ? Doesit not de mand that it be organized into a separate Terri tory, with all the rights touching the subject of shivery, positively and affirmatively secured, which belong to it, under the resolutions of an nexation ? But these overwhelming considera lions of public moral obligation are utterly dis regarded : Texas, poor and in debt, is sought to he bribed into the arrangement, at the price of some sls 000,000; and the patient, aggrieved and humiliated South is insulted by the insolent requisition to pay her part of the purchase mo ney, to secure to free soil rapacity, Territory, now under the jurisdiction of slavery laws, suffi cient to make three States, nearly as large as Georgia ! ! Another provision of Mr. Clay’s hill pro hibits the slave trade in the District of Co lumbia. This is a clear and undeniable con cession to Northern demands, and is predicated mainly, upon the very courteous consideration, that it is due to the delicate and tender sensibili ties of gentlemen, from the free States, who visit Washington on business or pleasure To have countenanced such a proposition, a few years ago, would have subjected any man in the South, to the unmitigated indignation of all men of all parties. It was considered unconstitutional— that Congress had no jurisdiction whatever over ihe subject. Was that opinion tight or wrong?— Or has tlie constitution changed? 1 read it now as I did then. But I drop the subject without further comment. The onus rests upon those whom Presidential aspirants have cojolcd, to show, that any, and w hat concession is made by it to the South. The surrender of this point by tlie South were tolerable, it it would silence the yelping and howling of the despicable pack of abolitionists. But like the scent ofblood to the hungry panther, it will but whet their appetite, and they will be come louder and more tierce, in their clamors for abolition hi the District, and ihe suppression of the slave trade between the States. For be it remembered, the Committee of Thirteen dis tinctly' declined to declare, that abolition in the District is unconstitutional, and to report a bill for that purpose, on the ground of inexpediency. But who does not know, by tlie history of tiie past, that inexpediency will rapidly vanish before the rampant zeal of an irresponsible and incon siderate majority ? Who does not know, that it will he consumed like stubble by the holy fire of sueli godly politicians, as believe in an alle giance higher than that, which they owe to the constitution, they have sworn to support ? Per haps it will be instructive generally, and to such especially as favor Mr. Clay’s bill, to read the following article, extracted from the "Liberty Creed," of the “ A tnerienn and foreign anti-slave ry Society,” which I find in their annual report, adopted at a meeting held in New York on the 7th of May 1850. “That slavery in the District of Columbia, and in nil places under exclusive national ju risdiction, and in all States created out of any territory of the United States, is unconstitution al."—Page IC6. Yet Southern men vainly hope to quiet this agitation, by following tlie lead of Mr. Clav, in suppressing the slave trade in the District. I would as soon expect to extinguish a liuriiin" pile, by pouring oil upon the flumes Tlie last pill, in this feculent box of nauseous nostrums, is that in relation to the surrender of fugitive slaves. The provision of the Constitution touching this subject is in the foilwing words : “No person held to service or labour in one State, under the laws thereof escaping into another,shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, he discharged from such labour or service, hut shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall he due,” Sec. 2. Art. 4. The constitution was adopted by the States in good faith, each trusting to the honor acd fidelity of the rest, to execute its provisions l nder this view, the framers contemplated, that the State legislatures should, and would provide, by law, for the capture and delivery up of fugitive slaves. Hence, we find no legislation, by Congress, on this subject, until 1793. That act authorised any owner or bis agent to seize or arrest bis fugitive slave and take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit or District Courts of the Untied States, residing or being within the State, or before any ma gistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and show cither by oral testimony or affidavit, that the slave so seized or ariested is his property, and it shall he the duty of the judge or magistrate to certify the same, which shall warrant the master in removing his slave hack whence he fled. It also imposed a penalty on any person obstructing or hindering such claimants or har boring such fugitive staves. This statute is ample in its provisions, if the people and legisla tures of the free States bad remained faithful to their constitutional obligations. Instead of this however, they threw insuperable obstacles in the way of its execution ; and, within the last few years, they have passed laws, imposing heavy penalties upon any of their citizens who shall aid the master in the recapture of his fugitive slave. And so all-pervading in the North, is the spirit which originated such legislation, that the lugitive slave is harbored and protected, and, in some instances, owners have been mobbed and murdered, in tho attempt to regain their proper ty. Such violations of public faith between Fo reign States, is tt good cause of war, and would, long ago, have engendered it. Is this the feel ing which ought to actuate sister States, united in the bouds of a common Union? Can the South longer endure it ? Even Mr. Webster, with all his anti-slavery sympathies, feels the necessity of a speedy remedy. It is acknowl edged by intelligent and patriotic men ofall par ties at the North. With such a clear constitu tional right, admitted by ail from whom truth is to he expected, we had reason to hope, that a Committee, raised for the avowed purpose of compromise, would have had the magnanimity, to offer a remedy containing no feature calcula ted to wound the South But this could not he. Something must be yielded here to the insatia ble demands of Northern fanaticism. Upon the bare affidavit ofthe negro that he is not a slave, the master is required to enter into a heavy bond that he shall have the benefit of trial bv jury, when brought hack whence he escaped. Where does Congress derive the power to prescribe conditions upon which the master shall reclaim his fugitive slave ? The Constitution saj s he shall be delivered up on claim of the master. How can Congress abridge this right by imposing terms ? Again : Is not such a proposition a reflection upon the South ? Where is the necessity for it' Have Southern men been in the habit of kid tHipping? Is there not ample provision made, in all the Souther Slates to protect the free man ot colour ? In Georgia we have a statue, most salutary and plenary in its provisions. All that a negro claiming to he free, who is attempted to ho held by a white man in servitude, has to do, is to refer his petition to a Justice ofthe Inferior Court of the Cuvnty, setting forth the facts, and it is made his duty to enquire into them If there he "probable ground to believe," that the complaint >“ well founded, he is to order the no gjo into the custody ofthe Sheriff, until the pre tended owner shall enter into bond, with good security,not to remove or attempt to remove such negro, until the cause is finally adjudicated by the Inferior Court. So far as Georgia is concerned and I doubt not, it is true of all the Southern States, there prevails a most wholesome state of public opinion on this subject. It brings the pretended owner into contempt, audit secures the negro a fair and impartial trial. Tneu where ihe necessity of imposing the terms offered by this so-called Compromise ? We are told very candidly by Mr. Clay, the chairman, in his repot l, that it is all done, “in deference of the feelings and prejudies which prevail in the. non-slavehold ing States." Must we at every step we take, dotl our hats and maka an obsequious how to the spirit of Northern aggression? But waiving these considerations, I verily be lieve that this or auy other mode of recapture, which Congress might devise, will be a dead letter. Public sentiment anil feeling at the North are too radically depraved and vitiated, for such a law ever to be enforced or remain long unre pealed. It may pass now. It may be the policy of Northern politicians to permit it to pass, with the view of securing the. ncquescence of the South in the admission of California. But this desideratum gained, and in lesss than five years, will he repealed or so amended as to transfer the trial by Jury, whence the slave may escape, to that of his recapture. Then it will he a mockery indeed. Read the following resolution, unani ’mously adopted by the American and foreign anti-slavery Society, taken from the same from which I have already quoted : "Resolved, That it is our solemn conviction, that it will he a heinous sin in us, to lend our aid in subjecting any of our fellow-men to the atro cities of American slavery ; and we do there fore before God, pledge ourselves to each oilier, that we will incur any penalties which unprinci pled politicians in Congress may think it expe dient to impose upon us, rather than betray a fugitive slave, or assist in his capture.” Page 10. With such a declaration by tliut association, reflecting truly, as it does, the anti-slavery sen timents of the free States—knowing how deeply depraved is the great mass ofthe Northern mind upon this subject, and their utter infidelity to any Compromise which even squints towards justice to the South, I have no hope of any effi cient legislation by Congress. Now, after this rapid glance at the provisions of Mr. Clay’s bill, 1 ask what single feature of Compromise it contains? Compromise implies concession. \\ hat concession docs it obtain from the North, and what concesion does itde mand, at the hands of tlie South ? It requires as to consent to the admission of California as she is. It requires us to aid in the purchase of 140,000 square miles of slave territory to head tied to New Mexico. It requires us to yield the right to Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery, in the District of Columbia. It requires us to admit by implication, the right of Congress to pass the Wilrnot Proviso—an implication ir risistablc from tho avowel in Mr. Clay’s report, that it was not deemed expedient or necessary, to attach it to tho section creating temporary governments for Utah and New Mexico. lire quires us to enter into bonds, upon the affidavit of our fugitive slaves, as a condition precedent to the exercise of a plain, positive and unquali tied constitutional right to have them delivered up on demand. In a word, is it not obvious from the provisions of the hill and the report of Mr. Clay accompanying it, that it was the object of the committee at every step to bow to, and satisfy the prejudices, and demaud of tho nnn slaueholdmg States? And for all those sacrifi ces, it is said, the North foregoes the Wilrnot Proviso as to Utah and New Mexico. Wonder ful concession this,viewed in connexion with the declaration of the Committee, in their report, that the Proviso was unnecessary I And those who do not, like Socrates, quaff this cup of hem lock without a murmur, are branded as "fact ists," "agitators,” and "disunionists Sirl these ephithets have no terrors for me. f ’ whoever may be a "factionist” I feel and k no ° r that lam not. Whoever may be an “ agitator ” 1 feel and know that I arn not. Whoever m ’ be a “ disuniunist ,” I feel and know that I ), a been educated in sentiments of habitual rev '* cnee for tlie Union. But it is reeerence i*’ so blind, as to make me bow down and worsh' * it, when it is used by a heartless majority as means of oppression and injustice. The’u’V , m denounce this iniquitous bill, as a measure tl ought not to satisfy the South. I will denounci it, as a “very thinly disguised fraud upon constitutional rights-’’ r But this bill is offered to the South as tl price of peace and harmony to the Unio'n. w® are prepared to make large sacrifices for such an object. This constant chafing and fre!n„„ • rapidly weakening the cords which hold ship of State to her mooring. The popular nnnd is faint and weary, from this perpetual ex citemcnt. The country needs repose It j lime, that this wearing and tearing acitaimn should cease, and that the feelings of fraternal kindness, which animated the bosoms of tl people, in the better days of the republic sho. M be restored. But liberal and humiliating as ar, these concessions, which tlie South is asked make, will they yield the promised results’— W ho can believe it in view of the past histor of abolition agitation? Fificen years agotl* cloud was not larger than a man’s hand; now it darkens thelleavens and shakes the Earth will its thunders. It commenced with a few i on' temptible societies, composed of fanatics and sill' women, hut now, they have multiplied and ij creased, like the frogs and lice of Egypt, i n ,j " days of God’s vengeance, until the whole land North is infested. Public sentiment is under their control, and politicians and statesmen court their favor and obey their behests. The South has yielded to their demands and submitted to their insolence, until they now not only require the exclusion wf slavery from all tlie Territories and its abolition in the District of Columbia’ forts, dockyards, &c., but universal emancipa tion is openly avowed as their object. I have before me the “Annual Report ofthe American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,” adopted at a meeting, held in New York on the 7th of May 1850, front which I have already made extracts’ It is a volume of 172 pages, drawn up wish ability, and no doubt, faithfully reflects the anti slavery sentiments and designs ofthe free States of this Union. It contains a statistical account ofthe action of nearly every religious and eccle siastical association in the free States, showing their deep wrought hostility to the institution of slavery, and their unalterable determination, never to cease their labors until it shall be abol ished. And from a review of tho whole, the report draws this general and striking conclusion: “Hay ing taken this annual survey of tho anti slavery cause, we are, in view ofit, constrained to believe that it is steadily advancing— that slavery is generally noio considered a doomed institution, and that ere long it will be universally treated as a disgrace, a reproach and a curse. ’ Page 152. The Society recommended the Executive Committee to appoint collectors in the different States to solicit funds to enable them to send agents and publications into the new Territories. It endorsed the infamous sentiment of Senator Seward, by the following resolution : "Resolved, That in the language of Senator Seward “there is a higher Jaw than the Consti tution ;” and in the language of Sir William Blackstone, “no human laws are ofany validity, if contrary to this ;’’ and that ail compromises between right and wrong, and all statutes which are repugnant to humanity and justice are null and void.” It is evident from these and a thousand other proofs, that the anti slavery sentiment of the free States, is based upon tlieir construction of reli gious obligation. It is embodied in tlieirchurch creeds. They eschew fellowship or communion ns Christians, with slaveholders or the apologists of slaveholders. They hold that slavery is an outrage upon humanity, contrary to the spirit of the age and of republican government, and a sin against God. They so teach liieirehiltlmn from the nursery up to the College. The sentiment feints all their juvenile literature, and findsiis, s place in their higher text books. They are uni ted, systematic, untiring, zealous and far reach ing in their operations They have declared a war of extermination against the institution of slavery, wherever it exists, and they fight with the spirit of martyrdom. Now, 1 ask, what is there in Mr. Clay's bill, which will check, fur one moment, their operations either in or out of Congress ? Let any man, if he can, point to a single feature, which gives aid or strength to the South, in this fearful contest. What confidence can we repose in the compromises of a people, who tolerate the principle, that “there is a power higher than the Constitution,” in obedi ence to which, they are bound to contend for universal emancipation ? If they will set at nought the Constitution, will they be likely to abide a compromise * No, no ; and most espe cially if it bejust to tho South. What possible inducement can tlie South have, to vote tor a bill which am renders nil and leaves the storm yet abroad, unabated in its anger? But Igo further.— This bill is not only impo tent to restore harmony and repose to the coun try, but if it should become n law, I verily be lieve it will be the death knell of the Union. It is true, the South may submit to it for the pres ent. There may be no immediate convulsion, leading to revolution or secession. The masses at the South love the L’nion ; and while evils are in tho misty distance, and do not come home with tangible reality to thetr hearthstones and interests, they are disposed to put off the evil day. But let Mr. Clay's hill become a law, and by its operation all tlie territory of the United States appropriated to free soil; and the child is now born who will see the day, when the South must choose between dissolution and abolition in the States. Upon this appalling proposition, I must present but a single fact. According to recent estimates, the Territories of the United States, outside of the Stales, contain about 1,862,000 square miles. This will make thirty-seven States of 50,000 square miles each. It may never be dividod into so many, but having the majority in Congress, the aboli tionists will be quite sure to make as many new States out of the territories, as will secure to them two-thirds in both houses of Congress. — This is already foreshadowed by the amendment offered by Mr. Halo of New Hampshire, and adopted by the Senate, providing for the future division of California into several States. — Docs any man doubt that this will he the result, if slavery is excluded ? How can lie doubt, in \ ievv of the Zealand avowed object of the abo litionists? If they hud the power, does any man doubt, tint they would exercise it? IDlie Constitution should present any obstacle, would they not amend it to suit their own policy and purposes? Herelhare this point. Let South ern men ponder it. If they love the South,— if they love the Union, let them dash from then touch this odious bill, ns they would a squalu reptile; for its very breuth is deadly poison to both. » The above paragraph explains the emphasis o the remark in the first part of this communica tion, that tho South ought to accept no compro mise, wich docs not secure to her a portion °J these territories, and give finality to the contro .' rersy. Nothing will effect this object wluc 1 docs not preserve the equal strength of I ® South in tho Senate of tho United States. * c r is the only liopo of tho South. In tho K c P r snntativc branch of Congress, wc arc a rr ‘' overpowered. The equilibrium between North and South, in the Senate, must o I