The Southern tribune. (Macon, Ga.) 1850-1851, August 24, 1850, Image 2

Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Southern tribune., August 24, 1850, Image 2

About The Southern tribune. (Macon, Ga.) 1850-1851 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 24, 1850)

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (5.0 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextSOUTHERN TRIBUNE. miwui WNI. B. IURBKON, WJIT 8 IIA RRISO N ,~7 ” asd £ Editori. ffM. 8-LAWTON, S From tfie Southern Prist. The Randolph Epistle* on the Right of Secession. NO. I. To the Preridcnt-In'roductory.—One half of the Southern Whigs States Rights Men—Secets ion results from the compact Denied by the Executire—The Constitu tion bears the faculties of its own destruc tion—Dismemberment cannot be Treason Two States can dissolve the Union tin der Constitutional authority—Also, one ... fifh of the Members of cither House. To His Excellency, Millaud Fillmore. President of the United States : Sis—One of the-unforeseen casualties which "flesh isjwirip” bas made votir Ex cellency the Chief Magistrate of the Uni ted States. For the first time In your life, you find yourself the representative of a Southern constituency in Executive Ad , ministration, and to a majority of that con. stituency you owe your elevation to the Vice Presidency, and through that, to the still higher position which you now occupy. There were circumstances, too,which gave a yet more imposing weight to the support you obtained in the Southern States. Os the fifteen free States, your electoral ticket obtained the victory but in seven. Os the fifieen slave States, the same ticket ob tained the victory in eight. Os the seven free States, in which your ticket coinman ded pluralities of voles, it commanded popular majorities in but three. Os the eight slave States, which cast their electo ral votes for that ticket, it commanded popular majorities in each of them. The aggregate of your popular majorities in the free States was six thousand eight hun dred and fifly-thiee. The aggregate of your popular majorities in the slave States j was forty-two thousand eight hundred and two. All these would bo matters of small concern in administering the affairs of the Government in ordinary limes ; but in so grave and alarming a crisis in public af fairs as now disturbs the public tranquility 1 must think that these are considerations worth remembering, should sectional issues at any time,in the opinion of the President, call for Executive action. I take leave, furthermore, to call your Excellency’s attention to some other stri king circumstances, which your party at the North has too often disregarded, but which in times like these, may be worthy of very special note. One important fact is, that the Whig party at the North and the Whig party at the South, though con curring in the main upon measures of pub lic policy—yet, upon several essential points, they radically disagree. Another fact, or at least, a strong probability is, that not One of ilte favorite measures of the Whigs ofthe North, a National Bank, a Bankrupt Law, a Protective Tariff, In ternal Improvements, &c., would be likely to command majorities at the South,though the Democrats of that section wholly re frained from the polls; and as to all the anti-slavery issues upon which the Whigs ofthe free States are quite or nearly unan imous, the Whiga ofthe South are just aa unanimous on the opposite side. From the close of Mr. Madison's Administration in 1817, through the whole of Mr. Mon roe distinction of parties was scarcely preserved at the South, and upon the open ing of that of Mr. J. Q. Adams in 1825, the old Federal party then rallied upon him, while the State Rights men in over whelming majorities rallied upon General Jackson. Even as late as 1832, (and be fore the Whig party 00 nomine was known,) in the Presidential contest between Mr. Clay and General Jackson, the former could ony muster Federalists and National Republicans enough in all the South, to secure him three States, with popular ma jorities as follows: Kentucky with some 7,000 Delaware 166, and Maryland with 4 ! While General Jackson supported by te States-rights party, carried the bal ance of tbe Southern States with an ag gregate of majorities reaching to one hun dred and forty thousand! But the most important fact of all is, that fully oce-hal f of the Wihg party at the South were ori ginal Slate Rights me*,who left the Dem ocratic party, some of them in oppostion to the latitudinarian doctrines of Gen. Jack son’• proclamation against South Carolina, (notwithstanding his disavowals in the Globe and Enqurer) others of them on account of his removal of the depositee* &£., others of them on account of their preference of Hugh L. White to Martin Van Burep, others of them through an ascription of the disastrous financial crisis of 1937 te the policy and measures of the latter, but not one sf them, that I have heard, for as\y disstifact ion with the doc trines of States Rights, and a strict eon. Mruetion of the Federal Constitution ! From these premises, I think it may be safely taken for granted, that fully one half of the Whigs of the South, with the Dem ocratic party thither enmasse, areemphati cally State Rights men, who stand upon the platform made by Messrs. Jefferson and Madison in 1793, as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Report, drafted by them for each of these Commonwealths respectively, and which werebased upon the broad principle, that this Union results from a Compact between the States, to which they became parties in their sovereign capacities, with full powers and rights inherent in each,(as in all other compacts,) to dissole or to secede from such compacts, for breaches of any of its funda mental conditons or material simula tions, and of which each State of it«~ifand oi necessity must be the exclusive judge. In other words and as an inevitable corrol lary from the premises, the Southern peo. pie, in overwhelming numbers, hold as a priuciple of our political institutions the right of secession in these States. Os course, your Excellencey is too sagactous and pto. found a statesman,and too accurately vers ed in the past public questions of the coun try, to oenfoutid, (as Mr. Clay so recently, and so unaccountably did in the Senate,) the doctrine of secession with that of nullifi cation Day and night are not more deeply and enduringly in contrast than they.— Through secession , an oppressed and com plaining State peacefully retires from the Union ; parting alike with its benefits and its burthens, uutil that Union shall repair the breaches in the Constitution and its broken faith towards her, and given her adequate guarantees against their future recurrence ; while, through null ijicot ion, a State never quits the Union at all and fully shares in all its beuefirs, but renounces whatever of its burthens it shall adjudge and denounce,through its State authorities, to be nullities and void! With all res pect for the e ivocates of nullification, (and I do most truly respect them,) and a full appreciation of the exas perating oppressions which provoked it, I could never persuade myself that the Union could survive a twelve month, an unlimited power in each of its mem bers toabrogace its laws within its own bor. ders; while on the other hand, should one ofthc States,or a third of the States,or even one half of them should secede,that in itself would by no means preclude tho States which remained, from still abiding in U nion, independent and free. Besides, the remedy of nullification has arisen and been passed upon anddenied by the Executive and legislative branches of this Govern ment near twenty years ago, while that of secession hasnever been up for judgment, nor discussed by any department of the Government. From all this it results, that a large majority of Southerners have always been opposed to the doctrine of nullification, and for the additional reason ( hat the ampler.raorethorough and unques tionable remedy of secession, discredited its authority iu proving it unnecessary ; and hence, too, the right of secession so ob viously resulting as a muniment of a com pact to which the States were parties, and so effective as a shield against political oppression, has always been cherished and maintained by the State Right’s men of the South, (inclusive, of enures, of the nullv ders.) as the Sonth’s birth-right and its safe guard. So thoroughly convinced am I that the right secession is a conclusive and in evitable corollary from the compact which created the Union of Republics, that I very much doubt, if the right would ever have been questioned, had it not been so ama zingly mystified and confounded with the points and asump ions peculiar and jer taining to the remedy of State nullification. Such being ihe antecedent, the right of secession, raising questions of the first im portance, such as had never been decided, never deliberated on, never discussed, had never arisen, involving the profoundest principles of public law and the Federal Constitution; and consequences, it may be, of the highest moment to the hap piness and tranquility of our common country; I can hardly express the surprise and deep concern it has given us South erners. to have noticed in the columns of one of the official organs of ihe Adminis tration (the Republic) daily for many days flippant homilies against the right of se cession, are significant of inferences, thai its assertion and exercise by a sovereign Sta’e, would be resisted and put down by the military power of this Government?— But 'or the commanding position of this Journal, I should of course have treated doctrines and menaces so jejune, and premature as these with entire indiffer enco; but finding them there, and so often repeated, and satisfied that no organ of the Government would thus have ventured to the world a clue to its highest and gravest policy of State, without an express authori ty, it ia impossible not to regard them as oracular revealing* of the foregone judg ments and porposes of your Excellency’s Administration, and as such they become the legitimate topics of public examination and criticism; and the menacing intima tions in your Excellency’s recent message to the two Houses upou the pending boun dary issues between Texas and New Mex ico amply confirm all the Delphic disclo sures which the Republic hss made ! In all Christendom there never has been a form of Government which provi ded in its own Constitution, through an express authorization, for ita own dissolu tion , nor yet one, in which the right to put an end to it did not reside somewhere. Our own Constitution furnishes striking instances an<l illustrations of each of these potiulala, and one of them was but recent ly and most imposingly brought to public attention in the Congress of the United States. At an early day of the presen: sion, petitions from certain Quakers iu Pennsylvania, were presented to both Houses, praying that Congress would pro videfora peaceful dissolution of tlie Union ! These petitions were unanimoudy reject ed in both Houses, and the reasons as signed for doing so were, that tie Consti tution conferred no power on C ingress to dissolve the Union or to take my step in any manner providing therefor; and it is perfectly clear, that it does not. It is even clearer, that the Constitution has conferred no such power upon the Executive De partment ; and a fortiori not upon the Ju dicial Department, whose whole functions of administration are unchangeably impas sive, and it is absolutely void besides, < f all political authority whatever. But I have said that the rights and power of dis solution of all governments, being co-ei istent therewith, must always reside some where ; and if they have no place in any of the Departments of the Fedeial Gov ernment, where do they reside ? The 10th amendment of the Constitution, strikingly and conclusively answers this question, and clears our way of every difficulty, by providing, that, "The powers not delegated to the Uni lerlStales by the Constitution, nor prohib ited by it to tho States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the p#v»pl«.” Now what reserved powers are these 1 They are not Federal powers manifestly : Existing only in faculty ; they are but the creatures of organic law, and all that were created were conferred on and vested in this Government by the Constitution, and took effect pari passu with it March 4, 1789. The reseeved powers, then, not be ing Federal or United powers, are State powers (whether pertaining to the Govern ments or people of the States) existing but in severality, and to be exercised if at all, j by tbe States, each by itself and fur itself, and for none other, and not otherwise. It results, that as the power of dissolving the Union resides in the States severally and not conjointly, no one of them can dissolve it,beyond the extent to which she is interested therein and a party thereto; and consequently the only mode of affect ing that, wirhout destroying the Union of the others, is by withdrawing from it* jurisdiction and authority, through tho peaceful exercise of the right of secession. All wise and moderate men will readily agree, that such a right ought never to be exercised, unless the grievances were weighty and too much to be borne with; n<-r then,while a reasonable hope remained of obtaining fit indemnities for past ag gressions, and adequate securities against their recurrences; still it would be no right elsewhere, to prevent or obstruct its asser tion ; nor unloss the party possessing it* was free as tho air to determine the occa sion which would be met for its exercise. 1 he right must be absolute, exclusive and unquestionable, or it does not exist. If tbe Union of these States had been made immutable by the Constitution, your excellency sees at once, that an act of se cession would be the greatest of crimes; yet while the Constitution is sedulous and minute in investing Congress with thepow. ©rs "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coins ofthe United States,” "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations,’’&c.; lo! the far more heinous crime of secession, is no where de nounced or forbidden, or referred to ! Can any rational and candid mind draw any other conclusion from the omission ! hut that the sages of the Constitution did* not regard it as any crime at all, but as nn inalienable and invaluable right of sover eignty ? The highest crime, known, to the Con stitution is Treason ; but all the juris-con. suits agree, that a State in its sovereign capacity, cannot commit treason, and so says tbe the Constitution itself, though the irresistible implication drawn from the provision, that “no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the Ife of the person attain ted." But what is Treason 7 The Constitution answers, that "treason against the Constitution of the Unied States shall only consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort.” Well, sir, secession is nothing like this ; levies upon uobody ■ it adheres to no one’s enemies, nor gives them aid and comfort, but takes quiet and peaceful leave of the Uuiun, without draw ing a trigger or unsheathing a sword ! Yet there are men—who ought to know belter—flippantly denouncing the mere imaginationof secession as treason, though the levying of war at the point of a pen, and giving aid and comfort to enemies when the Union is without any ! Treason, sir ! Isa dismemberment of the Union, treason to the Constitution ? If so, then is the Constitution itself the hot bed of its own treasons, for it bears within itself the seeds of its own dismem berment! If money be the sinew of war,it is undoubtedly, also, the life of Government. Without it, the wheels of Administration stop; and if, for a length of time, the spokes decay, and they fall to pieces. Our Constitution requites majorities of the whole numbers elected to each House of Congress to constitute the quorums, who can proceed to business. Less than these in either House brings all Legisla tion to a pause. Without quorums in both, not a law can be passed to raise mo ney or disburse it:—To pul money into the Treasury, or to take it out. Now it so happenes, that the aggregate numbers of the Representatives of just seven of Mie thirty States of the Union exceeds, by ama jority of one, the aggregate re presentative numbers of tbe remaining twenty three States Suppose the seven States refuse, or fail from any cause, to elect a representative for a term or two ; the consequence would be the arrest of Legislation—the stoppage of the supplies —and eventually an entire dissolution of the Uuion! And how effected 7 Through the recusancy of less than one-fourth of tbe States and in successful defiance and resistence of all the remaining States !. There’s the Senate too. Os the 30 States, there are 15 of them whose aggregate popular numbers amount to more than 3,770,196, while the aggregate popular numt»ers of the other 15 States amount to 13,273,157 ; and yet by a refusal or fail ure "f the legislatuies of the 15 Stales first referred to, to choose their Senators, the Senate’s quorum is lost, and thus scarce ly more than one-fifth of the popular num bers, control an overwhelming majority, hung tbe Government to a stand still and dissolve the Union ! Similar refusals or failures to appoint the Presidential elec tors at any time, would effect a like result! Now any of these injurious contiugences are plainly within the legal capacities of the Constitution ; and should a dissolution of tho Union beeither compassed or ensue, who but a madman would maintain that treason had been committed in the g'-nse <>f the Constitution? Would that "levy ing war” against the Union, or "adhering to its enemies,” or "giving them aid and comfort ?” Who would have the reckless ness to say so, and denounce one-half or two thirds of the people as traitors to the residue ? And how would the delinquents be dealt with ? Would you visit a recu sant State with all thescalh and waste of war, for doing an act. which the Constitu tion far from punishing or forbidding, has provided the means of accomplishing, and permits ? Well, suppose you invade, sup pose you triumph. What then? Though you put down the State authorities, you cannot make men vo:e. If you can and if you do. then is the State crushed and destroyed under such an exercise of pow er and she can no longer be brought back into the Union as a sovereign and co equal of the other States, and hence your very highest triumph wonld brim? you no success ! There is yet another clause of the Con stitution providing still more palpable and simpler means for immediately accomplish ing a dissolution of the Union. I allude to the clause, empowering one fifth of the number present in either House of Con gress to have the yeas and nays recorded "on any question” that arises, and vesting in them therefore, an unlimited discretion to raise questions and call the yeas and nays on them, through an entire Congress and longer, stopping the supplies, arrest ing all legislation,—and which carried out would eventually end in a rupture of the Union ! Now, the joint representative numbers in the House of Representatsves. of the two populous States of New Y<>rk and Pennsylvania amount to fifty-eight, and the while number of representatives being two hundred and thirty-one.ofcourse fifty seven members contains one fifh of tire whole number elected —and conse quently these two States (containing about 5 out o 22 000.000 of popular numbers, | and with eleven repres ntatives to spare,) I the power to arrest the legislative! action of the remaining twenty eight States even to the extremity of dissolving the the Uuion! But, it may be replied, that the majority would not submit to be thus controlled by a refractory minority, and would expel them from the House by strong hand and violence. Very well, so they mignt,—but only through one of those flagrant breaches ofthe Cor.stitution. which would itself effectually destroy the Union, and through the very unconstutional means resorted to, to preserve it! Once more and by way of hypothisis: Suppose the white population of Texas rn masse, un der the promptings of some mania, for the gold mines, should remove to Califor nia and besome citizens there f, taking the oath of allegiance thither, and tcnouncing thereby their allegiance to Texas : Sup pose further, that a I of them should retain their lands in Texas, leaving their slaves to cultivate them, and to account to them for the crops, &c. Suppose further, that the Legislative and popular electors of Texas, had chosen their Senators and Re presentatives prior to embarking upon this wholesale migration : And suppose last ly, that the United States marshal for Tex as, in making his census returns, should report all of these facts to Congress, and that the Senators and Representatives elect, were the only resident citizens of that State: Now, I demand to know, whether, ifall these su pposals were brought into realities, there be any among them, which would not be a perfectly lawful, act under the Constitution of the United Stales ? Most undoubtedly they would be so. Very well: Now would either House of Congress admit these Senators and Representatives to seats, in the face of their official knowledge, that fliey were without a constituency ? We know they would not. Very well again: Could Congress apportion and allot Representa tives to a State under the census, which was destitute of representative numbers, and whose former citizens had already been couuted and registered among tbe Representative members of California ? We know it could uot. And now for the result: Texas would be out of ihe Union! She would have accomplished that result, through her own acts exclusively: All of these acts would be lawful acts: She would then have lawfully exercised the right of secession and have ceased to be a State in the Uuion ! Would there be any treason iu that? Would the migrat ng citizens be traitors to the Union ? Would that be le»ying war oi adhering to the U ni'in’s enemies ? What says your Excel lency : Yes or No? Well, sir, after the s’riking demonstra tions of the several faculties existing in the Constitution itself, adequate to its total over throw, without a breach of any of its pro risions and even in the absence of a just cause, can it be said with a shadow of de cency or truth, that the {/nton.which is but an incidence and dependency of ihe Con stitution. and must stand or fall with it, is nevertheless indissoluble and immortal! — While two of the sovereign States of the Union are invested with a capacity by the Constitution to wholly dissolve ii without a just cause, and at their arbitrary will and pleasure, can it bes aid,without putting all analogy and reasoning "into Coventry” that two o.her sovereign States of the Union, may not wih a just cause, and for flagrant and repeated breaches of funda mental conditions of the compact, dismem ber the Union, by seceding fiom its juris diction and authority and without being branded with treason for levying 3 war which would never be waged, but in de fending their houses and fiiesides from the hostile invasons of the o her States! It must be perfectly obvious to your ex cellency, that if the rightnf secession exists at all, it is the most invaluable of all rights to the majority on sectional issues, in such a government as ours. No administration of the Constitution upon such questions, is likely to be so impartial and just, nor ensnre such protection to the minority, as when armed with a of potentialsecession it can declare to the majority: "Do us jus tice or we will dissolee the partnership." — No one knows better than your excellency the that the South has always been, and is now, an unfailing source of the North’s thrift and the North's wealth; and that, could the fiee States once put their faith in South’s right of secession in virtue of the compacct, or believed that the South was ready and resolved upon its dissolution if unredressed of her wrongs, the aggressions complained of would immediately cease, and all the exasperating snti-slavory is sues now pending before Congress would be adjusted in forty-eight hours, and upon the South's own terms. There is not a principle in the Federal Constitution so conservative of the l ights, equality and So vereignty of the States, and of the peace and perpetuity of the Union,as would he a recognized right in each of the States to secede from (he Union whenever it failed in any of great ends for which it was es tablished. 1 hen, all sections and every State would realize haw deep a stake which each one has in its preservation ; frail was the mere legal cincture which bound the comprehesive whole in one; how essential to its duration it was then, that eacch should refrain from aggressing upon the rights of another, or from grasp ing at or appropriating more than its own; and that all should unite in promoting each other’s interest—cultivating each other’s friendship, and securing these States in dissolubly in one harmonious whole.Then would the voices of this generation mingle wj'h the voices of the remotest posterity, and the Union’s value and the Union’s benedictions would be pronounced in the f.sto pkrpktua! of the grateful millions' who would reap its bounties and share its glory, when this generation shall have pass- i e l away ? 1 RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE * MACON,. Oi SATURDAY AFTERNOON, AVG'UBTaT O’We direct attention to the advertiae mtnt| in this psper. Messrs. C. & E L Kirkim* 4 Cos., of Charleston, have on hand a very | lr . and well selected Stock of Goods, and p,» rt , )riJ trading at that point will find it to their interest to give them a call. Macon, Savannah Charleston were never more healthy than at the present time. Storm.— Last night it commenced raining and this morning the wind blew a perfect hurrie.ne from the South Eaat, which prostrated many of our shade tree* here. As it continued until Uts in the afternoon, it is feared great damage his been done to the crops that lay in its course. Homicide —On Thursday last Wu. Bsasliv aided by Alex. Caosct, commenced an attack upon B. Morris, ol Jones county, who drew a knife and stabbed the former, who was killed. Morris was examined before a Court of Mqgis trates on Friday and acquitted. Ctosxv's trial will take place on Monday,26th inst. PUBLIC MEETING. Avery large and respectable meeting of tj, # Citizens of Macon took place at the Market House yesterday afternoon, to take into consid eration tbe course necessary to be pursued in re. lation to tbe appearance ofeertain improper sen timents in the "Georgia Citizen, '* of the 33d inst. In order that the conduct of our citizens may not be misrepresented in this matter, we have thought it due to them, that a portion at least, of the offensive articles should acrompany the proceeding, which were had in open day light. This is no blow aimed at tbe liberty of the press—the gentlemen who engaged in this affair we know are incapable of that—their ob. ject was, is and will be to put down its Itctnliovt ntss. But to the extract—ln the article headed "Love for the Poor Whites,” the Editor, in allu ding to a recent article in the Charleston Mer cury, in relation to employing Slave Labor in Cotton Factories, remarks : • * * "Not a thought is here given to im prove the condition of the poor I chitt profit of South Carolina, who are virtually in the position of serfs, who aje deprived, by reason of poverty, of various political privileges now engrossed by the nabobs of Palmettodoin. On the contrary, a policy is recommended by which tbe dauglii. ers ofthe poor men of South Carolina are lo be placed on a level with the negro wenches of the land, or else they are to be driven out of the State altogether, if they would seek to improve their social condition. By the way, if this diversion of slave labor from the field and the kitchen, to cotton facto ries is to prevail,a rid "all motives for emigration” to other countries arc thereby removed, what is the use of the fuss now being kicked up by the Charleston Mercury about the extension of slavery where white people don’t want it—to wit : California and New Mexico." • * * And yet (As poor white people of the South, whom these demagogues seek to exclude from this new employment in cotton and other manu factories, are the very men appealed to, to wade up to their knees in blood, in behalf of a South ern confederacy ! These men will be expected to do the lighting for those who have proven themselves lobe their worst enemies, when the latter have brought matters to the fighting crisis. Well, we shall see, by and by, whether the hon est hard-fisted yeomanry and mechanics of the country, are thus to be gulled into the support of measures and men, which can bring nothing but ruin and dismay to their own best interests " The next wai in a letter from Atlanta, signed “Gabriil," written by Col. CORNELIUS R. HANLEITER, former Editor of the Atlanta Whig, but more recently an operator in the Magnetic Tolegrapb Office at that place. Now we disclaim right here,nny intention to impli. cate the Whig party or the Telegraph Company in thin matter—we only mention it to show the position of one at leaat of our enemies. No, no, “ Let our rivalry and competition be, not about old party feuds ; but who shall most stoutly stand by the cause of his section and most gal. lantly bear its standard against the common ad. versary." On this question we know no party. C R. Ha in.*: iter’s name was given up by the Rd itor on demand ofthe Committee, but he request ed further time to decide upon hit course in rela tion to the other requirement of the Committee, and they accordingly granted him a few days to consider upon it. Now let “Gabriel” speak for himself—He says, under date of “Atcarta, Aug. 21, 1850. Among the numerous buildings that are now in process of erection, in this city, is one of brick, in full view of, and scarcely a stone's throw from, the Atlanta Hotel, which is design ed as a depot for the safe-keeping and sale of negroes. Two-thirds of our people, who know the purpose for which it is intended, ere opposed to its completion, but, as yet, 1 have heard of no steps being taken to prevent it. On trabbath last however, the heavy rain with which we were visited washed away nearly ono-third of the eastern wall—thua showing (to the minds of omen-believers at least) that Providence disap proves the unhallowed purpoae for which the building is designed. For my own part lam free to say I should rejoice to see it. razed to the ground as often ae its owner rebuilds it. The Hon. R. B. Rliett passed down on this morning's train to attend the Disunion Mats Meeting to he held in your city on Thursday next. * * * A coat of tar and fea thers would be a suitable covering for all such mad.capa during the present excitement.” P. S. Since the above was in type, we have received a “Georgia Citizen Extra,” of this morning, in which tho Editor says in relation to the “Gabriel’’ letter, the receipt of which was acknowledged in the “Citizen" of Friday : * * “But it is due to truth and candor to say, that I probably should not have thought it nesessary to blot out the writing, if I had read the came with ordinary attention, inasmuch a* the opinion expreeaed, though impolitic and per nicious at such times ae the present, has been the settled law and opinion ofthe State of Geor gia, until the last session of the Legislature, when said law was repealed, in defiance of North ern fanaticism on the subject of slavery.” Now mark the expression in relation to “Gz briel'a” letter, which “though impolitic and per• nieiopz" yet he “probably should not hava thought it necessary to blot out the writing"— We have lived in Georgia forty years , and for the first time we now henr that opposilion to the erection of a building “fir th« safe-keeping soil sale of negroes," “has been the Mettled law and opini nos the State of Georgia until the last ses sion ofthe Legislature.” We wonder how ma ny are *af*'y kept and sold in our county jails’