Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE Will hepublished entry SATURDAY Afternoon, In the Tieo-Story tVouden Building, at the Corner of Walnut and Fifth Street, IS THE CITY OF MACOS, GA. By WOT. B. IIA It HI.SOX. TERMS: For the Paper, in advance, per annum, $2 if not paid in advance, $3 00, per annum. Advertisements will b« inserted at the usual rites—-and when the number of insertions dc jired is not specified, they will be continued un til forbid and charged accordingly. O’Advertisers by the Year will be contracted with upon the most favorable terms. □“Sales of Land by Administrators,Executors or Guardians, are required by Law, to be held on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of ten o’clock in the Forenoon and three in the Afternoon, at the Court House of the county in which the Property is situate. Notice of these Sales must be given in a public gazette Sixty Days previous to the day of sale. iLpSalcs of Negroes by Administators, Execu tors or Guardians, must be at Public Auction, on the first Tuesday in the month,between the legal hours of sale, before the Court llo* «e of the county where the LettersTestamentary.or Administration or Guardianship may have been granted,first giv ing notice thereof for Sixty Days, ,in one of the public gazettes of this State,and at the door of the Court House where such sales are to be held. □“Notice for the sale of Personal Property must be given in like manner Forty Days pre vious to the day of sale. □“Notice to the Debtors and Creditorsolan es tate must be published for Forty Days. that application will be made to the Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land or Ne itroes must be published in a public gazette in the Si&te for Four Months, before any orderabsolute c an be given by the Court. □“Citations for Letters of Administration on an Estate, granted by the Court of Ordinary, must be published Thirty Days for Letters of Dismis sion from the administration ofan Estate,monthly for Six Months —for Dismission from Guardian ship Forty Days. □“Rules for the foreclosure of a Mortgage, must be published monthly for Four Months— for establishing lost Papers, for the full space of Uree Months —for compelling Titles front Ex ecutors, Administrators or others, where a Bond basbeen given by the deceased, the full space of Three Months. N. B. Ail Business of this kind shall receive prompt attentionat the SOUTHERN TRIBUNE Olfice, and strictcare will be taken thatall legal Advertisements are published according to Law. □“All Letters directed to this Office or the Editor on business, must be post-paid, to in sure attention. IT. CTJSLEY & SCIT 5 JURE no USE 4- COMMISSIONMER CHANTS WILL continue Business at their “Fire- Proof Buildings,” on Colton Avenue, Macok, Ga. Thankful for past favors, they beg leave to say they will be constantly at their post, and that no efforts shall be spared to advance the interest of tlieir patrons. They respectfully ask all who have COTTOJS or other PRODUCE to Store, to call and exam ine the safety of their Buildings, before placing it elsewhere. (□“Custom arv Advances on Cotton in Store or Shipped, and all Business transacted at the usual rates. june 2 2r—ly DAVID It E I D , Justice oj the Peace and Notary Public. MACON, G A . COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS, &c., for the V 7 States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Penn sylvania, Oliio, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, New Jersey, Maine, &r. \ Depositions taken, Accounts probated, Deeds | and Mortgages drawn, and all docun.ents and instruments of writing prepared and authentica ted for use and record, in any oflhe above States. Residence on Walnut Street, near the African Church. □*Public Office adjoining Dr.M.S.Thomson’s Botanic Store, opposite the Floyd House, june 29 25—ly WILLIAM WILSON, HOUSE CARPENTER AND CONTRACTOR, Cherry Street near Third , Macon, Ga. MAKES and keeps on hand Doors, Blinds and Sashes for sale. Thankful for past favors he hopes for further patronage, may 25 20—Gin WOOD & LOW, GENERAL COMMISSION MERCHANTS, NEW ORLEANS, LA. may 25 20—ly Icc Cream Saloon, Cotton Avenue, next door below Ross 4' Co's. OPEN from 10 o’clock, A. M. to 10 P. M., daily, Sundays excepted. The Ladies' Slaoon detached and fitted up for their comlort, in a neat and pleasant style, june 22 H. C. FREEMAN. MALI, & BRANTLEY, HAVE just received a well selected assort ment o( DRY GOODS and GROCERIES, Which embraces almost every article in their 1 line of business. These Goods make their stock Intensive, which lias been selected recently by l"ne of the firm, and they are determined to sell 1 their Goods upon reasonable terms, and at the lowest prices. Whilst they are thankful for past [favors, they respectfully invite tlieir friends and the public to call aDtheir Store on Cherry Street, and examine tlieir Goods and prices, before pur chasing elsewhere. march 23 11 OTacon Caiuly manufactory* UIMIE Subscriber still continues to mnrufnc- I * lure CANDY of every variety, next door below Itoss & Co’s, on Cotton Avenue. Hav ‘Pg increased my facilities and obtained addi "onal Tools, I am now prepared to put lip to order, CAN DIES, of any variety, and war rantcil equal to any manufactured in the South. I also manufacture a superior article ofl.emon and °lher SYRUPS, CORDIALS,]\rRESERVES,^. All my articles are well packed, delivered at ,In y point in the Citv and warranted to give '■Uisfac.tion. 11. C. FREEMAN, Agent, march 9 9 I WOT. S. LAWTON & CO. I ,l ctors and Commission Merchants, Macon, Ga I*7ILL make advances on shipments to their Houses, LAWTON & DOWELL, Sn- Ga. ; and LAWTON, DOWELL & Charleston, S. C. a "g 31 31—ts THE SOUTHED! TRI BUNE. NEW SERIES— VOLUME 11. 13 0 l f t C c a l. From the Southern Press. Tlie Randolph Epistles on the ltiglit of Secession. NO. 111. Mr. Webster’s Contrast—Curious scraps from History—Secessionneverdenied ’till 18 yours ago — J. Q. Adams — Edward Licingston and the Proclamation—lie drafted it — Van Burcn and Livingston vs. Judge Barbour — Livings'on vs. him self — Mr. Madison's letier — Mr. Ran dolph and Secession — Mr. Tazwell and Secession — Dr. Cocke of the Virginia Senate — The most obnoxkus feature of the Proclamation disavowed in the Globe, and by authority, tfr. To his Excellency, Millard Fillmore, President of the United States : Sir : It was somewhat inaccurate to have said as I did in my first Epistle, that the tight of secession had never been dis cussed; it was scrupulously true however, as I stated, that the question had never arisen —had never been up for judgment; and as to every department of this Gov ernment, it bad remained an issue, coram atm judicc. Notwithstanding that howev er, I find, no recurring to the proceedings in Virginia, that it was much discussed there, and what is more to the purpose, that in Mr. Webster's speech on the Force Bill, he did incidentally discuss the right of secession, and that lie denied the right. He did not indeed fall into the fore ordained blunder, which Mr. Clay so unaccountably put upon the Senate, of confounding Nullification with Secession— hut on the contrary, diew a contrast be tween them, and in Mr. Clay’s hearing, which no man could have heard and for gotten. He said: “Secession would, it is true, abandon the Constitution altogether; but it would profess to abandon it. Whatever other in consistencies it might run into, one, at least it would avoid. It would not belong to a Government, while it rejected its au thority. It would not repel the burthen, and continue to enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject tlieir authority as to itself. It would not untiertake to re concile obedience in public authority, with an asserted right of command over that same authority. It would not be in the Government and above the Government at the same time !” Before marshalling the proofs which at test that the Constitution is a compact, &c. as announced in the postcript of my last epistle, there are a few curious scraps from history, wiih which I would freshen up your Excellency’s memory. I take for granted that so pregnant a circumstance as the origin and dale of the first denial of the right of secession has not escaped you, and that it occurred less than IS years ago, and first saw the light in General Jackson’s proclamation of December 10, 1532, a gainst South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nul. lification. Until then, I had undertook to say, that in the whole history of the Con stitution, not a vestige remains of that in valuable right having ever been brought to question. Not a word recorded in the Madison Papers, casts a doubt upon the subject. Nothing that occurred in the Convention—nothing written in the Fed eralist—no construction of the Constitu tion upon the powers delegated or reserved during the administration of Washington or the elder Adams, ever brought into doubt; while the very memorable instance I have already given to your Excellency, touching Kentucky’s famous memorial in 1795 solemnly and boldly announcing her purpose of seceding from the Union, with the implications arising from the silence and acquienscence of Washington and his cabinet, of their concession of the right, carries with it overwhelming testimony in its favor. And in far more recent times, (1844-s,)such free and hold constructions of Federal powers as Mr. John Quincy Adams, and large majorities of the two Houses of the Legislature, resolved and declared in suhtsance, that the annexation of Texas would he such a breach of the Constitution, asto justify and authorize her secession from the Uuion, and it was her standing menace for a twelve-month, that if Texas came into the Union, that Mas sachusettes would go out of it! There’s potential secession for yon, boldly and most explicitly avowed ! —and the bruit of the times greatly belied Mr. Webster, if he did not counsel and defend her in the right she asserted! At the time of the proclamation, and for some time, Edward Livingston, a man of great ability and ardently attached to Gen oral Jackson, was Secretary of State, and MACON, (GA.,) SATURDAY AFTERNOON, SEPTEMBER 7, 1850. it has long since passed into history, that he was the draftsman of that celebrated paper. Some twelve months or more before this, an unfortunate rupture took place between General Jackson and Mr, Calhoun, then the Vice President of the United States, and which the friends of the latter wholly attributed to some dark intrigue of Mr. Martin Vanßuren. Some time after this, and when the last crisis was approaching in the affair of South Ca rolina, she claimed the services of Mr Calhoun in the Senate of the United States, and he resigned the Vice Presidency, and excepted that trust. In November 1832, the Presidents election was to take place. 1 he Democratic party generally took up Mr. f an Buren, on General Jackson’s ticket. In Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, considerable objections prevailed in that party against Mr. Van Luren. In Pennsylvania, Judge Wilkins I was taken in opposition, and he obtained her electoral vote. In Virginia, the Leg islative caucus in nominating Presidential electors in favor of Jackson, left them un pledged as to the Vice Presidency, and two tickets with the same electors, were run there, the one Jackson and Van Buren, the other Jackson and Barbour. Now Genet al Jackson was greatly attached to fan Buren and having himse'f made Philip P. Barbour a Judge of the Su preme Court of the United States, was deeply incensed at his lending himself in opposition to the regular Democratic nom ination and Mr. Livingston fully shared in his resentment. Let me now cast back a little: When Judge Barbour’s name was brought forward, same friends of his in North Carolina catechised both Mr. Van Buren and himself on the great top ics of the day, and responding, both of them denied the right of nullification ; but Judge Barbour emphatically asserted the right of secession, while Mr. Van Buren said nothing at all about it. Judge B’s letter hears date September 9, 1832, and he thus responded upon these topics:— “1 he last subject embraced in (he reso lution is that of nullification. I under stand this term as meant to import the right of the several States, by interposing their sovereign power, to declare void, within their respective borders, any law which they may think unconstitutional. “Thus understanding it, I am opposed to it. 1 will endeavor briefly to State my doctrine upon the subject. In general, when a question arises, whether an act of Congress is constitutional ornot, it belongs to the judicial department to decide it, be cause in general, the question arises in a case, either “in law or equity,” that is, in a controversy between parties, which had taken a shape far judicial decision. But when the question is one of political power that between the Federal Government and the States, whether the former has invad ed the reserved rights of the latter, I hold that questions of this kind do not belong to judicial cognizance. That the people cf the States are parties to the compact, in their character of States: That the Constitution has not conferred upon the judicial department any political power whatever: That therefore, in relation to questions of this character,there is no com mon umpire: and that consequently, the States must decide for themselves: This is the Right, —hut what is the Remedy ? My opinion is, that thf.only kighlful reme dy IS THAT OF SECESSION.” Now, it is said, that Mr. Livingston, un der the sway of his resentments and blind ed by his impulses, lugged the question of secession into the proclamation and contro. verted the right, for the ungenerous pur pose of crushing Judge Barbour under the overwhelming weight of the Presi dent’s popularity, and making him in fact, what many of theDetnocratic journals pro nounced him to he, at the close of the election, '‘politically dead." I have great respect for the memory of Mr. Livingstoiq and I will not vouch that this is true ; but I owe it to truth to say, that there were circumstances, which made the charge sig nificantly plausible. No one could have known better titan Livingston, that the question of secession was wholly out of place in a proclamation, directed against an ordiance maintaining and exercising a right of nullification and nothing more. Secession therefore was coram non judicc. South Carolina had neither asserted it— nor menaced it, nor exercised it. These two functions of opposition could not have existed together, as they were entirely in. compatible with each other, for under tho one, no rights whatever were maintainable out of the Union, nor under the other with in it. There was another circumstance, morever, still more significant. The doc trines of the proclamation, that the Fed eral Constitution had been formed hv the people of the United States in their ag gregate capacity, and thereby constituted us a Nation of men, instead of a Union of States to which a right of secession must necessarily have been (as I shall show hereafter) both an incident and a muni ment, utterly belied the Democratic prin ciples and sentiments of Mr. Livingston’s whole public life; and in less than two years before, he had controverted and with mastery skill, these very doctrines of the proclamation, when asserted by Mr. Web ster in the famous debate betweeu him and Mr. Hayne of South Carolinia, on Foote’s Resolution ! Note these passa ges: “That in cases in which a law of the United States may infringe the constitu tional right ol a State, hut which in its operation cannot be brought before the Supreme Court under the terms of the jurisdiction expressly given to it, that COURT IS NOT CREATED THE UMPIRE, be tween a State that may deem itself aggriev ed, and the General Government.” “1 hat if the act he one of those few which cannot he submitted to the Supreme Court, and be one that will, in the opinion of the State, justify the risk of a withdraw alfrom the Union, that this last extreme remedy may at once be resorted to." "That the theory of the Federal Govern ment, being the result of /hegeneral will of the people of the United States in their ag gregate capacity, and founded in no degree, on compact beiween the Stales, would tend to the most disastrous practical results : l HAT IT WOULD PLACE THREE-FOURTHS OF the States at the mercv of one-fourth AND LEAD INEVITABLY TO A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, AND FINALLY TO MONARCHY.” Mr. Livingston himself was so well sa tisfied with the soundness of the doctrines he had thus laid down, that he enclosed a copy ot this speech to Mr. Madison, well knowing that he, though opposed to nulli fication,had all his life maintained the right of secession. On the sth of May, 1830, Mr. Madison replied to the note accompa nying his speech, and after commending its ability, among other things said : “\ou have succeeded better in your in terpretations of the Virginia proceedings in 1798—'99, than'hose who have seen in them a coincidence with the nullifyingdoc trine so called. * * * The error in the late comments on the Virginia pro ceedings, has arisen from a failure to dis tinguish between what is declaratory of opinion and what is ipso favto executory, between the rights of the parties and of a single party; and between resorts within the purview of the Constitution, and the final right, which appeals from a Constitu tion, cancelled by its abuses, to original RIGHTS, PARAMOUNT TO ALL CONSTITU TIONS.” From all this it is manifest, that Mr Livingston’s real principles, tallied to a nicety with those of Judge Barbour,(whose lights and models were Messrs. Jefferson and Madison) and were utterly repugnant to the doctrines he put forth in the far famed proclamation, which produced deep discontent, and many fatal schisms in the South, and especially in Virginia, the im pregnable fortress of State Rights and De mocracy. Many of Gen. J ackson’s warm est and ablest friends, rose up in remon strance and protested against doctrines so tinctured and tainted with the bane of federalism, that they had brought Daniel Webster and the federalists en masse into their suppoit, To say nothing of the marks of wide-spread dissatisfaction with which the Virginia journals teemed, — there were two of the most remarkable man of the times, and who had largely contributed to Gen. Jackson’s elevation, now took decided ground against such of the doctrines of the proclamation : These were the celebrated John Randolph of Roanoke, —and the other the ablest and most distinguished of the living celebrities of Virginia , Littleton Walter Tazewell. — Mr. Randolph, then in shattered health, and in repugnance to the habits of his whole life, drafted a series of resolutions, and read them from the hustings at a large public meeting at Charlotte Court House, and made one of his most brilliant efforts in their support. These Resolutions were eleven in number, but I can only spare the space for a few of them as follows.— “Resolved,That while we retain a grate ful sense of the many great and valuable services of Andrew Jackson to the United States, we owe it to our country and to posterity, to make our solemn protest a* gainst many of the doctrines of his late proclamation. “Resolved, That Virginia “is, and of right ought to he, a free, sovereign and in dependent Stale That she became so by her own sovereign act, which has since been recognized by all the civilized world and has never been disavowed, retracted, or in anywise impaired or weakened by any subsequent act of hers. “Resolved, That Virginia has never parted with the right to recedl the authority so dele gated for good and sufficient cause, nor with the right to judge of the sufficiency of such cause, and to scccdc from, the con NUMBER 35. fedcrary, whenever we shall find the benefit of union exceeded by its evils —union being the means of securing happiness, and not an end, to which they should be sacrificed. “Resolved, That while we utterly re probate the doctrine of Nullification as equally weak and mischievous, we cannot for that reason, give our countenance to principles, equally unfounded and in the highest degree dangerous to the liberties of the people.” Another of the Resolutions aimed a sharp thrust at Mr. Livingston as one of the “designing counsellors,” who wished to influence General Jackson “to disavow the principles to which he owed his eleva tion to the Chief Magistracy of the Gov ernment of the United States, and to trans fer his retd friends and supporters, hound hand and foot to his and their bitterest ene mies—the ultra Federalists—ultra Bank— ultra Tariff—ultra Internal Improvement and. Hartford Convention men—the habitual scoffers at State Rights, and to their instru ment, the venal and prostituted jrress, by which they have endeavored-, and but too sneres fully, to influence and mislead public opinion." Mr. Tazewell took a somewhat different, but equally effective course. He wrote thirteen numbers in the Norfolk Herald upon the President’s Proclamation over the signature of "a Virginian," but his nomine de plume formed no more disguise in marking the real author, than does that of “Randolph of Roanoke,” the very hunmble person who indites you these Epistles. The whole series were written with the most commanding ability—as will be amply attested through the liberal quo tations from the last number, with which I propose to strengthen my ptevious posi tions, and to enrich and adorn my present Epistle. He thus annonnees the right and the remedy for breaches of the Con stitution: “The unionofthe States thus reslingtipon a Covenant, entered into by every State with its co States —when then the terms of this Covenant are supposed to bo bro ken by any of them, as there is no common arbiter to decide between the parties, it is of necessity , that each State must judge for itself, and act as its own judgment may die tale. If in the honest exercise of this judg ment any sovereign State declares the Cov enant broken by its co- States, and chooses to dissolve the Union thereby established for this cause, she has the perfect right to do so; and this makes secession from the Union as to that parly only." There sir! That's an interpretation of the nature of this Government and of the powers of the States over its unity and destinies, from the first legal mind and the most brilliant living genius of this broad land, the accomplished but unambi tious Mansfield of this continent. It was of him the bruitcameand lives tot'nisday, that at the close of an overpowering argument in the Virginia Court of Appeals, in reply to his greatest living rival (Walter Jones) that Virginia’s brightest, wisest, greatest Judge save one (John Marshall) —carried away by Tazewell’s reasonings and ora tory, forgot that he was a Judge, and above all, that he was Spencer Roane! and in a transport of applause and ex claimed, ‘Great God! wiiat a man Taze well is !” I would now specially call your Excel lency’s notice to further passagesfrom this brilliant article, as strikingly apposite to those menacing hints in your recent mes sage of wielding the military and naval forces of the Government against one sov ereign State, for defending her integral limits from a rebellious dismemberment, and forspurning the sordid bribe to be offered her upon a sabre’s point, and a gainst another,for seceding from a jurisdic tion fruitful and tolerant of oppression born of violated faith and a broken covenant. They may satisfy your Excellleticy.that so wanton a shedding of brethren’s blood, as the message suggests and defends, might prove as utterly impotent for its objects, as the whole country is acknowledging it would be, foully criminal and unspeakably calamitous! The author vividly depicts the politial consequences of such an Ex ecutive war upon a seceding State. He says: “Such a war will differ from every other that has before occurred from the begin ning to that day; because, even by the most complete success, its avowed object, can never be attained. Independence, con quest, reparation of wrongs, security pun ishment of indigity offered, may all be achieved by successful war; hut victory can never make union, or repair the breach of tls broken covenant.'' * * * “The war waged to revive a broken covenant of union, can never attain its avowed end. It may bring conquest, may make loyal subjects, or hollow-hearted pretended al lies, but ts cannot make real union. The union of free States can neither be made nor preserved by force. It is solicism so to speak. Such a fanciful union is con solidation in its most abhorrent form— wherein the majority will wield not only its own powers, hut those assigned to their subdued allies also l “I thank God! that in his infinite wisdom and mercy, he has been pleased thus to ordain. Ihe tuth9 I have announced, ought and will teach moderation and for bearance to all who value the union of these States. Each will look to the fear ful couscquencos to itself, that may. attend BOOK AND JOB PRINTING, Will he executed in the neatest style, and on the best tertns, at the ~ f •' Office of the ‘ ' j &CTFTKEJI2T TPJBTJITS! —BY— •• WM, B. HARRISON: its own acts, and will abstain from pushing even admitted fiowefs to oppression. The RIGHT OF SECESSION IS THE RIGHT OF ALL., —lt may be claimed by one to-day and another to-morrow, as each may find’ itself aggrieved. Its apprehended evihi may easilybe guarded against, by not ex ercising doubtful powers, nor pressing let gilunate powers, until they become doubtful! The security of the Union is to be found in the commofi affections and common interests of the States, and not in the bay onets of its soldiery. By such feefling# alone, was the. Union first formed—by such sentiments alohe, h3S it been since maintained, and by such sentiments alone, can it be preserved. Once deny Tuts righ t of SECESSION WHEN IT IS CLAIMED, AND PRE VENT OR PUNISH ITS EXERCISE BY MILITARY FORCE, AND SURELY AS NIGHT SICCEF.DH THE DAY, OUR DESTINY AS A FREE PeOTLE IS FULFILLED !” Once more, that I may bring hi! high authority to sustain the position I took in my first epistle that the right of secession is a reserved right, and consequent ly a State right, under the 10th amend ment of the Constitution of the United States. With a single thought, thus skil fully put, he crushes at a blow, all Mr. Livingston’s disingenuous heresies in the proclamation : “According to his idea it would seem that there are no constituiotial rights, but such as are granted by the Constitution : According to mine, every right- and every power too, not disparaged by any of the grants ond prohibitions contained in the Constitution, are especial/y reserved therein, and so become constitutional rights andjiow ers: The right of secession thus becomes a constitutional right." These numerous and powerful assaults upon Gen. Jackson’s proclamation by his own political friends, and especially a Re solution offered in the Virginia Senate, which he regarded as wholly mistaking the true intendments of that paper, “as he un derstood it,” at last took the matter into his own hands, ami by his express author ization, the following comment was made upon the Resolution in the editorial co lumns of the Washington Globe : “The annexed Resolution offered by Dr. Cocke of the Senate of Virginia, shews that the opposition to the proclamation in the Legislature, has grown out of a total misconception of its meaning: “Resolved, That the Federal Constitu tion is a compact, originally formed be tween separate,independent and sovereign States, whereby each State,upon the terms and for the equivalent therein expressed, voluntatily agreed to vest a portion of its sovereignty in a common head, to be ex ercised by the joint will and deliberations of all the parties, reserving to itself the ex clusive enjoyment of the residue; and the contrary doctrine maintained by some, and set forth, in the late proclamation of the President of the U. S. that the Federal Constitution results from the people in the aggregate and not from the States in their sovereign capacity, is a fallacious and un founded assumption not warranted by the history of the formation of that instru ment; opposed to the true theory of our Government as expounded by the re solutions of this assembly in 1798 and 1799, and would tend in practice to tho most disasterous consequences, giving to a minority of the States, having a majori ty of the population tho control over the other States, —conslidaling the States intb one nation, and leading unavoidably to’ the transformation of our federative sjs tern into a single Government ‘‘without limitation of powers.” Now for the Globe’s comments : “It appears from this, that the proclama tion is understood to assume the ground, that the Federal Constitntion is tlth crea ture of th e people of United States, as air aggregate mass— one great community; & that it would therefore give "to a minority of the States, having a majority of thepojr ulation, a control over the other States," Sfc. “The proclamation, so far ftom assuming that the Constitution is the tvotk of the people of the Union, as one people, asserts that it is a compact, formed by the peo ple of the United States, acting as separate communities, —first, through their State legislatures, in providing the means of ftaming the terms of Union through a joint constitution, and the “acting in separate cimventions,” to ratify the provisions de termined on. THIS VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTITUTION, in the mostexpressjvianner: RECOGNIZES IT AS ‘A COMPACT,’ AND A COMPACT DERIVING ITS BIN DING AUTHORITY,FROM THE RATIFICATION OF THE PEOPII-E OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVE LY, GIVEN IN THEIR SOVER EIGN CAPACITY THROUGH CONVENTIONS.” These details hate led me away from’ the topic I had proposed to discus in this number, —and as your Excellency's cu riosity is doubtless “on tiptoe,” 16 hear something of the sober North’s patriotic submission to the behest ot the Union,— it best beseems the exigencies of the cor respondence, that I should give yoiit Ex cellency an inkling of the North’s doings aforetime, —before raising the veil from the accouchment of that Giant embyo, — the Union, —which has now clutched the club of Hercules, to make war upon the mothers who bore it! RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE.