Newspaper Page Text
power to disperse them as soon as their
numbers exceeded twenty. By force of
tliis act the people of England could not,
at this day, assemble save under the nutn
berof twenty, for any purpose which was
not directed toward the Government.—
Blackstoue had enumeroted this act as
being one among three important laws
by which the Crown had gained more
actual power than it had lost in preroga
tive. It was under this law that our
fathers had lived and suffered : they had
teen prohibited from peacefully assem
bling to petition their Government for a
redress of grievances; and while still
smarting under the remembrance of this
wrong, they determined it should have
no existence here under the free repub
lican Government of these United States.
Such were the circumstances under
which this amendment to the Constitu
tion had been proposed and adopted, and
that was the truth of its of language. It
meant to deny to Congress, the power of i
passing nuy such a law as the riot act, to ,
keep t he people from meeting together to
petition their Government, an act which
had restored to the Crown one-third part j
of all it had lost in its prerogative by the
struggles for liberty in England. Nor
was this all. Oar fathers not only lay
under a hindrance in assembling them
selves together to consult on any thing
in reference to the Government, (a hin
drance under which the people of Eng
land labored to this day,) hut they were
prohibited from petitioning Parliament.
In the time of Charles 11. a law passed
(which renmines in force at this hour)
providing that not more than twenty
could assemble to agree on a petition,
nor could more than twenty sign it, un
less in conformity with a presentment of
;t grand jury, or unless the petition was
presented by the Mayor of London in
person, &c. [Mr. H. quoted the law,
of which the foregoing were the princi
pal points, so far as the Reporter could
catch them.J Was not this a mighty e
vil ? Was it not a restraint wholly in
compatible with the entire spirit of liber
ty, as we understand it ? How was it
possible that a people who knew and
prized their personal rights ever could
Nubjectthem to restrictions such as these?
Now, according to Mr. IPs view, it was
with a view to withhold from Congress
all power to pass such acts as these that
the clause was adopted respecting the
right of petition, and this was the begin
ning and end of it. It had reference to
a great personal right and privilege of
the people: to their right out of doors,
not their right in this House. It secured
their personal not their legislative rights.
But gentlemen asked, Have not the
people a right to send their petitions to
Congress? Most assuredly they had;
but it was not that part of their right*
which was contemplated by this clause
of the Constitution. The people had a
perfect right to assemble, and to present
their petitions to the governing power,
whether that was a State Legislature, a
,State Governor, or Congress, or the
President of the United States, as the
case might he, and according to the re
dress sought. That right brought them
into this hall. Mr. 11. said he yielded
to none—no, to none—in his interpre
tation of the latitude of this power, no
one was a stronger advocate of the fre
est possible intercourse between the peo
ple and their representatives in this hall.
But it was a very different case after they
hud come with their petitions. They
had exercised their right to assemble*:
they had exercised their right to petition,
now a member, as their representative,
rose in his place and presented their peti
tion to the House for its action. What
was the nature of that act on his part ?
Mr. R. insisted that it was an insipient
act of legislation; it was a legislative
act; in substance it differed nothing from
the act of the same member should he
rise with a hill in his h md, providing,
for example, for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia; nor from
the act of the same man, should he rise
and offer a resolution for the abolition of
slavery in the District. His act was
substantially the same when he rose
with a petition in his hand and said, ‘‘l
move you a petition for the abolition ol
slavery in the District of Columbia.”—
Were not all these incipient legislative
acts, acts of incipient legislation? acts of
legislation ? Assuredly they were. One
of them was not more so than another.
The right of petition was presented to
the House, It must be so; for if the
gentlemen went further, and said that
jhe will of the petitioner, and not the
will of the House, must prevail as to the
disposition of his petition, that moment
they erected the petitioner into (he Leg
islature, Here was a gentleman who
came into the hall with a hundred thou
sand petitioners at his hack, whose peti
tion he presented in their name. Well,
what was the state of things presented
then ? Here were, on one side, one
hundred thousand citizens, very respect
able it might lie, praying'for a certain
thing; and on the oilier side the whole
American people, assembled by their
representativns, to consider on the peti
tion and its prayer. Whose judgment
was to prevail? Was the will of these
one hundred thousand to stop there,
with the presentation of their request, or
was it to go farther? If it went one inch
further, then these one hundred tlrous
and citizens assumed to themselves the
power which belonged to the whole peo
pie ; they claimed to exercise the whole
power of legislation.
If the petitioner was to say ‘-'you shall
receive my petition,” might he not else
say “you shall refer it?” “you shall re
port upon it?” And might he not, on
the same fooling, say final!}-, ‘ you shall
grant it?” The question of principle
was, who is to l»e judge ? The whole
people of the United States, or the indi
vidua! petitioner? What shall be dote
with his petition? With whom waste
rest the Legislative power? with the few
pr with the many ? Who was to ju l a
respecting the disposal of a paper offered
here—those who had no constitutional
power in the matter, or those on whom
the Constitution had devolved both the
power and the responsibility? There
was no escaping this. Gentlemen could
not escape from it. A petitioner came
there and claimed to dictate to the House
its first act of judgment existing in the
House, and resisted its very first act. Il
he could do this, could lie not do all'/
If lie could resist the first act he could
resist all the rest.
To whom had the Constitution given
the power of judging ? (Here Mr. R.
quoted the grant of legislative power to
Congress.] A gentleman, under this
grant came tiiere and made to the House
a legislative motion, a motion looking to
legislation ; he moved an act to be done,
a legislative act. This was not a person
al privilege, belonging to every citizen ;
it was an act legislative in its character;
it claimed the power to legislate on the
spot. Could a citizen, because he was a
petitioner, exercise thq same right ? Was
he to say what was to be done with his
petition ? Was it not an attempt at usur
pation ? an invasion of powers not grant
ed to him by the Constitution? Where
was his constitutional right? How vain 1
then must it be for gentlemen to pretbnd |
to legislate on such principles. How !
was it physically, supposing it to be rnor- J
ally possible, for all the people of the U.
States to come into that Hall demanding j
contradictory things ? Hoa\ could op-;
posites be granted ? And if the petition- j
ers were to judge of the first step to he!
taken, what could prevent them from j
carrying their right quite through ? The
right belonged to all or it belonged to j
none; and if they cpuld judge on one
point, they could on all the rest.
Mr. R. contended that tis soon as a pe
tition was received and any motion made
in regard to it, a volition of the House
was compelled to act, in regard to it, not
according to the request of the petition,
but in conformity with the directions of;
the Constitution. Was this a Govern-1
inent of unlimited powers? Here was a
Constitution ; he held it in his hand ; >
and he contended that they could not es- j
cape action on a petition received. The
Constitution gave them no option. And, i
in acting upon it under the Constitution, i
they were limited first by the grants of;
power it contained, and secondly by the ;
limitations on that power which it pre-!
scribed. Now, were there any grants of
power in the Constitution which affected j
this question of the disposal of petitions? j
It empowered each House to make rules j
of proceeding for its own government. j
This grant was extensive in its terms; 1
were there no limitations which applied
toil? All the limitations in the Consti
tution applied to it so far ns they were
relevant; beyond these the House could
not go. If a petition asked for legislation
when the Constitution gave no power to
legislate, Congress had no power to grant
the prayer. Hut Mr. 11. went one step
further: he held they were net only re
strained by the limitations actually laid
down in the Constitution, but they were
further limited by the exercise of a sound
discretion, which looked to the preserva
tion of the rights and liberties of the peo
ple, and which aimed if possible to pro
mote the interests of all without injury
to any. The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Clingman) had insisted
that the right of petitioning Government
was co extensive with the right to peti
tion the Ruler of the Universe, and that
in both cases a man might pray for what
he pleased. Mr. R. denied that position:
amen might not pray to the Deity for
anything he pleased. Gotl was infinitely
just and holy, and a man had no right to
ask him for what involved his doing
wrong to another; no man had any right
to pray God to do a wicked action.
Mr. Clingman rose to explain. He
bad inserted a limitation in the position
betook; it was that the man petitioning
should honestly believe (however mista
ken) that his petition might lawfully be
granted : with this limitation it would ap
ply as well to prayers to the Deity as to
prayers to the Government.
Mr. Rhett still insisted that he had no
right to pray God to do for his benefit
what would injure another. If not by
the gentleman, the position had been ta
ken by others, that the right of irnplora
tion was like the civil right of petition,
and that both were unlimited and uni
versal. Mr. R. denied the position. God
could not hear prayers for what violated
contracts and invaded the rights of oth
ers ; and if he could not do this, no more
could Congress.
But gentlemen insisted that in praying
for the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, they did not ask for any
thing unconstitutional, but for what was
strictly within the Constitution. It was
the constitutional right of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District and in the
Territories, and to put an end to the do
mestic slave trade. This was a veil so
thin that it needed no hand to tear it a
way.
Did any gentleman on that floor be
lieve in his heart that these petitions were
directed bona fide to tlie District of Co
lumbia and to the Territories ? Did not
every body know that the real object at
which they were aimed was slavery with
in the States? It was a mere pretext.
And from the full conviction that it was
nothing more, the Democratic party had
in 1838 affirmed that the purpose in the
presentation of these abolition memorials
was to agitate the question of slavery in
the whole Union, and to overthrow it
within the States ; and they concluded
that, as the end was unconstitutional, so
were the means. They would not do
that indirectly which they could not do
directly. If a man should set fire to his
own field, and thereby effect the burning
)f his neighbor’s barn would it be a law
ful act ? Was it right—was it a moral
iet to set fire to our own fence, that
hereby we might burn down our neigh
bor s house and desolate his property ?
And was not this just the same thing?
! Gentlemen knew very well ihe nbolition
j ists would not touch slavery with one of
I their fingers, either in this District or in
j the Territories : they kept it there pur
posely for agitation ; they were assailing
it within the States : that was their aim :
[ the otiier was a pretext merely; and the
i Democratic party in IS3S, knowing this,
and knowing that they had no constitu
tional power to touch slavery in the
States, declared that they would not re
ceive any abolition petitions.
.«****
POLI TICAL.
From the Washington Spectator.
Worse aii'l Worse.
We understand that the Judiciary
Committee lias determined to report a
bill to Congress, abolishing, in the Dis
trict of Columbia, the laws of Maryland
and Virginia, with respect to fugitive
slaves, and, in lieu thereof, making the
act of 1793 of force. In Maryland and
Virginia, and all the other slave States,
as negros are generally slaves, their laws
;ict upon the presumption this fact neces
sarily raises; and when the freedom of a
negro is questioned, they impose upon
the negro the task of proving that he is
free. These laws are of force in the
District of Columbia. In States where
negro slavery does not exist, of course
the presumption of law follows the pres
umption of fact ; and the act passed by
Congress in 1793, imposes upon the
master claiming his fugitive slaves in
these States, the burden, of proving, be
fore he is committed, by verbal testimony,
or by affidavits, that lie has a good title
to him as his slave. The Judiciary
Committee has determined to extend this
law over the District of Columbia, and
to apply to a community where negro
slavery exists, the same rule which is es
tablished by the act of 1793, where it
does not exist; and in .ail cases to estab
lish in this District the legal presumption,
contrary to the general fact, that the ne
gro is free; and thus compel the master,
claiming his slave, to prove his title to
his slave befor be can carry him away.
The effect of this law on the District, and
on the neighboring States, will immedi
otely be seen. Negro slaves within and
all around the District. In nine cases
out of ten, all that can be proved, as to
the ownership of a slave is, that he has
been in the master’s service. Nothing
rcjpre can be proved in all cases of slaves
inherrited. But this will not be suffi
cient under the act of 1793, because
there are a great number of free negroes
who are continually, and for years, in
the service of individuals. Threfore,
service merely will not prove ownership.
And if this was sufficient proof, how can
the Virginia or Maryland planter get his
neighbors to come to this District, to en
able him, by their proof, to identify his
slave, or obtain their affidavits to his title?
Should lie find bis slave here, whilst he
j is gone after his proof, his his slave will
| 1)0 carried oft'. The effect of the law
will be, to make the District a grand ref
uge for fugitive slaves, to the loss of
the slave owners in Virginia and Mary
land.
YVe really think, if this sort of legisla
tion is to go on in Congress, it would be
better, by far, to recede the District to
Maryland and Virginia, retaining only
the public grounds and property in the
city of Washington; and if this is not
done, Virginia and Maryland may find it
necessary at once to extend their laws
over it, and take possession of it. Most
assuredly, when these patriotic States
ceded this territory to the United States,
they never supposed that it was to be.
made an instrument of annoyance, and of
hostile influence to their peace and safe
ty. If any foreign nation occupied such
a position towards ttein, they would ex
pel them at the point of the sword; and
we can see no re,-eon for a different
course of policy, when, instead of a for
eign the Legislature of the Gen
eral Government is perfidiously turned
against tlie peace property of the people
of this District, and of the neighboring
States.
Il is plain that this district is to be con
verted into an “expeiimentum crucis”
for Abolition. Northern Whigs nnd
Northern Democrats both unite in this
warfare on the institutions of the South,
by the agitation of the subject of slavery
here. At this moment, this subject is in
four different forms of agitations before
Congress. 1. Petitions in the hand of
its members. 2. Tlie report of the Com
mittee on the Rules, rescinding the twen
ty-first rule. 3. The Committee of Nine
on the Massachusetts resolutions, propo
sing to abolish the slave representation.
4. 'The Committee on the Judiciary, pro
posing to extend the act of 1793 over the
slaves of this District. What a admira
ble exhibition of Democratic ascendancy
for the South ! With what stirring em
phasis may Southern Democrats appeal
to the transactions of his Congress, to ex
emplify, in the great Denioratic party of
the Union, their party principles, and
their regard for the compromises of the
Constitution, and the welfare of the
Union ; The Tariff is thrust off, but
Abolition is thrust on, iu forms multiply
ing every week. The Abolitionists and
Whigs gloat over these transactions —the
one at the prospective triumph of their
fanaticism, the other at the. downfall of
the democratic party they too ominously
foretell. Throughout the South, the re
turn of the Democratic party to Con
gress with a majorty of two-thirds of its
members, was looked to by the Demo
cratic party as a grand era for peace and
relief. If it goes on as it has begun, the
Congress will only be remembered as the
most silly, perfidious, and mischievous
Congress which has ever assembled.
In consequence of the form for ibis
day’spublication being prematurely made
up, matter we were exceedingly anxious
to luyjbefore our readers, has been neces
sarily excluded.
From the New-York Jour, of Conmu rce.
The Taiiir.
Some of the newspaper editors, and
even those of the National Itelligencer,
put down the lute voters in the House of
Representatives rejecting the propositions
! of certain free trademen, as conclusive
evidence that the Democrats will not
touch tlie tariff at the present session.
We do not so view the matter. On the
contrary, the best information we have
is, that preparations are making for an
intelligent revision of this most injurious
law.—We have reason to believe that the
Committee of Ways and Means consider
twenty three millions of dollars as the
necessary revenue of the country, and
that they intend to adjust the Tariff to
that end; and very likeiy without need
ling with tea and coffee. It is obvious
that to produce this revenue, tho prohibi
tory features of the present law must be
removed. We know that information is
collecting extensively by leading men,
and we presume they mean to use it. In
fact, the Democratic party would be
guilty of the grossest treachery to their
own promises, as well as the grossest
blindness to their own political interests,
if they were to omit a thorough revision
and modification of the Tariff. Mr.
Wright certainly would poorly sustain
his high reputation, if after what he said
before voting for the pre sent law as he
did (it seems to us very injudiciously,) he
were to omit any effort to put it into a
proper shape. We have no doubt that
well authenticated statements as to the
operation of the present law would be
thankfully received by him, from any
source. The following extract of a let
ter from Washington, we have reason to
bejieve contain it correct statement of
flip msp
WASHINGTON, Jan 6th.
“Be assured that the votes in question
are no test. Many woo voted against the
motions, were influenced by the consid
eration that the instructions would tram
mel the Committee of Ways and Means,
who are fully empowered, allreadv, to
act on the subject. Besides this, how
could it be expected that tlie Tariff ques
tion, involving sa many considerations,
could be disposed of by a sweeping vote,
on a general instruction, under the pre
vious question, without a word of de
bate? The thing is preposterous.—
Moreover, I have means of knowing, that
the subject has been pressed in the Com
mittee, and that, there, it lias been settled,
as a matter of course, that the Commit
tee must first attend to the appropriation
Bills. They are required, by law to re
port these bills within thirty days after
the apointrnent of the Committee. They
are obliged, therefore, to occupy all their
time in the examination of estimates, <fcc.
When tlie Rills are ready, the Commit
tee will take up the subject of the Tariff,
withadetermination to revise it thorough
ly, to reduce it in some particulars, and
in such a manner as to increase the
revenue. Their project will pass the
I louse.”— Charleston Mereu y.
Tlie Presidency—South Carolina.
4lh Resolution. That justiceand sound
policy forbid the Federal Government to
foster one branch of industry to the detri
ment of another,or to cherish the interests
of one portion to the injury of another
portion of our common country—that
every citizen and every section of the
country, has a right to demand and in
sist upon an equality of rights and pri
vileges, and toacomplete and ample pro
tection of persons and property from do
mestic violence, or foreign agression.
7th Resolution. That Congress has no
power, under the Constitution, to inter
fere with or control the domestic institu
tions of the several States, and that such
States are the sole and proper judges of
every thing appertaining to their own
affairs not prohibited by the Constitution;
thatall effortsofthe Abolitionislsor others
made to induce Congress tointerfere with
questions of slavery, or to take incipient
steps in reiation thereto, are calculated to
lead to the most alarming and dangerous
consequences, and that all such efforts
have an inevitable tendency to diminish
the happiness of the people and endanger
the stability and. permanency of the
Union, and ousfht not to be countenanc
ed by any friend to our political institu
tions.—(Resolutions of the Bultim.re
Convention in May, 1840.
We resume our remarks to-day. We
have said before that we are called on,
we the friends of Mr. Calhoun, to sur
render at once his pretensions to the Pre
sidency and go cordially to work to elect
Mr. Van Buren as “the nominee of the
party.” We know there is a magic pow
er in the name behests of party —but we,
while we feel and acknowledge the bene
fit of party action when founded on sound
principles, ackno ledged and adhered
to, see in it only danger to the Constitu
tion and the country, when its organiza
tion is only for power, and its power ex
ercised only for the purpose ofperpetuat
in justice or perpetuating itself, whether
right or wrong—strong as is our allegi
ance to party, it is higher and holier to
the Constitution and the country ; and
if we would save the party itself, we must
do it by adhering to principle and induc
ing it to retrace error or avoid its com
mission. The Democrats have ever
prospered most when they have beer,
most faithful to the Constitution and to
a policy fair, equal and just towards all
its members, They have by disregard
ing these been precipitated from their
highest power, and when they have felt
most secure in its possession.
The article in the Democratic Review
calls us to come up and support Mr.
Van Buren, not only as the nominee but
for his strict and noble adherence to the
principles, “the issues” of the party in
1840. We have put their resolutions,
their creed—“their issues of 1840,” at
the bead of this article, that we may at
all times judge them by their orrn voids
and their own acts. We are told to con- j
lido in Mr. Van Duron's promises—we i
I answer we have—we have lived upon
them— and so Jar we have onty the pro
■ raises, with an ominous foreshadowing,
! in regard not only to Abolition, that the
| solemn promise and issue made in tlie
7tli Baltimore Resolution will, perhaps,
is,before this, disregarded and abandoned
but that even the 4th, in regard to the
Tariff, is in the same danger of non-ful
filment, and will- be again left where it
was in 1812, when power to fulfil it was
in the hands of Mr. Van Buren’s most
especial friend, almost his A/hi Ego,
Mr. Wright. Wc feel assured and we
repeat again what we have said over and
over before, that at heart Mr. Vun .Huron
is a free trade man—a State Rights man
—an Anti-Abolitionist. We don’t take
back one jot or tittle of what we have
awarded him for what he has said and
done too, on these subjects, lie lias
been a breakwater that has opposed
powerful resistance to the currents of
monopoly and the enemies of the South
ern Institutions—but we must be allowed
to say he has not always teen inflexible
-unyielding—and now we see that in
some of his best friends which make us
fear. He gave us bis excellent argtl
niedts and even Lis votes in 1828 against
the odious Tariff Bill, until the last and
fatal oik* which made it a law—and so
his friends who represent him most es
pecially, when tlie present most unequal
and iniquitous Tariff was under discus
sion, gave ns again admirable arguments
against it, but fatal votes lor it—fatal be
cause their votes passed tJ e act. It is
true we had from Mr. Wright an apology
in which, while he admitted his error in
voting in the House of Representatives,
of which he was then a member, for the
Tariff of 1828, he repeated the same vote
on this, promising, however, that as
soon as the Democrats got into power, it
should be revised and amended. The
Democrats arc now in power, and let
them only act up to their promises and
all will he well. But let them not hope
to delude the people with promises. —
They are sick of promises that have
brought no fruit.
On what grounds can the Democrati
Review, or his second “ Jefferson” or Mr.
Ritchie call upon us to lay aside till dis
trust, surrender again our faith and ser
vices? Have they forgotten or do they
suppose the people hurthened with hour
ly payments of the goading exactions of
tiiis accursed oppression, can forget that
in IS4O, this part} declared “That jus
tice and sound policy forbid the Federal
Government to foster one branch of in
dustry to the detriment of another, or to
cherish the interests of one portion to
the injury of another portion of our
common country;” and that Mr. Van
Buren accepted tlie nomination for the
Presidency with this Resolution: and
that, in 1812, Mr. Wright n'd others of
his particular friends, voted for the most
odious form of that very policy which
,‘ fostered one branch of industry and
cherished the interests of one portion of
our common country to the detriment
and injury of another”? We of the South
and South West are the victims—we
feel and cannot banish this wrong from
our memories, sleeping or waking.—
Atonement only can induce us to pass it
over—when the wrong is repaired, we
can have anew feeling, and in the con
cluding language of that same Resolution
we “ Lave n right to demand and insist
upon an equality of rights and privileges,
and to complete arid and ample pro'ection
of persons and property from domestic
violence and foreign aggression,” and we
do demand it from those who have thus
solemnly promised it, and when it is ac
corded, we shall feel that they are again
our brothers.
Before we close this branch of this sub
ject, we will call some other testimony
as our justification for asking for acts in
stead of promises from Mr. Van Buren’s
friends. Let it be borne in mind that
these Resolutions of the Baltimore Con
vention in 1810, were reported by Mr.
Gillet of New Yor/c Let it not be for
gotten that the first indications of shrink
ing from their maintenance, were given
in the Conventionand legislative 5 mens
manifesto of New York. At first, the
Tariff was either omitted or very slight
ingly alluded to and passed over, until
at last by degress the press of New York
in the lead for Mr. Van Buren, except
always tlie Evening Post, took such a
tone as alarmed us, and we frankly and
freely spoke out our discontent. We
appeal to our columns and to thecolumns
of the Albany Argus for the proof. But
finally the measures were consummated
by the action of the late famous Syracuse
Convention, whose declaration in favor
of the protective policy, and the subse
quent tariff and abolition support given
to the party at the last election in New
York, with the course of the Representa
tives of that State on’the 21st Rule and
the. Tariff, recently in Congress, are such
as to make us not only pause, hut call up
on us to wait events, and to repeat what
we have before said, “show us what you
will do, and you will then know what
we will do—act, mid act right, and you
will find us where principle will always
plant us.” We repeat it emphatically
| that it is in the power of Mr. Van Bu
j ren’s friends to settle every doubt, and to
■ place us and all who think with us where
they please by the course they have it in
their power to pursue.
If they fail in their Inith—if they bring
defeat and disaster on their standard, by
neglecting or abandoning the principles,
the isrues and tho friends of 1840, on
them alone will rest the responsibility
for it. But enough for to day.
Economy.
A sound economy is a sound under
standing brought into action. It is cal
culation realized ; it is the doctrine of
proportion reduced to practice ; it is fore
seeing contingencies and providing
against them ; it is expecting contingen
cies and being prepared for them, —Han
nah More.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1844.
FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
JOHN C, CALHOUN,
FOR VICE PRESIDENT:
liKVI WfiODlllilV.
The following gentlemen were
admitted at the recent session of the Su
perior Court, of this county, to practice
Law in the Courts of this State—John
Powers, Wm. A. Robertson, Lewis N.
Whittle, Pleasant W. White, and
Battle.
Movements iu Congress.
It needs but slight acquaintance with
the habits of that body .to perceive that
some of the demonstrations and crooked
manotiverings presented since the com
mencement of the present session are
mere feints to—‘springs to catch wood
cocks’ for the purpose of securing Van
Buren’s election. There is something
to encourage hope and not a little to ex
cite interest and alarm, the vital measure
of establishing the Independent Treaus
ry will be successfully carried through,
though it has all the ignorance and cor
ruption of the country against it—and
we believe, notwithstanding the predic
tions of esteemed cotemporaries to the
contrary, the oppression, folly and kna
very of the present Clay Tariff, will be
materially mitigated. But then, there’s
the Oregon question—the reception of
'Texas, abolition in the district, &c., &c.
Heaven help us, for it would seem we
are too besotted to help ourselves.
Thi- Ilt re i Arnolds’ Ci ncert.
We aitended Messrs. Arnold’s Concert,
on Monday evening, and it is but justice
to say, we were amply indemnified for
the price of our ticket—we expected
much and were not disappointed. The
execution, by the performer of Arnold's
splendid composition, (the German’s Fa
ther land) which breathes the very soul
of poetry and patriotism, was grand and
imposing. Os the performance on the
Piano Forte, we can truly say, we never
witnessed the powers of that admirable
instrument more fully brought out, no
more skill and science displayed in its
use. The performance on the Violin
merits 1 ike commendation. The solo
song was peculiarly beautiful—the Wild
llnntand the Burschen,orstudent’ssongs,
elicited repeated plaudits from a crowded I
audience, consisting of the elite of our I
community.
YY'e trust our community will be fa
vored with other opportunities of admir
ing the extraordinary powers of Messrs.
Arnold, both as vocalists aud scientific
performers on the violin and piano.
Prescott's Conquest ot Mexico.
To those who have had (he good for
tune to cultivate an acquaintance with
Mr. Prescott’s Ferdinand and Isabella,
no recommendation tiiat they should re
new the gratification by the perusal of
the conquest of Mexico, by the same wri
ter, will be necessary.
The plan of the work is singularly
complete and judicious; and the style in
which it is written unites force and per
spicuity to tlie ease and natural grace ot
Addison. Goldsmith, and our own gifted
and amiable Irving. In romantic and
absorbing interest, nothing can exceed
the story of Mexico as told by Prescott.
By the way, that gentleman has burst
forth in a blaze of glory on the literary
world, as the poets say, Minerva arnted
cap ape, emerged from the head of Ju
piter. llow melancholy a reflection,
what a loss to the world, that so fine an
intellect should be limited in its efforts to
amuse nnd instruct mankind by paintul
and enfeebled vision.
The work is from the Harper press.—
It is sufficient commendation of all rela
ting to its typography, Ac. to say it q ,llte
equals the excellent edition of Ferdinand
and Isabella, published in Boston.
We notice witli pleasure the chaste
style of the binding—it is not vulgarized
by tawdry gilding.
Both works of Mr. Prescott are for sak
ut the book-stores in this city.
Southern Cultivator.
We have received from the publishers
the first number of the 2nd volume o
this paper. We haw before recommend
ed to ourplanting friends, the importance
of patronizing such publications and p ar
ticularly this one. The subscription
price of the Southern Cultivator is
very low as to place it within the ieae
of almost every individual in the commit
aity. The subscription price is ° n '
ONE dollar a year, payable in advanc L
to Messrs. J. W. A W.S. Jones, pubF 11 '
ers, Augusta,