Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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,