Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

• *very, than that it continues to exist among I them f or can any one'desire more concln-1 •tve proof that any attempt by Congress to •fleet this object by the force of private law would be an interference with tne rights of property, against the wishes and consent of those concerned, and for none of the . Surprises for which Congress is authorised y the Constitution to take private property ' for public use ? Hence your committee believe they have ; proved, beyond the power of contradiction > that an interference by Congress with slave ry in the District of Colunbia would be a violation oftlie public faith—ofllte (aitli re posed in Congress by the stut >8 which ce- : ded the territory to the Federal Govern-, ment, so far as the rights and interests of: those citiaens residing w ithin the ceded ter ritory are concerned. Your committee will now’ consider this proposition in reference to the interests of lite Slates of Maryland anti Virginia. They were sloveholding States at the time they made their cession, and they are so •till. They entirely surround this District, from which they are only seperated upon all •ides by imaginary lines. They made the cession, for the great national objects which have l>een already pointed out, and they made it from motives of patriotism alone, and without any compensation from the Federal Government lor the surrender of jurisdiction over commanding positions in both Stales. The surrender was made for purposes deemed sufficiently important by all orginal States, to be provided for in the Constitution of the United States; a«d it wns made in conformity with that provision of the Constitution. It is surely unnecessary, after this statement of facts, to undertake to show that those patriotic States made this cession for purposes of good to the Union, and consequently to 1 theiusekes, and not for purposes of evil to themsekes; and consequently to the Union, and that the Government of the! United States accepted the cession for the same good, and not for evil purposes. If, then, it can be demonstrated that the j abolition of slavery in the District of Col umbia would produce evil, and not good, Co the States that made the cession, the con clusion is inevitable that such an act on the ' part of Congress would be a violation of the faith reposed in it by those States. To | all to whom this is not perfectly palpable without an argument, the following consid erauoas are presented: It has been already said that the States of Maryland and Virginia surrounh the District. It has also been shown that, in reference to slavery within the District, ! lhe relations of Congress are entirely those of a local legislature, and that .its action l therefore, in this capacity should be gov erned by the same reasons which would have governed those States themselves in relation to this subject, if their jurisdiction over this territory had never b een surren dered. Let us suppose then that this juris diction had never been surrendered bv Maryland and Virginia, and that it was now proposed that they should abolish slavery and relinquish all power of legislation over free blacks, within the portions of those Slates which constitute the District of Co lumbia, retaining their respective institu tions of slavery in all the remaining portions of their territory. Who is there that would not be amaxed at the folly of such an act ? Who does not see that such a step would neces«arily produce discontent and insurrec tions in the remaining portions of those States? Who does not perceive that under such circumstances the District would con stitute at once a nutral ground, upon which hosts of free blacks, fugitive slaves, k. incen diaries, would be assembled in the work of general abolitionism ; and that from such a magaxine of evil, every conceivable mis chiefwould be spread through the surroun ingcountry, with almost the rapidity of the movements of the atmosphere? Surely no one can doubt the certainty of the conse quential evils in the case supposed. How then can any doubt, or deny the dangers in the case before us ? The territory is the same ; it is soi rounded by the same portions of slaveholding States; and the only differ, ence is, that in the case supposed, the aboli tion would be the work of State authorities, while, in the other, it is sought to accom plish it by the authority of Congress. The condition of things before and alter it was done, is the same in both cases, and the opportunities for mischief, in case the work be accomplished, are equal in both. Can it be necessary to say more to establish the position, that any interference with slavery in the Distrct of Uoliumbia, on the part of Congress, would be a violation of the pub lic faith, the faith reposed in Congress by those States, and without which they never could have been induced to have made that cession ? It only remains under this head, to show that Congress could not interfere with Sla very in the District of Columbia, without a violation of the public faith, in reference to the slave-holding States generally, as well as to the States of Virginia and Maryland. —The provision in the Constitution author ising Congress to accept the cession of a territory for a Seat of the Federal Govern ment, and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it, was as general and universal as ti ny other provision in that instrument. In its national objects, all the States weie e qually interested, and so far as there was any danger that the powers of local legisla tion conferred on Congress might interfere with, or injuriously affect, the institutions of the various States, each State possessed an interest propoi tioned to the probable danger to itself. As far as your Commit tee know orbeliev , however, no apprehen sion of an interference on the subject of do- i mestic slavery was entertained in any quar ter, or expressed by any statesman of the day. / An examination ot the commentaries on the Constitution will show that various ap prehensions were entertained as to the pow er* conferred on Congress by this clause, such as that privileged classes of society might be created within the District; that a standing army, dangerous to the liberties of the country might be organized, and sustained within it, and the like : but not a suggestion can be found that, under the lo cal powers to be conferred, any attempt would be made to interfere with the private rights of th<* citizens who might be embra ced within the District, or to disturb or change, directly or hy consequence, the mu- nicipal institutions ot the States, or that the subject of domestic slavery, as it existed in the States, could be iu any way involved in the proposed cession. At that lime, all the States held slaves. Many of them have since, by their own independent action, without influence or interference from the Federt.l Government, or from tlivir sister States, effected, in their own limeand wav, tire work of emancipation ; others of the o-> rigimil Slates remain as they were at the ! time of the adoption < f the Constitution, in reference to this description of property, and several new members have been admit ted into the Union as slave-holding States. All the States which have held, or now hold, slave properly, have invariably considered the institution as one exclusively subject to State authority, and not to be affected, di rectly or indirectly by Federal interference. The practice of the Government as well as its theory, has established this doctrine, and the action of the States, in retaining or a bolishing the institution at pleasure, has conformed entirely to this principle. Now the subject of Federal interference has be come one of some agitation, and Congress is solicited (n adopt measures in relation to the District of Columbia, which have been shown to be most dangerous and destruc tive to the security and interests of the two ; staveholding States by which it was ceded to the Federal Government. Your Com mittee will not trouble the House to prove, that any measure of the Federal Legisla ture which would have this tendency in those two States, would, from the very ne ! cessity of the case, and the unity of the interest wherever it exists, have the same ! tendency, measurably, in all the other slave-holdingmembeis oftheUnion. This position is too plain for argument. If, then, i all the Stales were equally interested in the i national objects for which this territory was ceded as the Seat of the Federal Govern ment; if that cession was designed by the ; framers of the Constitution to enure to the benefit of the whole confederacy, and wos made in furtherance of that design and if ■ Congress, contrary to the i.bvious intent and spirit of the cession, shall do an act not required by the national objects con- i teinplatcd by it, but repugnant to the inter i esls ami wishes of the citizens of the ceded territory, and calculated to disturb the I peace and endanger the interests of the slave-holding members of the Union, such an act must be in violation of the public faith: of the faith reposed in Congress by the Slates that made the cession, and which would be deeply injured by such an exercise of power under it ; and also of the faith reposed in that body by all the States, inas much as no independent State in the Union j can be injured in its peace or its rightful interests by the action of the Federal Gov <ernment, without a corresponding injury to every member of the confederated States. Your committee have already shown that an interference with slavery in the District of Columbia, would involve a vio- I lation of the public faith as regards the ■ rights and interests of the citizens there* i They recur to this topic, however, on ac count of its importance, and for the purpose of putting it in another light, and, as they consider, upon unanswerable ground. They are aware that under the Constitu tion, Congress possesses “ exclusive legis ' lation” over the aforesaid District : but the power of legislation was given to be ex ercised for beneficial purposes only, and cannot, therefore, be exercised, consistently with public faith, for any object that is at war with the great principles npon which the Government itself is founded. The Constitution, to be properly understood, must be taken as a w hole. Whenever a i particular power is granted, the extent to which it may be carried can only be infer red from other provisions I y which it mav be regulated or restrained. The Consti : tutiou, while it confers upon Congress ex clusive legislation within the District does not, and could not, confer unlimited or des potic authority over it. it could confer no power contrary to the fundamental princi ples of the Constitution itself, and the es sential and unalienable rights of American citizens. The right to legislate, therefore, (to make the Constitution consistent with it self,) is evidently qualified by the provis ion that “ no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and various others of a similar char acter. We lay it down as a rule, that no Government can do any thing directly re pugnant to the principles of natural justice, and of the social compact. It would be totally subversive of all the purposes for which gov ernment is instituted. V’attel says : “ The great end of civil society is, whatever consti tutes happiness with the peaceful possession of property.” No republican would tolerate that a man should be punished, by a special statute, for an act not legally punishable at the time of its commission. No republican could approve any system of legislation by which private con tracts, lawfully made, should be declared null mid void, or by which the property of an indi vidual, lawfully acquired, should be arbitrarily wrested from him by the high hand of power. ; But these great principles are not left fortheir support to the natural feelings of the human heart, or to the mere general spirit of republi can g ivernment. They are expressly incor porated in the Constitution, and they have also been recognized, and insisted on by the .Su preme Court of the United .States, which lays down the following soundand incontrovertible doctrine : “ There are acts which the Federal or State Legislature cannot do, without exceed ing their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican Government, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power: as to authorise manifest injustice by positive law, or I to take away that security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof the Government was established. An act of the legislature, contrary to the great firstprinci i p/cs of the. social compact, cannot be considered n rightfid exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments esta blished on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by tne nature of the power on which it is folded. A few in stances will suffice toexplain. A law that pun ished a citizen for an innocent action, or that was in vi ilation of an existing law ; a law that destroys or impairs the obligation of the lawful private contracts of citizens ; a law that makes a man judge in his own case ; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against till reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and there fore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The legislature may enjoin or permit, forbid or punish ; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for future cases ; but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or | punish innocence as a crime or violate the rights of an antecedent lawful coi.t'act, or, the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal or State Legislatures possess such powets, even if they had not been ex pressly restrained, would be a political hiresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican Government." Now, every principle here af firmed by the court, applies to, and protects, the people of this District, as well as the people of the States. The inhabitants of this District are a pact of the people of the United States. Ev ery right and interest secured by the Constitu tion to the people of the States, is equally se cured to the people of the District. Congress can therefore do no act affecting property or person, in relation to this District, which it is prohibited to do in relation to the citizens of the States, without a direct violation of the public faith. Eor instance : It is a well settled consti tutional principle, that “ private property shall not be taken for public use, withoutjust compen sation.” Now, the true meaning of this provis iouobviously is, that private propel ty shall be taken only tor public use, but shall not be taken even then, without adequate remuneration. It is evident, however, in reference to slavery, ei ther that the Government would use the slaves, or that it would not. If it would use them, then they would not be emancipated ; and it would be an idle mockery to talk of the freedom of those wlio would only cease to be private, to be come public slaves. If it would not use them, then how could it be said that they were taken for the public use, consistently with the provis ion just recited ! But even if they could be ta ken without reference to public use, they could not be taken withoutjust compensation. It is exceedingly questionable, however, whether C ongress could legally apply the public revenue to such an object, even with the consent of the ownersol the slaves. As to emancipation without their consent and without just compensation, your committee will not stop to consider it. It could not bear examination. Honor, humanity,policy, all forbid it. It is manifest then, from all the considerations herein staled, (and there are o thers equally forcible that might be urged,) that Congress could not abolish slavery in the Dis trict of Columbia, without a violation of the public faith. Your committee will only add one or two re flections upon this interesting point. What is the meaning ofthc declaration adop ted by the House, in relation to the District of Columbia I Is it not, that Congress cannot and will not do an act which.it lias solemnly proclai med to involve a violation of the public faith 1 Does it not allord every security to the South which it is in the power of the Federal Govern , ment to afford ? Is it not tantamount, in its | binding obligation upon the Government, to a positive declaration, that the abolition of slave ry in the District ot Columbia would be uncon stitutional ? Nay, kit noteven more efficacious in point of fact ! Constitutional provisions are matters of construction. The opinion of one House, upon an abstract controverted point, may be overruled and reversed by another. But when Congress has solemnly declared that a particular act would be a violation of the pub i lie faith, is it to be supposed that it would ever ' violate a pledge thus given to the country ? Can any abolitionists expect it ? Need any : citizen of a slave State tear it? What is pub lic faith but the honor of the Government 1 \\ hy are treaties regarded as sacred and invio lable I Why, but because they involve the pledge and depend upon the sanctity of the na tional faith? Why are all compacts or promis es made by Governments held to be irrevocably binding ? W by, but because they cannot break them without committing perfidy, and destroy ing all confidence in their justice and integrity ? Surely then, yonr committee may say with the utmost confidence, (and the sentiment will be ratified by every American heart) that the declaration now promulgated in relation to this subject, will not be departed from by any suc ceeding legislation except under circumstances (should any such ever arise in the progress of our country,) in which a departure from it would not be regarded by the slaveholding States them selves, as a wanton or arbitrary infraction of the public faith ! Your committee are further instructed to re port,that, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia— 2dly. Because it would be unwise and impolitic! It will be palpable to the minds of all, that if the committee have succeeded in establishing, as they think they have, that any such interfer ence on the part of Congress would be a viola tion of the public faith, it would be a work of supererogation to attempt to show, that such an act would be unwise and impolitic : as there may be some, however, who may not agree with them in their arguments or conclusions upon that point, they feel bound, under the instruc tion of the House, to offer a few suggestions un der this head. The Federal Government was the creation of the States of the Confederacy, and the great objects of its creation and organization “ were to form a more perfect union, e tablish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and pro vide for the common defence and general wel fare.” Apply these principles, then, to an interfer ence by Congress with slavery in the District of Columbia. Such action, to be politic, must be in accordance with some one ot those great objects; and it will be the duty of the commit tee, in as concise a manner as possible, to show that it would not be in accordance with eitherof them. First, then, as to the District itself. It has already been shown, that any interfer ence, unsolicited by the inhabitants of the Dis trict, cannot “ establish justice,” or promote the cause of justice within it, but directly the re verse. No greater degree of slavery exists here now, than did exist when the constitution was adopted, and then the inhabitants of the Dis trict were citizens ofthc States of Maryland and Virginia, and had a voice in the adoption of that instrument. Surely their subsequent transfer to the jurisdiction of Congress, made in conformi ty with that constitution, could not deprive them of the protection to which they were entitled bv these great leading principles of it. On the contrary, they had every right to expect that Congress would “establish justice,” as to them, in strict compliance with the great charter un der which it acted, and by which it is forbidden to interfere with their rights of private property, without their consent, or in any way to affect, injuriously, their domestic institutions. Os those institutions, slavery was, and is, the most important ; and any attempt on the part of Congress, acting as the local Legislature of the District, to abolish it, would not only be impo litic, but an act of gross injustice and oppres sion. Secondly, as to the States of the Union. Here again your committee have but to refer to their former remarks, to show that the abolition of slavery in the District would not “establish justice,” but work great injustice, to the sur rounding States in particular, and to all the slave States in general, and in a degree propor tioned to their proximity to the District, and to the influence upon the institution of slavery in the Union, of such action on the part of Con gress. They have also shown, that the aboli tion of slavery here, so far from tending to“ en sure domestic tranquility,” would have a di rect tendency to produce domestic discord and violence, and servile war, in all the slavehold ing States. As these consequences, then, would follow such action in reference to the States, your committee need not say, that in stead of providing for “ the common defence by THE STANDARD OF UNION. it” Congress would be called upon “to pio vide tor the common defence” in consequence of it, and to an extent which cannot now be foreseen. Seeing, then, that the American Confederacy was formed for the great objects ot providing for “ the common defence and gen eral welfare,” it follows, necessarily, that Con gress is not only restrained from the commission of any act by which these objects may be frus trated, but that it is bound to sustain and pro mote them. The same provision of the con stitution* which requires it to call out the mili tia to “ suppress insurrections,” unquestionably imposes the corresponding obligation upon it, to commit no act by which an insurrectionary spir it may be excited. The same provision which enjoinsit on the Federal Government, to“guar anty to each State a republican form of Gov ernment, and to aid and protect each State a gaiust domestic violence,”! evidently implies the collerative obligation to take no step, of which the direct and inevitable tendency would be to overthrow the State Governments, and to involve them in wide spread scenes of misery and desolation. In one word, if it be the duty ot Congress, as it most clearly is, to support and preserve the constitution and the Union, then it is manifest, that it is bound to avoid the adop tion ot any legislation which may lead to their destruction. Your committee consider these positions too obvious to require argument or illustration. They consider it equally manifest, that any attempt to abolish slavery in the Dis trict would necessarily tend to the deplorable consequences to which, they have adverted. Congress, therefore, is bound, by every princi ple of duty which forbids it to interfere with slavery in any of die States, to abstain from a ny similar interference in tie District of Colum bia. Your committee have already adverted to the evils that would necessarily result to the sur rounding States, and to the slave States general ly, from an interference by Congress with the institution of slavery in the District of Colum bia. The nature and magnitude of those evils, however, require, that they should be exhibited more fully and distinctly. The question is, whether slavery ought to be abolished in the District ol Columbia? Now suppose the affir mative ot this proposition were sustained by Congress, what would it be but indirect legisla tion, orrather direct interference, as regards the rights and property of the southern States. And can any one imagine that such a state of things would be patiently borne? But this is not all ; nay, it is not half the evil that would follow. Could slavery be abolished in the District without leading directly and inevitably to insubordination and revolt throughout the South ? And can any one desire to produce such results ? Is there a man who has forgot ten the history of St, Domingo, er the insurgent attempts at Charleston, or the tragical scenes at Southampton ? or the recent and lamentable occurrences in the States of Louisiana and Mis sissippi ? Or is there an individual who would wish them repeated, and extended throughout the entire region of the South 1 Why, then, will infatuated individuals persist in pressing a scheme, which is not only impracti cable, as regards the States, but fraught with e vil to the very objects i’ is proposed to benefit ? True philanthropy would avoid this subject, see ing the distraction it creates, and the dreadful consequences it involves. It would leave it to those whom it most concerns, and who alone are competent to act upon it. It would trust to time, and the gradual operation of causes which may arise of themselves, but which can neither be produced, nor hastened by foreign interfer ence, or the power of this Government. Why then, your committee earnestlyrepeat, why urge a measure which is clearly impracticable in it self, which none but the slaveholding States have a right to act on, and which has increased, and will always increase, the hardships and restraints of those for whose imaginary benefit they are waging this cruel and fanatical crusade? We have said that the scheme of general e mancipation is impracticable. The slightest reflection must satisfy every candid mind of the truth of this assertion. Admitting that the Federal Government had a right to act upon this matter, which it clearly has not, it certainly never could achieve such an operation without full compensation to the owners. And what would probably be the amount required ? The aggregate value of all that species of property is not less probably than four hundred millions of dollars! And how could such an amount be raised? Will the people of this country ever consent to the im position of oppressive taxes, that the proceeeds may be applied to the purchase of slaves? The idea is preposterous; and not only that, but it is susceptible of demonstration, that even if an annual appropriation of ten millions were actually applied to the purchase and transpor tation of Slaves, the whole number would not be sensibly diminished at the expiration of half a century, from the natural growth and multipli cation of the race. Burthen the Treasury as we might, it would still be an endless expense and interminable work. And this view of the subject surely is sufficient of itself to prove, that of all the schemes ever projected by fana ticism, the idea c.f universal emancipation is the most visional and impracticable. But even if the scheme were practicable, what would be gained by effecting it ? Sup pose that Congress could emancipate all the slaves in the Union, is such a result desirable ? This question is addressed to the sober sense of the people of America. Would it be politic or advantageous? Would it contribute to the wealth or grandeur, or happiness of our country ? On tire contrary, would it not produce conse quences directly the reverse ? Are not the slaves unfit for freedom ; notoriously ignorant, servile, and depraved? and would any ration al man have them instantaneously transformed into freemen, with all the rights and privileges of American citizens? Are they capable of understanding correctly the nature of our gov ernment, or exercising judiciously a single po litical right or privilege? Nay, would they even be capable of earning their own livelihood, or rearing their families independently by their own ingenuity and industry ? What then would follow from their liberation, but the most deplo rable state of society, with which any civilized country was ever cursed ? How would vice and immorality, and licentiousness overrun the land ? How many jails and penitentiaries, that now seldom hold a prisoner, would be crowded to suffocation? How many fertile fields, that now yield regular and abundant harvests, would lie unoccupied and desolate ? How would the foreign commerce ofthc south decline and dis appear? How many thousands of seamen, of whom southern agriculture is the very life, would be driven for support to foreign coun tries ? And how large a portion of the federal revenue, derived from foreign commodities ex changed for southern products, would be lost forever to this Government ? And, in addition to all this, what would be the condition of southern society, were all the slaves emancipa ted ? W ould the whites consent that the blacks should be placed upon a full footing of equality with them ? Unquestionably not! Either the one class pr the other would be forced to emi grate, and in cither case, the whole region of the south would be a scene of poverty and ruin. Or, what is still more probable, the blacks would everywhere be driven before the whites, as the Indians have been until they were exterminated from the earth. And surely it is unnecessary to remark, that decay and desolation could not break down the south, without producing a cor- *Con. art. 1, sec. 8, f Art. 4, sec. 4, responding depression upon the wealth and en terprise of the northern .States. And here let us ask, too, what would be the condition of the non-slaveholding States themselves, as regards the blacks? Are they prepared to receive my riads of negroes, and place them upon an equal ity with the free white laborers and mechanics, who constitute their pride and strength? Will the new .States consent, that their territory shall be occupied by negroes, instead of the enter prising, intelligent, and patriotic white popula tion, which is daily seeking their borders from other portions of the Union? Shall the yeo manry of those states be surrounded by thous ands of such beings, and the white laborer for ced into competition and association with them? Are they to enjoy the same civil and political privileges as the free white citizens of the north and west, aud to be admitted into the social circle, their friends and companions t Nothing less than all this will constitute perfect freedom, and the principles now maintained by those who advocate emancipation would, if carried out, necessarily produce this state of things ! Y ot, who believes that it would be tolerated for a moment? Already have laws been passed in several of the non-slavenolding States to exclude free blacks from a settlement within their limits; and a prospect of general and im mediate abolition would compel them, in self defence, to resort to a system of measures much more rigorous and effective than any which have yet been adopted. Driven from the south, the blacks would find no place of refuge in the north ; and, as before remarked, utter extermi nation wotdd be the probable, if not die inevita ble, fate of the whole race. Where if tlie citi zen then, that can desire such results ? Where the American who can contemplate them with out emotion ? Where the aholitionist that will not pause, in view ot the direful consequences of his scheme, both to the whites and the blacks jto the north and the south, and to the whole j Union at large ? Y our committee deem it their duty to say : that, in their opinion, the people of the south i have been very unjustly censured in reference Ito slavery. It is not their purpose, however to defend them. Their character, as men and ci tizens, needs no vindication from us. Wherev er it is known, it speaks for itself, nor would any wantonly traduce it, but those assassins of reputation, who are also willing to be destroyers of life. Exaggerated pictures have been drawn of the hardships of the slave, and every effort made to malign the south, and to enlist against it both the religious and political feeling of the north. Your committee cannot too strongly express their unanimous and unqualified disap - probation of all such movements. The con stitution, under which we live, was framed by I our common ancestors, to preserve the liberty and independence achieved by their united ef forts in the council and the field. In ail our con tests with foreign enemies, the south has exhi bited an unwavering attachment to the common cause. Where is the spot of which Americans are prouder than the plains of Yorktown? Or, when was Britain more humble, or America more honored, than by the victory of New Orleans? All our history, from the revolution down, attests the high, and uniform, and devo ted, patriotism of the south. Her domestic in ’ stitutions are her own. They were brought in to the Union with her, and secured by the com pact which makes us one people ; and he who would sow dissension among members of the same great political family, by assailing the in stitutions, and impugning the character of the citizens of the south, should be regarded as an enemy to the peace and prosperity of our com mon country. If there is a feature by which the present age may be said to be characterised, it is that sickly sentimentality which, disregarding the pressing claims and wants of its own immediate neighbor hood, or town, or State, wastes and dissipates it ! self in visionary, and often very mischievous, en -1 terprises, for the imaginary benefit of remote com ! munities. True philanthropy, rightly understood, i and properly applied, is one of the purest and j most ennobling principles of out nature; but, mis | directed or perverted, it degenerates into that fell I spirit of fanaticism which disregards all ties, and ! tramples on all obstacles, however sdcred or ven ! erable, in the relentless prossecution of its horrid I purposes. Experience proves, however, that when individuals in one place, mistaking the true i character of benevolence, rashly undertake, at the < imminent hazard of conflict and convulsion, to remedy what they are pleased to consider evils i and distress in another, it is naturally regarded by those who are thus injured, either as a species of madness, which may be repelled or resisted, as any other madness may, or as manifesting a feel ing of hostility on the one side, which must neces sarily produce corresponding alienation on the other. It is all important, therefore, that the spir it of abolition, or in other words of illegal and of ficious interference with the domestic institutions of the south, should be arrested and put down ; and men of intelligence and influence at the north should endeavor to produce that sound and ration al state of publie opinion, which is equally due to the south and to the preservation of the Union. And this brings your committee to the last posi tion they have been instructed to sustain ; and that is, that, in the opinion of this House, Con gress ought not to interfere in any way with, slavery in the District of Columbia. 3dly, Because it would be dangerous to the U nion. The first great object enumerated in the constitution, as an inducement to its adop tion, was to “ form a more perfect union.” at that time, all the states held slaves, to a greater or less extent ; and slavery in the States was fully recognised, and provided for in many particulars, in that instrument itself. It was recognised, however, and all the provisions upon the subject so regarded it, as a State and not a national insti tution. At tfiat time, too, as has been before remarked, the District of Columbia constituted and integral part of two of the independent Slates which became parties to the Confederacy and to the constitution it self. Since that time an entire emancipa tion of slaves has taken place in several of the old States ; but in all cases this has been the work of the States themselves, without any interference whatever by the Federal Government. New States have also been admitted into the Union, with an interdic tion in their constitutions against involunta ry servitude. In this w ay, the slave States have become a minority in representation in the Federal Legislature. Their inter ests, however, as States in the institution of domestic slavery, as it exists within their limits, have not diminished, nor has their right to perfect security under the constitu tion in refeference to this description of property, been in any way, or to any degree surrendeted or impaired, since the adoption of that instrument by themselves and their sister States. The operation of causes, to a great ex tent natural, and proceeding from climate, soil, and consequent production, has render ed slavery a local and sectional institution and has thus added another to the most a larming apprehensions of patriots for the perpetuity of this Union—the apprehension of local and geographical interests and dis tinctions. How immensely important is it then, that Congress should do no act, and assume no jurisdiction in reference to this great interest, by w hich it shall over appear to place itself in the attitude of a local, in stead of a national tribunal—a partial agent, providing for peculir and sectional objects > and feelings instead of a general and pater nal legislature, equally' and impartially pro moting the general welfare of all the States. No one can fail to see, that ony other course on the part of Congress, must weaken the I confidence of the injured Slates in the fed eral authority, and, to the same extent, prove “ dangerous to the Union.” Since the adoption of the Federal Con stitution, the District of Columbia has been ceded to the United States as a seat of the Federal Government; but not only many em inent statesman of the country, but all of the slavehokling States, speaking through their legislative assemblies, firmly believe and insist that the cession so made has conferred upon Congress no constitutional power to abolish slavery within the ceded territory. Y'our committe have abstained from an ex amination of this question because they were instructed to discuss it. But they have no hesitation to say, that, in the view they have taken of the whole question, the obligations of Congress not to act on this subject are as fully binding and insupera ble as a positive constitutional interdlict, or an open acknowledgement of want of pow er. Considering the subject in this light, your com mittee have already proved, that any interference by Congress with the subject of slavery, would be evidently calculated to iujur the interests and dis turb the peace of the slavehokling States ; and if • tlfey have succeeded in establishing this position, no argument is necessary to show, that such con sequences, springing from the action of Congress as the local Legislature of the District, would emi nently endanger the existence of this Union. It has also been shown, that Congress, as the Le gislature of the Union cau have no constitutional power over this subject; aud that its powers, as a local Legislature of the District, were granted for the mere purpose of rendering its general powers pertect aud free from conflict and collision with State authorities. It has also been shown that these local powers should be so exer cised as to confer the greatest benefits upon the citizens residing within the district, with the least possible injury to the peculiar interests of any State, or the general interests of ail the States. Your committee have also shown, as they think successfully, that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia would be a deep injury to the citizens of the District, and, therefore, a violation of the trust reposed in Congress as the local Legis lature of the District; and, also, that it would in flict an incurable injury upon all the slavehokling States,& would,therefore, beanequal violation of the trusts reposed in that body as the Legislature of the Union. If, then, they have established these positions, as they think they have, can any one doubt that the action contemplated would be “dangerousto the Union ?” being directly calcu lated, as it would be, to weaken the confidence of the District in Congress, as a safe and faithful local Legislature, and the confidence ofthc slave holding States an impartial guardian of their in terests. Important as the Union is to each State and the whole American people, every one will admit that, as far as possible, strict impartialityjand kind I feelings to all the interests and all the sections of ! the country should characterize the action of the i Federal Government. The Union was formed | for the common and equal benefit of all the States, and for the perfect and equal protection of the rights aud interests of all the citizens of all the States. Its only strength is iu the confidence of the States, and of the people, that these great benefits will continue to be secured to them, and that these great purposes will be accomplished by its preservation. Any action, therefore, on the part of Congress, which shall weaken or destroy that confidence in any portion of our citizens, or in any State of the Union, must inevitably, to that extent, endanger the Union iiself! Who can doubt this reasoning? Who does not know that the agitatiou of any question connected with domestic slaver;’, as it exists in this country, among any portion of our citizens, creates ap prehension and excitement in the slaveholding Slates? Who does not know that the agitation of any such question iu either branch of Congress, shakes their confidence in the security of their most important interests, and, consequently, in the continuance to them of those great benefits, to secure which they became parties to the Union? Who then does not believe that any action bv Congress, having for its object the abolition of slavery in any portion of the Union, however nar row or limited it may be, would necessarily im pair the confidence of the slaveholding States in their security in relation to this description of pro perty, put an end to all their hope of benefits to be derived to them from the further continuance of the Union, and alienate their affections from it? Were Congress, in a single instance, to suffer it self to be impelled by mere feeling in one portion of the Union, to attempt a gratification of that feeling at the sacrifice of the dearest interests and most sacred rights of another portion who cau doubt that the Union would be seriously endan gered, if not destroyed! But this conclusion does not depend upon reasoning alone—The evidences of public sentiment on this point are equally abundant and decisive. Y’our committee having already extended their report beyond the limits to which they could have wished to confine jt, will enter into no details upon this portion of their duty. Suffice it to say that the Legislatures of several, if not of all, the slaveholding States, have solemnly resolved that “ Congress has no consti tutional authority to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.” It would be utterly impossible, therefore, that any such attempt should be made by Congress without producing an excitement, and involving consequences, which no patriot can contemplate without the most painful emotions. It would be regarded by the slaveholding States as an entering wedge to a scheme of general emancipation, and therefore, tend to produce the same results, in relation to the Federal Govern ment and the Union, that would be produced by the adoption of any measure directly affecting the domestic institutions of the States themselves. Your committee will not dwell upon the picture that is thus presented to their minds. The reflec tion it excites is one of umningled bitterness and horror. It is one, they trust, which is never to be realized. Looking upon their beloved coun try, as it now' stands, the envy and admiration of the world ; contemplating, as they do, that unri valled constitution, by which a beauteous family of confederated States, each independent in its own separate sphere, revolve around a Federal head with all the harmony and regularity of the planetary system; and knowing, as they do, that under the beneficent influence of our free insti tutions, the people of this country enjoy a degree of liberty, prosperity, and happiness, uotonly un possessed, but scarcely imagined, by any other upon earth; they cannot and will not advert to the horrors, or depict the consequences of that most awful day, when the sun of American freedom shall go down iu blood, aud nothing remain of this glorious Republic but the bleeding, scattered, and dishonored fragments. It would indeed be the extinction of the world’s last hope, and the jubilee of tyranny over all the earth. But your committee feel, that with these pain ful impressions on their minds, they W'ould but imperfectly discharge their duty if they did not make an earnest appeal to the patriotism of the American People to sustain the resolution adopt ed by the House. And they would also appeal to the good sense and good feelings of that portion of the abolitionists, who acting under a mistaken sense of moral and religious duty, have embarked in this crusade against the South, solemnly invo king them in the name of our common country, to abstain from a system of agitation which has not only failed, aud will always fail, to attain its objects, but has even brought the Union itself into a state of imminent and fearful peril. It is Con fidently believed that this appeal will not be made in vain, and that hereafter all who truly love their country will manifest their patriotism by avoiding this unhappy cause of discord ami disunion; and that they will make make no further exertions up on a subject, from the continued agitation of which nothing but augmented evils can result. Y'our committee conclude by reporting the fol lowing resolutions, conformably to the instructions given them by the House: Resolved, That Congress possesses no con stitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy. Resolved, That Congress ought not to inter fere in any way with slavery in the District of Co lumbia. And whereas it is extremely important and desirable, that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, for the purpose of restoring tranquility to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the fol lowing additional resolution, viz: Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, res olutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent w hatever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without either being printer) or referred, be laid upon the table, aud that no further action whatev.r shall be had thereon. Great Match Race. We are indebted to our friend, W. T. Porter, Esq. Editor of the New York Spirit of the Times, for the following particulars of the great match race between the north and south. Aug. Constitutionalist. NEW YORK, May 31,1836. You, no doubt, will be glad to hear that Bas~ combe, the Southern Champion, beat us to-day, in beautiful style, in I 49 and 7 514, carrying 114 lbs. on the Union Course. I wish you joy, —having seen Bascombe im mediately on his arrival here, I predicted his victory over any thing we had at the north, as yon will see on reference to my paper. About 40.Q00 persons were on the ground, and 100’s of TOOO’s have changed hands. In the Club Room, which I have just left, a match has just been concluded between ths ri val champions, of to-day, (Bascombe and Post Boy) to run on the 4 mile day, (next Friday)— aninside stake of $5,000 a-side, SSOO forfeit.— Mingo and Ironette. will meet them on that day in the same race. The South have met us on our own ground —beat us fairly and honorably. We give you joy.—Y r ou can excel us perhaps in horseflesh, but so far as good feeling, hospitali ty and chivalrous spirit is concerned, we defy the world. In great haste. Truly yours. Time— ls/ Heat. ‘2d Heat. 2m. 2s. 2m 1 56 1 565. 1 54 1 56 1 57 159 j 7 49 751 j [From the N. Y. Courier and Enquirer.] THE RACES. The great trial of speed between the North and South came off" yesterday' on the Union Course, L. .1. Never since the great race be tween Eclipse and Henry, has the sporting world been so much excited. Confident of success, the pai tizans of the north Lad for some days past been most liberal in their bets inorder to induce the Southern sportsmen to back their favorite steed, but without effect. The Southrons un derstood their game, and played it well. Flush ed with the anticipations of an easy victory, the the backers of the northern horse, at length were inconsiderate enough to propose largo odds mthe event, three to two were freely of sered and as freely accepted, and bets to an en ormous amount were consequently made. John Bascombe, a horse of great Southern celebrity, was the selected champion of that part of the Union, whilst Post Boy, of equal distinction on the turf, was the chosen favorite of the North ern sportsmen. At an early hour yesterday, the steamboats were crowded with vehicles of every description from the coach and four, down to the humble cart, and with pedestrians of all sorts and sizes. The road from Brooklyn to the race course presented a most lively scene, and from the hours often to one, a living stream appeared to pass along it, the number of spectators on the course is variously estimated from fifteen to twenty thousand, and the scene was one of the most exciting ever witnessed. The backers of Post Boy were prodigal in their offers to bet, and found ready customers. At a few minutes before two o’clock the bu gle sounded a call for the competitors, find the steeds were brought to the starting post. They both appeared to be in perfect condition. John Bascombe is a bright chrsnut, and Post Boy. a dark Bay. On the tap oftlie drum .they start ed in beautiful style, and at a rattling pace, Post Boy taking the inner track. At the end of the first half mile Bascombe took the lead and kept it during the whole heat, coming in at least fifty yards ahead of his antagonist. Neither of the horses appeared to be the least distressed. The backers of Post Boy still retained confidence in their favorite, and offered trifling odds that he would win the succeeding heat. Their oppo nents were not slow in accepting their offers, and bets to a considerable amount were again made on the event. The time of running the first heat was seven minutes, forty-nine seconds, in the following proportions— -Ist mile, 2 minutes, 2 seconds. 2d do 1 do 56 do 3d do 1 do 54 do 4th do 1 do 57 do 7 49 At the end of thirty' minutes, the horses were again summoned by the bugle to the starting post. Bascombe made a false start and ran nearly a quarter of a mile before he was stop ped, and being again placed, at the usual signal both started in beautiful style—Bascombe tak ing the inner track and leading. Never on any occasion was a more beautiful race than this seen. Throughout the whole 4 miles the hors es were close on each other. Occasionally Bas combe would increase his speed and leave his rival a few lengths behind, but bythe appli cation of the whip and spur, Post Boy was ur ged to his former position, and although repeat ed attempts were made to push him ahead of Bascombe, they were always defeated by the consummated skill of the latter’s rider. The last mile was gloriously contested. Bas combe still continued the even, easy, fox-like pace with which he set out, and Post boy close at his side, straining every nerve to outstrip his adversary, but in vain ; they reached the win ning post almost neck and neck, but Bascombe still being ahead, was declared the winner. The period in which this heat was run was seven minutes, fifty-one and a half seconds, and the time of doing each mile was as follow’s: Miles Minutes, Seconds. Ist 2 00 2d 1 56 3d 1 56 4th 159 i 751 J The age of the horses is rising five years; both are beautifully’ formed, but Post Boy ajv pears most powerful. Bascombe was rode by Willis, the groom of Col. Johnson; and Post Boy by Kirkpatrick, of great celebrity on the Northern courses. It is generttlly admitted that a more beautiful race was never run on the Un ion course, and every body, except the losers, and they bore their reverses with great philoso phy, left the ground perfectly satisfied with the day’s sport. [From the New York, Evening iS/ai;.] The llaccs.— A dear, cold day—wind high, ground damp and heavy, we would have bet tht>’ long odds against the Southerli horse, fully pefr suaded that he would have had chills and fever, and could not stand the thermometer, at 60 tjeg. 2 minutes, 2 seconds. 1 do 56 do 1 do 54 do 1 do> 57 do 7 514