Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

From the X. -Y. Herald. Senator Toombs’ lecture in Boston. jit/j ter y—lts Constitutional status and Its influence on Society awl the African Hue. The Honorable Robert Toombs, United States Senator from Georgia, recently delivered a lecture on slavery in the Treinont Temple, Boston. Our special reporter sent us a telegraphic report yti it and of Mr. Toombs’ reception. Since then we have received a full report of the lecture, which is of sufficient importance to give in extenso. Mr. Toombs said: 1 propose to submit to you this evening some considerations and reflections upon two points : 1. The constitutional powers and duties of the federal government in relation to domestic sla very. 2. The influence of slavery, as it exists in the United States, upon the slave and society. Under the first head I shall endeavor to show that Congress has no power to limit, restrain, or ill auy maimer to impair slavery; but, on the contrary, it is bound to protect and maintain it in the States where it exists, and wherever else the flag floats and its jurisdiction is paramount. On the second point, I maintain that so long as the African and Caucassian races exist in the same society, the subordinacy of the African is the nor mal, necessary ami proper condition, and that such subordination is the condition best calcula ted to promote the highest interests and the great est happiness of both races, and consequently of the whole of society, and that the abolition of sla very under these conditions is no* a remedy of any of the evils of the system. I admit the truth of these propositions stated under the second point to be essentially necessary to the existence and permanence of the system. They rest on the truth that the white is the superior race, and the black the inferior, and that subordination, with or with out law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society; and, therefore, it is the interest of both, and especially of the black race and of the whole of society, that this status should be fixed, controlled and protected by law. The perfect equality of the superior nice, and legal subordina tion of the inferior, are the foundations on which we have erected our republican system. Its sound ness must be tested by its conformity to the sover eignty of right, the law which ought to govern all people in all countries. This sovereignty of right is justice, commonly called 'national justice—not tiie vague, uncertain imaginings of men, but na tional justice as interpreted by the written oracles, and read by the light of tl»e revelations of nature’s God. In this sense I recognize a “higher law,’’ and the duty of all men, by legal and proper means, to bring every society in conformity with it. I pro ceed to tin; consideration of the first point. The old thirteen States before the Revolution were de pendent colonies of Great Britain. Each was a separate and distinct and political community, with different laws, and each became an indepen dent and sovereign State by tin* Declaration of In dependence. At the time of the Declaration, sla very was a fact, and a fact recognized by law in each of them, and the slave trade was lawful com merce by the laws of nations and the practice of mankind. This Declaration was drafted bv a slaveholder, adopted by the representatives* of slaveholders, and did not emancipate a single Af rican slave; but on the contrary, one of the charges which it submitted to the civilized world against King George was, that he had attempted to excite domestic insurrection among us. At the time of this Declaration we had no common government. The articles of confederation were submitted to the representatives of the States eight days after wards, and were not adopted by all the States un til 1781. These crude and imperfect articles of Union sufficed t<* bring us successfully through tiie Revolution. Common danger was a stronger bond of union tlmu these articles of confederation. After that ceased, they were inadequate*io the pur poses of peace. They did not emancipate a siugle slave. The Constitution was framed by delegates elect ed by the State Legislatures. It was an emanation from the sovereign States as independent, separate communities. It was ratified by conventions of these separate States, each acting for itself. Tin* members of these conventions represented the sovereignty of each State, but they ware not elect ed by the whole people of either of the Slates. Mi nors* women, slaves, Indians, Africans, bond and free, were excluded from participating in this act of sovereignty; neither were all the white male in habitants over twenty one years allowed to partici pate iu it. Some of them were excluded because they had forfeited the right; others because they had uot the requisite qualifications; others, again, for still more objectionable reasons. None exer cised this high privilege except those upon whom each State, for itself, had adjudged it wise, safe and prudent to confer it. My this Constitution these States granted to the federal government certain well dciiued and clearly specified powers, in order to. “make a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence and general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to (themselves and theiri posterity.” And with great wisdom and forethought, itlaysdown a plain, certain and suffi cient rule so: its own interpretation, by declaring that “the powers herein delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to tiie States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is, therefore, a limited government. It is lim ited expressly to the enumerated powers and such others only, “which shall he necessary and proper to carry into execution” the enumerated powi is. The purposes for which these powers were granted can neither increase nor dimmish them. If any one or all of these powers were to fail by reason of toe inefficiency of the granted powers to secure them, that would be a good reason for a new grant, but could never enlarge the granted powers. That declaration was itself a limitation, instead of an enlargement, of these powers. If a power expressly granted is used for any other purpose than those de clared, such use would be a violation of the grant, and a fraud on the Constitution. There is nothing within the scope of the powers or purposes of the Constitution which gives the slightest sanction to any anti-slavery action of Congress. The history of the times, and the debates in the convention which framed the Constitution, show that the whole subject was much considered by them, and “perplexed them in the extreme,” and* that those provisions of the Constitution whicli related to it were earnestly considered by the State conventions which adopted it. Incipient legislation providing for emancipation had already been adopted by some of the States ; Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished by her Bill of Rights. The African slave trade had already been legisla ted against Ih many of the States, including Vir ginia, Maryland and North Carolina, the largest slaveholding States. The public mind was un questionably tending towards emancipation. This feeling displayed itself in the South as well as the North. Some of the delegates from the present alaveholding States thought that the power to abolish, not only the African slave trade, butslave rr m the States, ought to be given to the Federal Government; and that the Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of ilie most promi nent objections to it by Luther Martin, a distin- member of the convention from Maryland; and Mr. Mason, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his emancipation principles. Mr. Madison sympathised to a great extent, to a much greater extent, than some of the representatives of Mas sachusetts m this anti-slavery feeling. Hence, we find that anti-slavery feelings were extensively in dulged by many members of the convention, both from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. But it rather concerns us to know what was the collective will of the whole as affirmed by the so vereign States, not what were the opinions of in dividual men in the convention. We wish to know what was done by the whole, not what some of the members thought was best to be done. The result of the struggle was, that not a single clause was inserted in the Constitution giving power to toe Federal Government anywhere, either to abol ish, limit, restrain, or in any other manner to im pair the system of slavery in the United States; but on the contrary, every clause which was in serted in the Constitution on this subject, does in fact, and was so intended, either to increase it. to strengthen it, or to protect it. To support these positions, I appeal to the Constitution itself, to the ootemporaneous and all subsequent authorative interpretations of it. The Constitution provides for the increase of slavery by prohibiting the sus pension of the slave trade for twenty years after Its adoption. It says in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article, “ that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1838, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.” After that time it was left at the discre tion of Congress to prohibit or not to prohibit the African slave trade. The extension of this traffic in Africans from 1800 to 1808 was voted for by the whole of the New England States, including Mas sachusetts, and opposed by Virginia and Delaware, and the clause was inserted by the votes of the New England States. It fostered an active and profitable trade for New England capital and enterprise for twenty years, by which a 1 large addition was made to the numbers of the original stock of Africans in the States—thereby it increased slavery in the United States. This , clause of the Constitution, which specially favored it, was one of those clauses which was protected against amendments by article fifth. Slavery is strengthened by the third clause se cond section, of first article, which fixes the basis of representation according io the numbers, pro vi ding that the members “shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, in cluding those bound to service for a term of years and excluding Indians not taxed, threedifths of all other persons.” This provision strengthens slavery by giving the existing slaveholding Stales many more representatives in Congress than they would have if slaves were counted onlv as property. This provision was much debated,'but finally adopted, with the full understanding of its import, by a great majority. The Constitution protects it impliedly by witholding all power '() injure its duration; but it protects it expressly by the third clause of the second section of the fourth article, bv the fourth section of the fourth article, and by the fifteenth clause of the eighth section of the first article. The third section pro vides that “no person held to service or labor in one State, by the laws thereof, escaping into anoth er, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” The fourth section of the fourth article provides that Congress shall protect each State “on appli cation of the Legislature, or of the Execu tive, when the Legislature is not convened against domestic violence.” The fifteenth clause of the eighth section of the first article makes it the duty of Congress to provide for calling forth of toe militia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and repel in vasions. The first cf these three clauses last re ferred to protects slavery bv following the escap ing slave into non-slaveholaing States and return ing him to bondage ; the other clauses place the whole military pewer of the republic in the hands of the federal government to repress “ domestic violence” and “insurrection.” Under this Constitution, if he flies to other lands the supreme law follows, captures and returns him. It he resists the law by which he is held in bon dage, the same Constitution brings its military power to his subjugation. There is no limit to this protection; it must be protected as long as any of the States tolerate domestic slavery, and the Constitution unalitered endures. None of these clauses admit of misconception or doubtful consruc tion. They were not incorporated into the charter of our libities by surprise or inattention—they were each ami all of them introduced into that body, debated, referred to committees, reported upon and adopted. Our construction of them is sup ported by one unbroken and harmonious current of decisions and adjudications by the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the gov ernments, State and federal, from President Wash ington to President Pierce. Twenty representa tives in the Congress of the United States hold their seats to-day by virtue of one of these clauses. The African slave trade was caned on the whole appointed period under another. Thousands of slaves have been delivered up under another, and it is a just cause of congratulation to the whole country that no occasion has occurred to call into action the remaining clauses which have been quoted. These constitutional provisions were generally acquiesced in, even bv those who did not approve them, until a new and less obvious question sprung out of the acquisition of Territory. When the Constitution was adopted, the question had been settled in the Northwest Territory by the articles of cession of that Territory by the State of Vir ginia; and at that time the United States had not an acre of land for which to legislate except a dis puted claim over the Southwestern boundary, which will hereafter be considered in its appropri ate connection. The acquisition of Louisiana de volved upon Congress the necessity of its Govern ment. This duty was assumed and performed for the general benefit of the whole country, without challenge or question, for nearly seventeen years. Equity and good faith shielded it. But in I*Blo— years after the adoption of the Constitution upon the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, the extraordinary pretension was for the first time asserted by a majority of the non slaveholding States, that Congress had not only the power to prohibit the extension of slavery into ihe new Territories of the republic, but that it had the power to compel new States seeking admission into the Union to prohibit it in their own Consti tutions, and mould their domestic policy in all re spects to suit the opinions, whims or caprices of the Federal Government. This novel ana extraor dinary pretension subjected the whole powers of Congress over the Territories to the severest criti cism. AbundanUouthoiity was found iu the: Con stitution to manage this common domain merely o • property. The 2d clause, 3d section of the 4th article, de clares “that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations re specting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States ;* and nothing in this Consti tution shall he so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States of any particular State;” but this clause restricted bv its terms the action of Congress over it. It is here considered only as property, and gave Congress no political power to govern it. This construction has the sanction of the highest judicial authority of the land. Congress was then driven to look for power to govern it in the necessity and propriety of it as a mode of executing the express power to make treaties. The right to acquire Territory under the treaty making power was itself an implication, and an implication whose rightfulness was denied by Mr. Jefferson, who exercised it. The right to govern being claimed as an incident of the righ to acquire, was then but an implication of an im plication ; and then the power to exclude slavery therefrom was still another implication from toe fountain of all power (express grant). But wheth er the power to prohibit slavery in the common Territories be claimed from the one source or the other, it cannot be sustained upon any sound role of constitutional construction. The power is not expressly granted. Then, unless it can be shown to be both “necessary and proper” in order to the just execution of a granted power, the constitution al argument against it is complete. This remains to be shown by the advocates «*f this power. Ad mit (he power in Congress to govern the Territo ries until they shall be admitted as States iuto the Union—derive it either from the clause of the Constitution last referred to, or from the treaty making power—still this power to prohibit slavery is not incident to it in either case, because it is neither necessary nor proper to its execution. That it is not necessary to execute the treaty making power, is shown from the fact that that power not only was never used for this purpose, but can be wisely and well executed without it, and has been repeatedly used to increase and protect slavery. The acquisition of Louisiana and Flori da are* examples of its use without the exercise of this pretended necessity and proper incident. Nu merous treaties and conventions with both savage and civilized nations, from the foundation of the government, demanding and receiving indemnities for injuries to this species of property, is conclu sive against this novel pretension. That it is not necessary to the execution of the power to make “needful rules and regulations respecting the ter ritory and other property of the United States,” is proven from the fact that seven territories have been governed by Congress and trained into sover eign States without its exercise. It is not proper, because it seeks to use an implied power for other and different purposes from any specified, express ed or intended by the grantors. The puniose is avowed to be to limit, restrain, weaken, ana finally to crush out slavery; whereas, the grant expressly provides for strengthening and protecting it. It is not proper, because it violates the fundamental conditions of the Union—the eauality of the States. The States of the Union are all political equals— each State has the same right as every other State —no more, no less. The exercise of this prohibi tion violates this equality and violates justice. By the laws of nations, acquisitions, either by purchase or conquest, even in despotic governments, enure to the benefit of all the subjects of the States. The reasou for this, given by the most approved public ists, is that they are the fruits of the common blood and treasure. This prohibition destroys this equality, excludes a part of the joint owners from an equal participa tion and enjoyment of the common domain, and against justice and right, appropriates it to the greater number. Therefore, so far from being a necessary and proper means of executing granted powers, it is an arbitrary and despotic usurpation against the letter, the spirit, and declared purposes , of the Constitution. The exercise neither “pro motes a more perfect union, nor establishes justice, nor insures domestic tranquillity, nor provides for ( the common defence, nor promotes the general . welfare, nor secures the blessings of liberty to our selves or our posteritybut, on the contrary, it . puts in jeopardy ail these inestimable blessings, ! and does uot even emancipate a single African j slave. Penning them up ana stowing them in the i old States, may make them more wretched and j misefable, but it docs not strike a chain from the j limbs of one of them, ft is not only a great wrong to the white race, but the refinement of cruelty to the black. Expansion is as necessary to the in creased comforts of the slave as to the prosperity of the master. The constitutional construction of the South does no wrong to any portion of the republic, to no sound rules of construction, and promotes all the declared purposes of the Constitution. We sim ply propose that common territories be left open to the common enjoyment of all tike people of the United States that they shall be protected in their persons and property by the Federal, until its au thority is superseded by a .State Constitution, and then we propose that the character of the domestic institutions of the new State be determined by the freemen thereof. This is justice—this is Contitu tional equality. Kut those who claim the power in Congress to exclude slavery from the territories, rclv rather on authority than principle to support it. They af firm, with singular ignorance of or want of fideli ty to the facts, that Congress has, from the begin ning of the goveromeut, uniformly claimed, and reputedly exercised, the power to discourage slave ry, and to exclude it from the territories. My in vestigation of the subject has satisfied my own mind that neither position is sustained by a single precedent. I exclude, of course, legislation pro hibiting the African slave trade, and I hold the or dinance of 1787 not to be within the principle as serted. For the first thirty years of our history, this general duty to protect this great interest, equally with every other, was universally admitted and fairly performed by every department of the government. The act of 171*3 was passed to se cure the delivery up of fugitives from labor esca ping to the non-slaveholding States; your naviga tion laws authorized their transportation on the high seas. The government demanded and re peatedly received compensation for the owners o slaves, for injuries sustained in these lawful voy ages by the interference of foreigu governments. It not only protected us upon the high seas, but followed us to foreigu lands, where we had been driven by the dangers of the sea, and protected slave property when thus cast even within the ju risdiction of hostile municipal laws. The slave property of our people was protected agaiust the incursions of Indians by our military power and public treaties. That clause of the treaty of Ghent which provided compensation for property destroy ed or taken bv the British government, placed slavery precisely upon the same ground with other property; and a New England man (Mr. Adams) ably and faithfully maintained the rights of the slaveholder under it at the Court of £>t. Janies. The government was administered according to the Constitution, anti not according to what is now called the “spirit of the age.” Those legisla tors looked for political powers and public duties in the organic law which political communities had laid down for their guidance and government Hu manity mongers, atheistical socialists, who would upturn the moral, social and political foundations of society, who would substitute the folly of men for the wisdom of God, were then justly consider ed as the enemies of the human race, anil as de serving the contempt, if not the execration of all mankind. Until the year 1820, our Territorial legislation was marked'by the same general spirit of fairness and justice. Notwithstanding the constant asser tions to the contrary by gentlemen from the North, up to that period no act was ever passed by consti tutional power to prevent any citizen of the United States owning slaves from removing with them to our Territories, and there receiving legal protec tion for this property. Until that time such per sons did so remove into all the Territories owned or acquired by the United States, except the North west Territory, and were there adequately protect ed. The action of Congress in reference to the or dinance of 1787 does not contravene this principle. That ordinance was passed on the 18th day of July, 1787, before the adoption of our present Constitu tion. It purported mi its face to be a perpetual compact between the State of Virginia, the people of the Territory, and the then government of the United States, and unalterable except by the con sent of all the parties. When Congress met for the first time, under the new government, on the 4th of March, 1789, it found tiio government thus established by virtue of this ordinance in actual operation; and on the 7th August, 178'.*, it passed a law making the office* of Governor and Secreta ry of the Territory conform to the Constitution of the new government. It did nothing more. It made no reference to the sixth and last section of the ordinance which inhibited slavery. _ The di* > vision of that Territory was provided for in the or ; dinunce; at each division, the whole of the ordi i nance was assigned by Congress to each of its ■ parts. This is the whole sum and substance of the free soil claim to legislative precedents. Congress f did not assert the right to alter a solemn compact ■ entered into with the former government, but gay* its consent, by its legislation, to the governments ■ established and provided for i.n tiie compact. ■ the ordinal compel was. void P.rrf.r *■*« or i:: ff t old -overmm-nt to make it. ns Mr. 514® son supposed, iJongrrtm may not have been bonrrfi to accept it—it certainly had i»o power to alter ffT From these facts and principles, it is clear that the legislation for the Northwest Territory does not conflict with the principles which I assert, and does not afford precedents for hostile legisla tion of Congress against slavery in the Territories. That such was neither the principle nor the policy upon which the act of the 7th of August, 1789, was based, is further shown by the subsequent ac tion of the same Congress. On the 2d of April, 1790, Congress, bv a formal act, accepted the ces sion made by North Carolina, of her western lands I now the State of Tennessee,) with this clause in the deed of cession : “ That no regulation made, or to he made, by Congress, shall tend to emanci pate slaves” in the ceded Territory ; anil on the o«>th of May, 1790, passed a territorial bill fi r the government of all the Mon itory claimed by the United States south of the Ohio river. The de scription of this Territory included all the lands ceded by North Carolina,‘but it embraced a great deal more. Its boundaries were left indefinite, be cause there were conflicting claims to all the rest of the territory. But this act put the whole coun try claimed bv the United States south of the Ohio under the pro-slavery clause of the North Carolina deed. The whole*action of the first Con gress in relation to slavery in the Territories of the United States seems to*have been this: It ac quiesced in a government for the Northwest Ter ritory based upon a pre-existing anti-slavery ordi ance, created a government for the country ceded by North Carolina in conformity with the pro-sla very clause lo all the rest of the Territory claimed bv the Tnited States south of the Ohio river. This legislation vindicates the first Congress from all imputation of having established the precedent claimed bv the friends of legislative exclusion. The next Territorial act which was passed was that of the 7th of April. 1798. It was the first act of Territorial legislation which had to rest solely upon original primary constitutional power over the subject. It established a government over the Territories included within the boundaries of a line drawn due cast from the mouth of the Yazoo river to the Chattahoochee river, then down that river to the thirty-first degree of North latitude, then West on that line to the Mississippi river then up the Mississippi river to the begin ning. This Territory was within the boundary of the United States as defined by the treaty of Paris, and was not within the boundary of any of the States. The charter of Georgia limited her boundary on the South to the Altamalia river. In 1703, after the surrender of her charter, her limits were extended by the crown to the St, Mary’s river, and West on the 31st degree, of North latitude to the Mississippi. In 1704, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, her boundary was again al tered, and that portion of the Territory within the boundaries which I have described, was annexed to West Florida, and thus it stood at the Revolu tion and the treaty of peace. Therefore, the United States claimed it as common property, and in 1798 passed the act now under review for its govern ment. In that act she neither claimed nor exerted any power to prohibit slavery in it And the ques tion came directly before Congress; the ordinance of 1787 in terms was applied to this territory, ex pressly “excepting and excluding the last article of the ordinance, which is the article excluding slavery from the Northwest Territory. This is a precedent directly in point, and is agaiust the ex ercise of the power now claimed. In 1802 Georgia ceded her western lands. She protected slavery in her grant, and the government complied with her stipulations. In 1803 the United States acquired Louisiana from France by purchase. There is no special re ference to slavery in the treaty; it was protected only under the general term of property. This ac quisition was, soon after the treaty, divided into two territories—the Orleans and Louisiana Territo ries—over both of which governments were estab lished. The law of slavery obtained in the whole country at the time we acquired it. Congress pro hibited the foreign and domestic slave trade in these Territories, but gave the protection of its laws to slave owners emigrating tnither with their slaves. Upon the admission of Louisiana into the Union, a new government was established by Con gress over the rest of the country, under the name of the Missouri Territory. This act also attempted no exclusion. Slaveholders emigrated to the coun try with their slaves and were protected by their government. In 1819, Florida was acquired by purchase; its laws recognised and protected slave- ry at the time of the acquisition. The United States extended the same recognition and protec tion. Such was the history of territorial legislation until the year 1820. Missouri had applied for ad mission into the Union. An attempt was then made, for the first time, to impose restrictions upon a soveripi State, and admit it into the Union upon an equal footing with her sister States, and to com pel her to mould her institutions, not according to the will of her own people, but according to the fancy of a majority in Congress. The attempt was strongly resisted, and resulted in an act pro viding for her admission, but containing a clause prohibiting slavery forever in all the territory ac quired from France outside of Missouri, and North of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude. The prin ciple of this law was a division of the common territory. The authority to prohibit, even to this extent, was denied by Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson and other leading and distinguished men of the day. It was carried by most of the Southern rep resentatives, eiunbilled with a small number »>i Northern votes. It was a departure from principle, but it savored of justice. Subsequently, upon the settlement of our claim to Oregon, it lying North of that line, the prohibition was applied. Upon the acquisition of Texas, the same line of division was adopted. But when we acquired Californi and New Mexico, the South, still willing to abide by the principle of division, again attempted to divide by the same line. It was almost unanimous ly resisted by the Northern States; their represen tatives, by a large majority, insisted upon absolute prohibition and the total exclusion of the people of the Southern States from the whole of the com mon territories, unless they divested themselves of their slave property. The result of a long and un happy conflict was the legislation of 1850. By it a large body of the representatives of the non-slave holding States, sustained by the approbation of their constituents, acting upon sound principles of constitutional construction, duty and patriotism, aided in voting down this new and dangerous usurpation—declared for the equality of the States, and protected the people of the Territories from this unwarrantable interference with their rights. Here we wisely abandoned “the shiftiug sands of compromise,” and put the rights of the people again upon the “rock of the Constitution.” The law of 1854 (commonly known as the Kan sas-Xebraska act) was made to conform to this pol icy, and but carried out the principles established in 1850. Tt righted an ancient wrong, and will re store harmony, because it restores justice, to the country. This legislation, I have endeavored to show, is just, fair and equal; that it is sustained by principle, by authority, and by the practice of our fathers. I trust, 1 believe, that when the transient passions of the day shall have subsided and reason shall have resumed he dominion, it will be approved, even applauded, by the collective body of the people in every portion of our widely extended repuiic. [concluded on fifth page.) Teiinesse° Suits Against the Slate Raiload. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE. Your committee, appointed by resolution of the Senate, in accordance with the recommendation of his Excellency the Governor, contained in his mes sage, in relation to suits, by c ertain citizens of the State of Tennessee in the courts of that State, against the State of Georgia, for alleged damages claimed to have been sustained bv those citizens, for failing to ship promptly, and for unseasonable detention of produce and merchandise owned by said citizens, and registered for shipment or trans portation over the western and Atlantic Railroad, have had those suits, the evidence and the proceed ings had therein, under consideration, and beg leave to make the following report: To have a proper understanding of the question under consideration, it will be necessary to exam ine the Legislation of the State of Tennessee, con ferring on the State of Georgia the right to con struct a part of the Western and Atlantic Railroad in that State. The State of Tennessee by act of her Legislature passed January 24th, 1838 —granted to the State of Georgia the right to extend and construct the Western and Atlantic railroad from the Georgia line to the Tennessee river, with all the privileges, ' lights and immunities, anu subject to the same re strictions, as far as thev are applicable as were F granted bv the State of Tennessee to the Hiwassec • railroad Company. The State ofTcnnessee, by act • of her Legislature, passed February 3d, 1846, con • ferred upon the State of Georgia, so far as the 4 Western and Atlantic railroad is concerned, all the • rights, privileges and immunities, with the same 4 restrictions as were conferred by that State on t the Nashville and Chattanooga railroad Company. 4, By virtue of the privileges conferred by these • acts, thevStnte of Georgia constructed a portion fcj-lfc; ?|** mestem and Atlantic railroad in the the Terms specified in - the '«bora reci*~d act. Your committee are ot l the opinion, that the State of Georgia by accept ing the terms, privileges and immunities, as well as the restrictions specified in the acts above men tioned, become liable to be sued in the Courts of Tennessee, and consented to waive so much of her sovereignty, as to authorize suits to be brought in those Courts, for causesVf action arising in the State of Tennesseee, for injuries, default negli gence on the part of the Agents of the \N esteni and Atlantic railroad. Your committee are of the opinion that the causes of these suits originated for the want of a sufficient equipage of locomo tives and cars to transact the business of the road. In the vear 1852, the amount of produce offered for transportation over the Western and Atlantic railroad was very large, and the facilities of the road for doing u heavy business were very limited. The road was mainly dependent for freight cars, on the Georgia, Macon and Western, and Central railroads, which roads, to some extent, claimed and exercised the right to prescribe the quality of freigiits transported in their respective cars. In consequence or the exercise of this right, great difficulty arose in transporting the freights over the road in the order of their registry, and most of the suits submitted to our examination were predica ted on a claim for damages in behalf of the plaintiff s for non-shipment of produce, registered by them for transportation over the road, within a reasona ble time, and in the order of their registry. An nexed to this report is a statement of a number of suits brought, for what brought, of the amount claimed, and of those determined: how much re covered, together with a brief of the evidence, in those cases, and the proceedings had therein. The suits have been brought not against the State of Geor gia, as defendant, but again the Western and At lantic road, which your committee consider irregu lar and erroneous, inasmuch as there is no such natural person as the Western and Atlantic rail road, neither has there been created by the Legis lation of the State of Georgia or Tennessee, any such artificial person or corporation; for all the rights, privileges and immunities conferred by the State of Tennessee, were conferred upon the State of Georgia, and not upon a company called the Western and Atlantic railroad. The Western and Atlantic railroad, is not a Company or Corporation —but simply the name of a line of railroad, ex tending from the city of Atlanta to the city of Chattanooga, and is the property of the State of Georgia; consequently, we are or the opinion, that there is, and was, no defendant in these cases, and the proceedings had therein, were, and are void as against the State of Georgia, and the judgments had thereon of no binding force or effect upon the property of the State of Georgia, situated in Ten nessee orelsewhere. Most of the cases decided, have been determined by submission to arbitrators. Your Committee would recommend, that the cases still pending, be vigorously defended in the Courts of Tennessee; and that no more of them be submit ted to arbitration. Your Committee would further recommend that the road be equipped in such a manner as to enable the agents to transact the business offered, with dispatch and promptness, which, we believe, would largely increase the pro fits of the road, and greatly benefit the citizens of our own State residing on that line of the road. We would further recommend, that a freight list be established, graduated in proportion to the dis tance, which freights are carried over that road. Your Committee are divided in opinion on the question, as to whether Georgia ought, or not, to sell, or dispose of, that portion of the \Y es tern and Atlantic railroad lying in the State of Tennessee; and upon that subject, beg leave to make no further report. All of which is respectfully submitted. F. 11. Cone, Chairman. Thackery says he once had an idea of collecting all the lies*the’English told about the French, and the French about the English in the Napoleonic period—but he shrank from the task. Bavard Taylor will clear $3,000 during the fall and ‘winter; John G. Saxe upwards of $2,000; and Rev. T. Star King SI,OOO. Making due al lowance for probable exaggeration, these figures show conclusively that the business of lecturing pays well. M. Maedler, the author of the recent investiga tion with reference to the central sun, reaches the conclusion that Alcoyne, the principal star in the group Pleiades, now occupies the centre of gravi ty, and is at present the sun about which all the universe of stars revolve. [communicated.] Milledgeville, 11th Feb;, 1850. Mr. Gardner —Dear Mr: I see in the daily ConstUutionulist of the 9th and 10th instant, which was handed me to-day, a report purporting to be the position taken by myself and others, for and against the Iliwassee Railroad Bill. Your reporter erred in stating my position, and in using language I never used. I opposed the bill from the begin ning. First, I moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and stated, as a reason for so doing, that the passage of the bill would be injurious to the State of Georgia. I then went on to show that some time between 1830 and 1835, there was a con vention of six or seven States, to wit: South Caro- j lina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Ken tucky and Ohio, assembled at Knoxville, in the State of Tennessee, for the purpose of constructing < a railroad from some point on the Atlantic coast, j south of the Alleghany Mountains, to Cincinnati, , Ohio. When the convention met, Charleston was j the starting point insisted upon by the convention, < and the road to cross the Blue Ridge and Alle- i ghanv Mountains, east of the State of Georgia, } then to Cincinnati, Ohio; then the Georgia dele- , gation, as I bad understood, withdrew from the < convention, held a meeting of their own, and ad- 1 joumed to meet in the city of Macon, and State of , Georgia. There it was that the magnificent plan was adopted to construct the railroads from Augusta to Atlanta, and from Savannah to Macon, and from Macon to Atlanta, and from Atlanta northwest through the wilderness of the Cherokee country, to the Tennessee State line, and that this magnifi cent plan was carried out by the Legislators of the State of Georgia, and by the industry of the people of our own State, they had built their own road. With their own labor and capital, the State of Georgia had built the Western and Atlantic Rail road ; and now these roads are built, and the pro duce of the great valley of the West is running down its natural channel to the Atlantic ports, south of the Alleghany Mountains, in search of a highway to foreign markets. Then it was that I said Georgia occupies a gap between the Atlantic and the spurs of the Alleghany Mountains; that she bad the key to unlock the commerce of the West, and bring down upon the Atlantic coast the rich produce of the West. The geography of the State was the guide that directed our patriotic an cestors to engage s» extensively in railroad enter prise. In the meantime. South Carolina and the Cincinnati people got their railroad charter, with their banking privilege, and surveyed almost every gap across the Blue Ridge, from Georgia almost to Virginia, but all in vain. She could not find a gap through which she could pass until 1850. The Legislature of Georgia granted a charter to the county of Rabun, which connected the South Car o lina Railroad with the North Carolina and Tennes see Railroad, to Knoxville. South Carolina has appropriated one million of dollars to the building of that road, and passed a bill to loan her bonds to the Company for one million and a half more, making two million and a half dollars to the build ing of the road from Anderson, through Pickens by Rabun, and on to Knoxville. Then it was I said, now, Mr. Speaker, if the charter is granted, the road from Clayton to Knoxville will not bo built. Instead of going north to Knoxville, under the old charter, the bill now upon your table pro poses to go west to the Copper Mines, and from the Copper Mines, there is a c harter to Cleveland ; this road would be west from the mines to Cleve land, and would strike the Iliwassee Railroad in Tennessee, eighty or one hundred miles south of Knoxville, and near the head of the Western and Atlantic Railroad; and a little further west, this link of road would tap the Western and Atlantic . Railroad at Chattanooga; by the passage of that . bill, you give a direct line from Nashville through » Uuion and Rabun, to Charleston. The building of i the road would not be by the people ot Union county, nor not for their special benefit; but it I I would be for the benefit of a Northern State and . Northern Yankees, who have taken stock in the road. The granting of that charter would be dis t criminating against the State of Georgia and . against the people. Between the Western and At e lantic Railroad and the Georgia Railroad, and the c mountains, the granting of that charter would vir o tually be a repeal of all the charters between the a line of road, and the chain contemplated by the bill. 1 ask, in all candor, is it right to discrimi e nate against our own people, ami in favor of a n Northern State and a Northern Company ? My rule e is to legislate so as to do the greatest good to the n greatest number. Union county has a railroad ,f charter, northeastern Georgia has a charter, my . coonfv and the counties below, have railroad char | tors. 'Wfiy not utf build *mr road from the main - trunk? Why discriminate against usV Why dis f criminate against the State of Georgia ? lam for • free trade and equal rights. We tender to Tennes : see and South Carolina the facility for trade und , commerce through our State ; but we want to be recipients of that trade. If the bill passes, all the trade that passes down the Western and Atlantic Railroad, for the South Carolina or Charleston markets, would be a loss to the State; near half of the produce from Chattanooga would be driven off upon this road, to the injury of our own State. Sir, lam opposed to the bill; it is wrong in prin ciple. It never shall be said to me, or my offspring, that I sold my birthright for a mess of pottage. When the time comes that we witness the injury inflicted by the passage of the bill; when you turn to the Journals to see who done it, if my head is beneath the turf, I want my vote to stand recorded against the bill. If l stand alone to-day upon this question, 1 will stand erect, conscious tliat I have discharged my dutv as a Representative. It does seem to me, that a large majority is against me. I ask gentlemen to look close into this matter. I intend to oppose the bill at every point. lam a Georgian in principle; lam a Georgian in interest. I am for mv people and my State first, then I am for my neighboring State. If the bill was for the purpose of giving only to Union county railroad facility, there is not a man here that would oppose it. This road, if built, would not carry off the trade or the produce of Georgia soil, except a por tion from Union ; but, sir, it would be the great thoroughfare from Charleston via Rabun Gap, through Union to Nashville and Memphis. Union county is only used as an excuse to build this main trunk, which would come in competition with our section of railroads from the Atlantic through our State to Chattanooga, then to Nashville and to Memphis. This bill, if passed, would divide the trade and freight at the head of vour own road between Charleston and Savannah. I desire to see the road built from the Rabun Gap to Knox ville, and from Knoxville to Cincinnati, Ohio. That would bring down into Georgia and South Carolina, the trade from East Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. Through the Rabun Gap, the North- East Railroad and the South Carolina Railroad would divide the trade at this Gap—and both Georgia and South Carolina might be benefittod , by the building of this Road. Not so with the ; bill now upon your table, which runs west only to , tap our own roads at their head; to divide the trade which is ours by the decrees of Nature’s God. These are rights we have according to lo cality. Are you prepared to give them away? , The building of that Road would injure the West ern and Atlantic Railroad—l mean it would take off the freight from that Road, to the injury of the i State,-—not less than from one hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand dollars annually. Are we prepared to discriminate against our own State? 1 Tne motion to postpone indefinitely, was lost. I offered several amendments to the bill; the last one was to prohibit the connection with the Rabun Gap, for which an amendment was offered and ac- j cepted, to prevent the connection of this Road 1 with any South Carolina Railroad, only by the way j of Augusta. This amendment was lost, by one vote. "The bill then came up, upon its passage, and was lost. Upon the motion to reconsider— my language has been misunderstood and misrep resented—l hope not intentionally. Yours, Ac., _ J. PICKETT. [communicated.] Decatur, Ga., Feb. 1856. Mr. Editor: Much has been remarked of the se verity of the weather of this winter. In our village on Monday morning, 4th inst., ( the thermometer stood at 2° above zero. Tuesday , morning, sth inst., 4° above zero. Few, if any, colder mornings hare been experi enced since the memorable 7th and Sth of Febru ary, 1835. My thermometer, in the same location at sunset on the 7th February, 1835, stood 5° above zero. Nine o’clock at night,, at 5° below zero. At sun rise Sunday morning, Bth February, 10° below zero. There is no mistake in the above record, either as to time or degrees, or the year being 1885. Respectfully, Lbti Willard. Distressing Homicide.—The most distressing homicide we ever heard of, occurred in this coun ty, about seven miles northeast of Lebanon, on last Monday morning was a week ago, between Rufus Watson and his three sons on the one side, and two sons of John New, on the other. The un fortunate difficulty occurred in a school room. Young New, aged about nineteen years, was shot through the heart and expired immediately; and his little brother, seme thirteen or fourteen years of age, was almost literally cut to pieces—receiving no less, we learn, than seven dangerous wounds, every one of them penetrated to the hollow. Strange as it may appear, he is stilt living, and hopes are entertained of his recovery. Kufua Watson received the contents of a pistol, loaded with bird shot ; in the breast, but was not seriously hurt. The difficulty ftv w ont of an old grudge that has existed for rears bqfljveen the heads of the respective families. Wafson and his sons were tried at Taylorsville on Friday last.JOn hearing the evidence, the Corn* held them to bail in the sum of $4,000. One of the boys was bailed out; but the other two and the father, failing to give bail, were committed te jail to await their trial at the next term of the Cir cuit Court. As the matter is to undergo judicial investiga tion, we refrain, at present, from giving the partic ulars. We may remark, however, that, in our opinion, the evidence in the case will prove it to bo one of the most horrible and huart-rending affairs that ever occurred in a civilized community. Lebanon ( Tenn .) Herald. _ COMMERCIAL. _ CHARLESTON, Feb. 14.— Cotton. —Our quota tions were carefully revised at the close of busi ness, and those we offer below, it will be seen, es tablish an advance for the week on most qualities of The receipts since our last comprise 13,348 bales, against the sale in the same time of 12,900 bales. We quote ordinary to good ordinary low to strict middling ; good middling ; middling fair lU@IOX ; and fair 10}$ cents. Bice. —The subjoined quotations will show the state of the market: Ordinary to fair3X@4%; good 4)£(<|4*£; and prime and* choice 4%@ —. Corn. —This article has been very much neglect ed since our last, and the transactions, limited as they have been, sho>v a languid and drooping mar ket. Some 3,500 bushels North Carolina, held over from the previous week, and 1,500 bushels receiv ed since our last, have beee sold within the range of our quotations, viz: 70@75c. The receipts or railroad comprise 12,000 bushels, a portion of wliicn has been sold at prices ranging from 75(&78c., sacks included. Pea?.—There was received from North Carolina a small lot, 400 bushels, which were sold at 90c. Ifr bushel. W heat. —The market has been in a state of com plete stagnation throughout the week just brought to a close, and prices have a decided downward tendency. Good Red may be quoted nominally at $1.70@51.7f1. Hay. —The receipts since our last comprise some 350 bales North River, which were sold at $1.40 # 10“ lbs., which shows a heavydecline on previous transactions. Flour. —This article has been very much neglect ed since our last. The sales have been wOmined solely to small lots to supply the home trade, prin cipally at SB% U barrel, for good brand*. We quote in barcls, extremes, sß.so(«<ss, and in bagsu $4.25@54.37%c. The receipts this wcekby Railroad comprise 87“ barrels. Bacon. —The transactions have been very limit ed for the want of a stock. As an evidence of the scarcity of the article we may remark that the sale* have been limited to some 17 hhds. Shouldered which were sold at 10)-£c. Lard.— We have no transactions to notice in Western, which may be quoted at 11%@12c. in kegs. Tennesse has' declined in price, and may now'be quoted at bbls. and kegs, and in cans nominally at 14c. ‘ Domestic Liquors.—VLe note small sales of Wes ■ tern Whisky from first hands at prices ranging * from 43 to 45c. gallon. 1 Sugars. —The receipts since our last comprise * some 800 hhds. Louisiana, the bulk of which has ’ been run off in small lots, at prices ranging nrin p cipallv from 8% to as in quality, and Clari *■ tied from 10 to 10j _c. P Coffee. —We have no transactions to report. . Molasses. —The receipts since our last comprise c 1500 bbls. New Orleans, and 128 hhds. and 20 tea. ’* Cuba. About the half of the former has been e sold at prices ranging from to 44c. The lat .e ter had been sold to arrive on terms not made pub l* lie, but was subsequently re-sold at prices ranging ;l from 39} j to 41c. e Exchange*. —Sterling continues to show nn im ® provement. The market, which opened at 8(«78}& d closed yesterday at &‘*4<&B}4c. Francs are quoted y at 5.27 k. Freight*. —The rate, which in the early part of 1 the week was at 7-lGths. for Cotton ia s»puuv bag* ■ to Liverpool, subsequently declined to 13-32 d. A vessel was engaged to load for Havre at %c„ w hich is also a decline on previous rates. We quote to New York, Cotton %c.; Rice $1.25 tierce and to Boston y x e. for the former and $1.50 tierce for the latter. SAVANNAH, Feb. B.— Cotton. —Arrived since the 7th ult., 10,440 bales Upland. The exports for the same period amount, to 14,919 bales Upland —leaving on hand and on shipboard not cleared, a stock of 50,164 bales, against 51,242 bales Uplaud at the same time last year. The total sales of the week 6,780 bales, at the following particulars :3 at 7j.1, 17 at 7% y 207 at 8, I S at S}£ 313 at BK, 29 at 8%, 425 at BX, 1029 at 9, 257 at »}<, 1045 at 9#, 48" at 9%, 326 at 9 7-16, 901 at 370 at 10c. y lb. QUOTATIONS: Low Middling 8 Middling Strict Middling Good Middling •/*'gf Middling Fair. 10 (<u Bice. —The market continues dull; the only sale* since our last have been 508 tierces at 4V@4%c. id lt>., principally at V{c. Corn— Is dull and depressed. The sales made were at 70c. bushel, it is retailing by the single sack at 90c., though a good article commands a higher figure. There is a very heavy stock of mixed Corn on hand, and but very little white un mixed. Molasses. —Several parcels have arrived from Cuba this week, (the first of the season,) a portion of which was disposed of at 43 cents# gallon. It is selling from stores at 46 to 47c. We quote for New Orleans 45 to 50 cents y gallon. Sugar—A few packages of Cuba, the first of the crop, arrived this week on private account. There is no stock on sale. Os New Orleans the stock is too light to establish quotations. Clarified is held at 10}£(g;12 cts. y tb. Exchange.— Sterling is quoted at 8 a W ct. pre mium. The Banks are selling sight cfiecKs on all Northern cities at % per cent, prem., and purcha sing New York sight bills at M dis.; 5 days at }£; 3o days at %@1 per cent.; 60 days at \% • 90 days 4 J Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore, 60 day bills at y cent, discount. Freights.— We quote to Liverpool 15-32d(frV£<L in English, and >£d. in American vessels; to Havre 1 cent for square, and cent for round. The coastwise rates are, to Boston 9-16 c.; to New York by steamships }4c. y and in sailing vessels 7-16 c.; to Philadelphia 9-16, and Baltimore Me. for Cotton. GRIFFIN, Feb. 13. — Cotton. —Since the receipt of the Persia’s accounts, our market is very active, with an advance of )i(&% c. We quote 7to 9cts. SUMTER, February 13.—Cotton Statement.— Amount of Cotton shipped on the Southwestern Railroad, from this place, from October to the present date: To Savannah 25,375 bales. Macon 2,486 u Total 27,861 “ RECEIVED AT THE WAREHOUSES: At Furlow, Price & Furlow’s 20,000 “ At Carmichael’s 13,000 “ Total 33,000 “ AMERICUS, Feb. 13.— Cotton. —Our market ha* been quite animated for several days past, owing to the racent favorable news from Europe. We now quote 7k@B%c., while a very fine article would command 9 cents. NEW YORK, Feb. 12— Floor —The market is quiet. Sales 0f6,000 bbls. straight State at $7.62W. and good Ohio at $8.37^. Wheat —The market is firm. Sales of 20,000 bushels at 194 cents for Southern red. Cbm—The market is lower. Sales of 20,000 bushels at 82 cents for Western mixed. Pork— The market ia languid, with sales of 600 bbls. at sl6 for mess. Beef— The market is dull, with sales of 300 bbls. at $14.50 for repacked Chicago. Whisky —The market is declining. Sales of 200 bbls. at 80 cent* for Ohio.