with legislation or any practical results. I have no faith, sir, in settling constitutional questions by resolutions, or the discussion of them, which for years past bave consumed so much of the time of the Senate. Nor do I believe, sir, that any other abstract principles, to regulate the action of Congress, or the people, can be established by resolutions, however extensively or ably they may be debated. [SENATE. Sir, I believe that the agitation of this subject here will promote agitation elsewhere, and tend to keep the public mind in an excited and feverish state. [Mr. CALHOUN wished to ask the gentleman whether he doubted the sincerity of his declaration, when he asserted that he was opposed to agitating the question.] And here I must be permitted to express some astonishment that gentlemen urge a discussion, whilst they avow that their object is to prevent agitation. When I hear that this is their object, asserted in the most solemn manner, I am bound to believe it. I trust the gentlemen I well remember, and I presume it is not forgotten by are sincere; at the same time I must be permitted to say the honorable Senator from South Carolina, a resolution that the means by which they seek to attain their end introduced by a Senator from the State I have the honor appear to me very extraordinary. Was it not for dein part to represent some years since. It was a resolu-scending from the gravity of the subject, I would say tion, I believe, in relation to the public lands, which, in that it reminded me of a person I have heard of in my the ordinary course of business, would not have occupied section of the country. A man who was very pugnathe attention of the Senate one hour, perhaps not fifteen cious and quarrelsome, who was constantly wrangling minutes. From some magic power, of which I have no with his neighbors, yet always insisted that he loved knowledge, that simple resolution in relation to the pub-peace; and so great was his anxiety for it, that he delic lands, (not a very abstract subject in itself,) was clared he would have peace with his neighbors if he had transformed into a text for a most voluminous commen- to fight for it. If I understand the views of some hontary on the theory and principles of this Government. orable gentlemen, they seem disposed to agitate this If I mistake not, this debate, which called forth the most question for the very purpose of preventing agitation. profound talent and great erudition, occupied a large portion of one session of Congress. Of the evils of that debate I forbear to speak; but what benefit the country ever derived from it I have never been able to learn, on the most diligent inquiry, unless it be that it conferred on the name of the honorable Senator, who was the unintentional cause of that debate, a most unenviable notoriety. Sir, I believe at that time, not only every man, but every woman and child, in the country were familiar with the name of Mr. Foot and his resolution; yet, notwithstanding this, I believe that gentleman had very little to do with his resolution; and although he always appears to have regarded it as a very dear child, yet the care and protection of it seems to have fallen into other and abler hands. After the failure of this great experiment, I am surprised that any one should think of settling constitutional questions by resolutions. Surely, sir, we ought to draw some lessons of wisdom from the past; and when we are about to make a similar attempt, it may be well to remember the issue of the first great experiment. But if the object of this discussion is not to settle abstract principles, I would ask what it is. Is it to quiet the public mind, and to put a stop to agitation? If I understood the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, he declared this to be his purpose. If so, I am happy to say that I can go with the gentleman heart and soul. I believe that the peace and best interests of the country, both at the North and the South, require that this agitation should cease, the public mind be tranquillized, and confidence restored. But how do gentlemen propose to obtain this desirable end? Why, it would seem, sir, that they propose to stop the agitation of this exciting question among the people by agitating it here. [Mr. CALHOUN rose to explain. He said he had not urged on a debate--he had done nothing to cause a debate-he had only made the question that the petition be not received; and, if a debate had ensued, he was not responsible for it, but those who had opposed his motion.] Mr. NILES. I did not allude particularly to that gentleman; my remarks had a more general application. The Senator from South Carolina made a motion, which he certainly had a right to make; and, although a debateable one, he is not particularly chargeable for the discussion which has taken place; nor can I say that he has himself partaken largely in this discussion. But the debate has come principally from one quarter; and until the speech, the other day, from the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HILL,] almost entirely. I alluded to the fact of this debate having been continued mainly by those who profess to feel great alarm at the agitation of this question. VOL. XII.-33 Mr. NILES. I do not doubt the gentleman's sincerity, when he so solemnly declares that he is opposed to agitating the abolition question here; yet I must claim the right to make such inferences from the course and the acts of that gentleman and his friends as I think they authorize. Sir, I hope, most sincerely hope, there is no disposi tion any where in the North or in the South to connect this exciting subject with the party politics of the day. That there is no such intention here we are fully assured. But is there no such intention elsewhere? Sir, I am sorry to say that I fear there is. I cannot shut my eyes to oc. currences of general notoriety; I cannot resist the evidence of my senses. I fear there is a spirit of mischief at work in a certain quarter at the South as well as the North: it is, I hope, in both sections, confined to a small number of individuals. Whilst It is a fact of general notoriety that there is a press in this city, the one to which the Senator from New Hamp shire referred, professedly devoted to the interests of a certain party at the South, which has long labored, with a zeal and perseverance worthy of a better cause, to agitate the public mind on the slave question, whilst it has sought to alarm the South by the grossest misrepresentations of public sentiment at the North; by magnifying the number and influence of the abolitionists; by representing them as connected with a political party, in the face of the most notorious facts, it has endeavored to encourage the abolitionists to persevere in their mischievous designs. There are also presses at the South devoted to the same party, which have pursued a similar course. these mischievous vehicles have professed the utmost abhorrence of the designs of the Northern abolitionists, and to feel the greatest alarm at the tendency of their incendiary publications, they have at the same time given a circulation through their own papers to the very worst of these publications, under a pretence of exhibiting their enormities. These papers have been circulated in the slave States, and are supported by a certain party in that section of the Union. It has been asserted by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, that he has no fears from the circulation of the tracts and other publi cations of the abolition societies at the South; that such is the state of things there, it is impossible they should be circulated. In this, I presume, the Senator is cor rect; and it is therefore fair to conclude that the principal circulation which these mischievous publications have received in the slave States has been through the columns of political papers professing to apprehend the greatest danger from the movements of the Northern abolitionists, and to feel the greatest abhorrence of their publications. How is this inconsistent and absurd conduct to be accounted for, except by supposing that there are agitators at the South who are attempting to create an excitement on the question of slavery for political purposes? These same vehicles have been urging on the South the most dangerous and preposterous measures, as being necessary for the security of the slaveholding States; measures which, if not revolutionary in their character, have an obvious tendency to such results. Sir, if there are such mischievous agents at the South, who are seeking to build up a sectional party, by appealing to the fears of the people in the slave States, and misrepresenting public sentiment at the North, they are more execrable and more dangerous than the Northern abolitionists. Sir, a Southern convention has been advocated by these men. And what can be the design of such a convention, but to increase the existing excitement, to irritate the public sensibility, and to blow the enkindling flame into a consuming fire? Can such a measure spring from sober and discreet counsels? Can it be called for to devise measures for the protection of their interests exposed by the mad schemes of the abo litionists? I think no intelligent and candid man will maintain this. There is another measure proposed at the South by a very different set of men, and whose motives I would be the last to impugn. It is, that the Legislatures of the slaveholding States have a right to demand of the nonslaveholding States the punishment of acts committed by citizens of the latter within their own jurisdiction. In a report adopted by the Legislature of South Carolina, this principle is asserted and maintained; and, in another State sustaining an elevated rank in the confederacy, there is a discussion now going on in relation to the same principle: "Your committee would be inclined to recommend to this Legislature to make an explicit demand on the non-slaveholding States, for the passage of penal laws by their Legislatures, providing for the punishment of the incendiaries within their limits, who are engaged in an atrocious conspiracy against our right of property and life. "We concur entirely in the view which our own Executive takes of the grounds on which our right to demand the enactment of such conservative legislation rests. Apart from those obligations, resulting from the constitutional compact which unites these States, and which makes it the imperious duty of one member of this confederacy not to allow its citizens to plot against the peace, prosperity, and happiness, of another member, there is no principle of international law better established than that, even among foreign nations, such atrocious abuses are not to be tolerated, except at the peril of that high and ultimate penalty, by which a brave and free people vindicate their rights." As rights and duties must be reciprocal, the right to make such demand presupposes the obligation to obey it. But supposing it is not obeyed, as it most assuredly would not be, what is then to be done? When one independent State makes demands of another, of the redress of some wrong done to it, which is refused, it then must seek redress in its own way. And the right to make the demand supposes the concomitant right to seek the redress. We have heard something in a recent report, I hardly know what, about a sort of international law which is applicable to the States. This is to me a new and strange doctrine, and, as I have no faith in it, I shall not undertake to examine it. Can a State, acting in its sovereign capacity, commit an aggressive act against the rights of [FEB. 15, 1836. another State, which will render it necessary for the lat ter, acting in its sovereign capacity, to seek redress? To state such a proposition is to refute it. If any State should so far forget its obligations to the Union, and to its co States, as by law, or otherwise, to commit any aggressive act against another State, such law would be unconstitutional and void, and could afford no justification to the persons executing it, who would be amenable in their individual capacity in the federal courts, or the courts of the State injured, if they committed any illegal act within its jurisdiction. Can the citizens of one State, whilst residing within its jurisdiction, commit any aggressive or illegal act against another State or the citizens thereof? It is clear to my mind that they cannot. What relations, then, can ever exist between the States to which the gentleman's [Mr. CALHOUN's] principles of international law can apply? I admit, however, that the citizens of one State may be guilty of an improper and unjustifiable interference in the local concerns and interests of another, and I will not deny but that there might be a case in which it would be proper for such State to restrain and punish such conduct by legal enactments. But this never can be demanded as a right; it must emanate from a spirit of comity and that sense of justice which the councils of every State must be supposed to entertain, relative to what is due to its associate States in the confederacy If such evils exist, it must be conceded that the State where they exist is the rightful and best judge of the most suitable and efficacious means to repress them, and it is to be presumed that she will not want the disposi tion to apply those means. This mutual confidence the States must repose in each other; it is the cement of the Union, and should the time ever arrive when it becomes generally impaired and destroyed, I shall despair of long preserving that political system which ought to be the pride and boast of every American, as it is the admiration of every enlightened lover of liberty on the face of the earth. Having briefly alluded to what I believe to be errors in one quarter, I will now proceed to notice those in another, and to bear my humble testimony to what I consider to be the true state of public sentiment on this interesting subject at the North. In speaking of the North, as I may do for brevity's sake, I wish to be understood as intending my remarks primarily for the State which I have the honor in part to represent; yet I think I may say, in the language of the almanac makers, that with little or no variation they will be equally applicable to the neighboring States. On this point I feel more confidence, and shall boldly speak the things which I know, and bear testimony to the things which I believe. Sir, I apprehend that public opinion on the slave question at the North, both here and in the slave States, is greatly misunderstood; and that by some, as I have al ready stated, it is grossly misrepresented. From these two causes, I fear, great evils may follow, unless the truth is made to appear. This I shall endeavor to do, so far as respects the State whence I come. I shal fearlessly give the whole truth, as I understand it, let i cut where it may or whom it may. Why is it that, at this time, there is so much excite ment and so much alarm in the slave States regarding public opinion at the North, in relation to their peculiar institutions and interests? It is owing to the conduct of a small class of men who call themselves abolitionists, and who have formed themselves into societies, the bet ter to prosecute their designs. That the conduct of these fanatics-for I think I shall show they deserve to be so considered-should have occasioned some excite ment, is not at all surprising. It was perfectly natural and probably unavoidable. At the same time I do not hesitate to declare, as my solemn conviction, that the general state of public sentiment at the North, in relation to the subject of slavery, in all its aspects and bearings, was never sounder since the establishment of this Government than it is at this moment. If I am cor. rect in this position, as I shall endeavor to show that I am, the danger to the South, if any, can be nothing more than what is to be apprehended from the immediate acts of the abolitionists, in attempting to circulate their inflammatory publications within those States. But we have been told, by the Senator from South Carolina, that this is not the evil which is apprehended; because, he says, it is impossible to circulate the publications of the abolitionists in those States. In what, then, does the danger consist? Why, the gentleman says, in agitation. It is the spreading of the sentiments of abolitionism in the non-slaveholding States, and the prevalence, among the people of those States, of opinions unfriendly, hostile, and injurious, to the institutions, to the rights, and to the character, of the people of the slave States. To prove that this is regarded as the source of the danger, I will again refer to the report from which I have once read: "Let it be admitted that, by reason of an efficient police and judicious internal legislation, we may render abortive the designs of the fanatic and incendiary within our own limits, and that the torrent of pamphlets and tracts, which the abolition presses of the North are pouring forth, with an inexhaustible copiousness, is arrested the moment it reaches our frontier, are we to wait until our enemies have built up, by the grossest misrepresentation and falsehoods, a body of public opinion against us, which it would be almost impossible to resist, without separating ourselves from the rest of the social system of the civilized world? or are we to sit down content, because, from our own vigilance and courage, the torch of the incendiary and the dagger of the midnight assassin may never be applied?" We are here informed that the danger which is apprehended is from the building up of a body of public opinion at the North, injurious to the South, and which cannot be resisted without separating the Southern States from the rest of the civilized world. But have the proceedings of the abolitionists done this? Have they tended to such a result? I think not; but their tendency has been directly to a contrary result. How have they been received? Have they not every where met with opposition? Have they not every where called forth the honest indignation of the people, the strongest expressions of their reprobation? That this has been the case, in the State whence I come, I shall endeavor to prove. At one But gentlemen seem to look to erroneous sources to discover the public sentiment at the North. time we are told that the women at the North are all turning abolitionists; that they are signing petitions to Congress, praying for the abolition of slavery in this District. If this was true, there might be cause of alarm; for they are very apt to carry the men with them. I hope, however, it will not be supposed that the females in the cold climate at the North are opposed to union, or the Union; for I verily believe they are ardently attached to both. In respect to those who send their names here as petitioners, they belong to that small class who are always meddling with matters which they do not understand, and which do not properly belong to their province. They are of those who are more busy and more anxious about the morals and religion of their neighbors than they are about their own. They are of that class who, a few years since, were petitioning in behalf of the poor Indians; and if applied to by the same agents, would as readily sign a petition, praying Congress to appropriate the whole [SENATE. surplus revenue to send missionaries to Asia. I really hope, sir, no such petition will be sent here this session, as we have now at least three projects before us for disposing of this surplus, and thus saving the virtue of the people, which, in the opinion of some, seems exposed to sink beneath the corrupting influence of this alarming surplus. I The honorable gentleman from Virginia has discovered public opinion at the North from another source, more elevated, but scarcely entitled to more reliance, as an evidence of the general state of popular sentiment on the slave question. He has had sent to him a pamphlet, written by a distinguished divine in one of the Northern States, which favors the cause abolitionism. have not seen that publication, and was not in my seat when the gentleman read certain extracts from it, and know not how far the writer carries his abolition notions. But I was surprised at the comments of the gentleman on this pamphlet. He stated that, from convers ing with many intelligent gentlemen from the non-slaveholding States, from the proceedings of public meet. ings, and other sources of information, he had come to the conclusion that the general sentiment was sound at the North, until he received the pamphlet referred to; which led him to believe that something was rotten in Denmark. [Mr. LEIGH said he had used no such language, nor conveyed any such sentiment.] Mr. NILES. I do not profess to quote the gentleman's language; I have only stated what I believe to be the substance of what the Senator said as to the influence this pamphlet had on his mind. I claim the right to use my own language to state the substance of the gentleman's remarks, and to comment upon them. I think I am not mistaken as to the import of what the gentleman said.* *Mr. LEIGH the next day read an account of this conversation or incident in a newspaper, and said that, according to that account of the occurrence, it would appear that he had been insulted, and had tamely submitted to it; although he did not then, nor did he now, beHe repeated lieve the gentleman intended any insult. his disclaimer of using the language and sentiments imputed to him. Mr. NILES said he had no intention to misrepresent the gentleman, or do him any injustice, or treat him with discourtesy. He had no experience here, and did not know what was the parliamentary rule; but supposed he had a right to put his own construction on the gentleman's speech, and comment upon it, leaving him to make such explanations or disclaimer as he saw fit. Mr. LEIGH then asked the gentleman to state explicity whether he intended to doubt the sincerity of bis diclaimer of the language and sentiments ascribed to him. Mr. NILES said he had already denied having any such intention; that he had never pretended to give the precise language made use of by the gentleman, but only the construction of which he thought it was susceptible. Mr. LEIGH replied that he had no further remarks to make, except that he was wonderstruck that any human being could put such a construction upon the por tion of his remarks in question. The following is an extract from Mr. LEIGH's speech, published in the National Intelligencer, understood to have been made out by Mr. L. himself. It is believed fully to justify the construction put upon it. Extract from the Intelligencer. "I have since read the book itself; its title is, 'Slavery, by William E. Channing;' printed at Boston, 1835. SENATE.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [FEB. 15, 1836. Why, sir, did the gentleman mean to be understood The first is, that of slavery, as it exists in several of that he regarded the sentiments of one individual, how- the States in this Union, and the power of this Governever distinguished for learning or intelligence, as out- ment over it. On this question it is necessary to say weighing in his mind all the evidence he had received but a few words, as I am not aware that Northern sentifrom all other sources? And why does the Senator at- ment differs at all from Southern sentiment. No one tach so much importance to the opinions of one individ- supposes that Congress can directly or indirectly interual? Is it because he is a clergyman, and one eminent fere; and, with the exception of the small number of for talents and learning? If so, he has but little knowl- modern abolitionists, the opinion is scarcely less univeredge of the character of the people. Was the gentle- sal that the people of the non-slaveholding States have man aware that, in looking to such a source, he was go- no right to interfere in any way with the local concerns, ing into the very camp of the abolitionists? So far as I and the relations of master and slave, in other States. am informed, a large portion of the abolitionists are Domestic slavery is generally regarded as a political and clergymen. He might, with nearly the same propriety, social evil, but one with which the people where it does have read a tract of the abolition society, as most of not prevail have no concern, any more than they have those are probably written by clergymen, as evidence of with political evils in Canada or Ireland. But it is not Northern sentiments. However much the opinions of considered that the present generation at the South are the clergy may be respected on subjects connected with responsible for the evils of slavery; nor is it believed their profession, on political questions, and all others re- that, in general, the condition of the slave population, in lating to the interests of the country, there is no class of point of comfort, is worse than that of the free blacks men whose opinions are more at variance with the gen. of the North. Slavery is regretted as a political and eral current of popular sentiment. The reason is ob- social evil, in relation to its influence on society. vious: they do not mix or take part with the people in The second form of this question is, slavery in this secular concerns; their ideas are drawn from different District. The prevailing opinion is, that Congress have sources, and their opinions are abstract and speculative. constitutional power to legislate in relation to slavery in Those who seek for public opinion at the North must this District. This opinion is not generally the result of neither look above nor below the people, but they must examination, as the question has not been discussed; it look for it among the people themselves: they must di- has never been found necessary to discuss it, because rect their attention to the great mass; the men who toil very few have ever supposed that it would be proper and the men who think; the yeomanry, mechanics, and or right for Congress to act on this subject whilst slavery laborers; the men of hard hands, sound heads, and hon- exists in the surrounding States. What I have stated to est hearts. These classes constitute the great body of be the common opinion, I must add, is my own opinion; our citizens, and are nearly all sufficiently intelligent to but I do not intend to go into a discussion of this constiform their own opinions on all questions regarding their tutional question. I will only say that the ingenious and own rights or duties, either as individuals, or as electors, able argument of the honorable gentleman from Virinterested in the concerns of the great republic.* Iginia did not carry conviction to my mind. That arguwill now proceed to consider what I believe to be the general state of public sentiment among my constituents, in relation to the matter under consideration. The subject of slavery is a comprehensive one, and I cannot speak of public sentiment without analyzing it, as it embraces several distinct questions. And I must say that I have never risen from the perusal of any book with a feeling of deeper sorrow. It has had the effect of weakening the chief remaining ground of hope in my mind, that the incendiary schemes of the abolitionists in the Northern States, the system of agitation they have organized, the war they are kindling against the peace and happiness of the South, and the harmony of the Union, would be effectually counteracted and suppressed by the efforts of our fellow-citizens of the non-slaveholding States." ment was based on two assumptions, neither of which I think is true. The first is, that the power of Congress is derived from the cessions of the States of Virginia and Maryland, and is co extensive with the power possessed by those States. This, I apprehend, is incorrect. The cessions conferred no power on Congress; they were nothing more than a relinquishment of the jurisdictions of those States; but such relinquishment did not transfer to, and invest in, Congress, the precise measure of power which they possessed, nor, indeed, any power at all. If any State were to cede to the United States a part of its territory, would such cession vest in Congress the same jurisdiction and power over it previously possessed by the State? It is evident i would not. The power of Congress is not derived from the cession, but from the constitution. A State car confer no power on Congress. The other assumption regards slaves in the light of property only. This, apprehend, is incorrect; because their owners have no an absolute, unqualified, indefeasible, right of property they have only an interest in their services; they ar also regarded by the laws of all the States as human be ings, so that there is something on which laws can op erate besides the right of property. I do not like th language which speaks of slaves only as property; sounds harsh to my ears; I much prefer the language o the constitution, which speaks of them as persons hel to labor. I admit that, so far as regards the existin right of property in slaves, it cannot be destroyed b legislation, and I can go no farther. But I leave this question; I do not deem it of as muc importance as many seem to regard it. There are othe and, to my mind, equally insuperable objections to th abolition of slavery in this District, whilst it exists in th neighboring States. Are there no general principl which ought to control the action of Congress, exce those of a constitutional nature? I think there are pri ciples of higher authority and higher obligation: t great principles of justice and moral right. These principles existed before the constitution, and will survive it, unless that shall endure for ever. For Congress to abolish slavery in this District, against the will of the inhab itants, and whilst it exists in the adjoining States, I should regard as a palpable abuse of power, more censurable than a violation of the constitution in a case not entirely free from doubt. This would be an abuse of power involving a disregard of the great principles of justice and moral right. Such, I believe, are the prevailing sentiments of my constituents, who, for that reason, do not trouble themselves about the constitutional powers of Congress over slavery in this District. ism. I proceed now to speak of the third form in which the question of slavery presents itself-that of abolitionThis consists of two kinds: abolitionism of the old school, and abolitionism of the new school. The former amounts to nothing more than a rational wish and desire for the emancipation of all persons held in bondage, and a disposition to advance that object by the diffusion of knowledge and the progress of society. Of this kind of abolitionists were Franklin and Jefferson; and there are many such at the North, and I presume at the South; and were it not for the difference in the two races a difference existing in nature, which seems to interpose an insuperable barrier to that object-I should hope that the whole free population of the Union would be abolitionists in this sense. Very different from these are the abolitionists of the new school. What are their principles? I judge of them from their own publications, which I have examined. They propose an immediate abolition of slavery, and against the will of those interested in it. They therefore propose to abolish slavery by violence. And this they design to effect in communities where they do not reside, and have no interests or sympathies with the inhabitants. Whatever may be their intentions, no rational person can doubt that their scheme has a tendency to insurrections, massacre, and a servile war. They regard slavery as a theological question. They say it is a sin and a moral evil in the sight of God and man, and ought to be eradicated from the earth; and that it cannot be wrong to remove an evil. They aver that they have nothing to do with the consequences. Can men be sane who avow principles like these, who are pursuing an object having the most important bearing on the vital interests of society, which exposes it to all the horrors of insurrection, massacre, and servile war, and yet declare that they have nothing to do with the consequences of their own acts? To call such men fanatics is too mild a term. I have no concern with their motives, but, like all other moral agents, they must be held responsible for the natural and obvious consequences of their own acts. This principle, true in morals, is not less so in politics. Is it to be wondered at that a scheme, based on a total recklessness of consequences, should have excited the almost universal indignation of an intelligent and moral people? Does any one suppose that this scheme of abolitionism can, under any circumstances, prevail to any extent among the people in any of the free States? It is impossible. That it has been discountenanced and reprobated by the people of the State I in part represent, I shall endeavor to show. But there is reason to believe that there is one part of this scheme of abolitionism which has been kept more out of sight-that is, amalgamation. Their first movements appear to have been directed to this object, and were made in Connecticut. In 1832, some of these men, residing in another State, established a school in one of our towns for the education, in the higher branches, of colored females. It occasioned great excitement in the town, and some in the State. In 1833 [SENATE. a law was enacted by the Legislature, making it unlawful to set up any school in the State for the education of persons of color, without the consent of the selectmen of the town. In violation of this law, the school was continued, and a prosecution was commenced against the instructress, which was resisted on the ground that the law was a violation of the constitution of the United States, and the question was never brought to a final decision; but such was the honest indignation of the inhabitants of the town and vicinity, that the school was finally broken up. The proceedings of the abolition society in the city of New York called forth an immediate and strong expression of indignant feeling in Connecticut, which was nearly universal. The first public meeting was called in New Haven: it was large, and comprised the most distinguished and influential citizens of all parties. The Governor of the State presided. The resolutions adopted are strong and decided, and reprobate the principles and proceedings of the abolitionists in the strongest terms. I will read some of the resolutions, sufficient to show the views and sentiments of the meeting: "Resolved, That we have witnessed, with mingled feelings of alarm and reprobation, the reckless course of same professed friends of the cause of freedom, whose efforts, under the mask of philanthropy, have infused gall and bitterness into our social system. "Resolved, In the language of a report of a Committee of the House of Representatives, made in the second session of the first Congress which assembled under this constitution, and by that body ordered to be recorded in its journal: that Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or the treatment of them, in any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require. "Resolved, That no man, or combination of men, in one State, has the right to interfere with the constitutional rights or to violate the criminal laws of any other State in the Union, either by sending publications leading to insurrection in such States, or in any other man. ner; and that we hold it to be the duty of good citizens, by all lawful measures in their power, promptly to arrest such proceedings. "Resolved, That the concurrent testimony of all parties in the Southern States, as well as that of the ministers of the gospel of all denominations among them, whose proceedings have been published, cannot fail to convince every reflecting man that the late proceedings of what are called the abolition and anti-slavery societies have a direct tendency to excite insurrection and dissolve the Union. "Resolved, That as the mail of the United States was intended for common good, and is supported from the common treasury of the Union, any citizens who make use of it as the means of distributing publications hostile to the public tranquillity, and, under the presumption of secrecy and security, transmitted thereby, privately, incendiary documents that they would not dare to follow to their destination, are deserving of the reprobation of all good and patriotic men. "Resolved, That, in responding to our fellow-citizens of Carolina, we are not insensible to the devoted zeal which she exhibited in the achievement of our national independence, and that the land of the Pinckneys, of Laurens, of Moultrie, of Marion, of Sumpter, and a host of other gallant men, who periled with our fathers 6 their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor,' in a com. mon cause, deserve, as a right, not as a favor, the protecting influence and support of every Northern patriot." A public meeting of the citizens of Hartford was soon after called. For reasons, not necessary to mention |