tion of Christianity. Europe has done with African slaves, but not with serfs and subjects, and never will do without them, as long as the present social institutions and conditions remain as they are. It will take a long time before our southern states, Middle Central America, and Brazil can do without bound laborers. Philanthropists never will alter this without causing general social confusion and ruin. The unprejudiced begin to open their eyes. In a few generations African bound laborers will be imported to Europe.

Who has eyes to see must perceive that from sheer want of those labor-forces the works of the old Spaniards in Central and South America crumble now to pieces, and Jamaica and Hayti are laid waste.

With us labor is wealth. Our renowned smartness consists mostly in the excellent use we make of all kinds of labor-forces. The possibility of starting a slavery party in Massachusetts, where there are no slaves, and of a free-soil party in a country where land is as free as the air, betrays the foreign and spurious origin of these parties-further, a great weakness and sickly impulsiveness in our character, and an unripeness in our judgment, which our national enemies know very well how to use to our immense disadvantage.

But, when shall bound labor cease? I answer: In due course of time. This apparently knotty question is easily solved by the causes which made it necessary. Once Time required it in America, Time requires it still in some parts, Time will abolish it, whether in one hundred or one thousand years must not in the least concern lawmakers. There is too much slavery and bondage abroad for good old Father Time to abolish. Think only of the bondage of superstition, of political party, of mammon, of libertinism, of intemperance, of false sciences, of thousands of vices and ignorances, all to be removed by good old Father Time! Think only how few know what is the right measure in eating and drinking, not to say a word about talking and writing! Why, therefore, be in a hurry in Boston with the abolition of slavery in Louisiana, while people in New Orleans complacently wait until Time has taught people in Boston and elsewhere the correct measure in eating, loving, writing, talking, preaching, and to respect and obey faithfully constitutions and laws made by and with the

consent of their own representatives in Congress and state — those referring to the duties of the judiciary too! The treatment of Judge Loring at the hand of the government of Massachusetts is a greater stain on our national honor than African bound labor; for this is not of our own making, as is our federal constitution and its judiciary, but of British inheritance, as every person a little versed in history knows.

Keep, then, my children, in all questions concerning laborers, strictly in view, that our national government has not the least power to legislate on this labor any more than on free labor. A bound laborer, in a state or territory, is, as such, subject to the municipal laws of the state or territory. A bound laborer is no national man, no national property, no subject, no citizen, but a domesticated man, belonging to his master, like a child to his parents, or a wife to her husband and vice versa. The presidential party-dispute of 1856, would and could not exist, if all those belonging to the free-soil or abolition party would but read the constitution correctly and understood it well. If a bound laborer is not a national political subject, Congress, as the national government, has no concern with it, neither in states nor territories. It has the power to organize or regulate a territory, but not to legislate on the domestic affairs and laborers, or waiters, or chambermaids, or mechanics, or churches, or other municipal subjects. It is one of my principal objects in these letters to show that the federal constitution has not the least concern in the maintenance or abolition of bound labor; that Congress has not and never had the least power to legislate on it or to make Missouri lines or compromises; that neither the president, nor the United States court, has the least official influence in the matter; that petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery, except from masters in the District of Columbia, are entirely out of place; that a Congressional election issue or platform on the ground of slavery or free soil is a spurious mockery of politicians by trade deserving a stern rebuke by the people.

I frankly consider the prohibition of bound labor in the northern state constitutions as injudicious, uncivil, and entirely superfluous in our Union, and indeed, against the best interests of the bound laborers, as I have noticed before. Fanaticism in lawmaking is a terrible curse to society. It has become fashionable,

of late, in Congress and state. Unprincipled daily papers have much to answer for it. Our public men, even of some note, betray a deplorable wilfulness in these things.

Although I never feel alarmed by the utterances of strict party papers, whatever may be their tenor in regard to our political system, still it is prudent to notice them as signs of the times.

Please, my dear children, compare the following extract from the Boston Journal, a leading abolition or free-soil paper, with what I have just said of the peculiar character of this party. It reads thus:

"We are decidedly of opinion that monarchy - hereditary monarchy — is by far the best form of government that human wisdom has yet devised for the administration of considerable nations, and that it will always continue to be the most perfect which human virtue will admit of."

A Canadian paper of the same stamp says: "The United States has about run its race as a republic. Its democracy is ripening into anarchy, the fruits of which will inevitably be despotism of some sort or other.”

To carry out an abolition scheme, a monarchy for the southern states is inevitable. If the negroes shall be free citizens their masters must become heavily-privileged barons, counts, dukes, lords, and the like. In this, the opinion of the Boston journal is decidedly right. And to come to that, we want first anarchy, mentioned in the Canadian paper, rebellion against the existing laws, removing of the landmarks. To this abolitionism and free

soilism lead. You see how these kinds of "republicans" are making common cause with the dukes, queens, kings, and emperors in Europe. No better monarchists exist in Prussia, Austria, and England, than those "republicans."

What kind of a monarchy the Boston journal will establish for our administration, whether after the famous models of King Bomba, or Emperor Francis Joseph, after the fashion of the Spanish or English queen, or after the whims of their majesties Soulouque, or Napoleon III., is irrevalent, since we have already in our political system all that is good in a monarchical government-viz: one head as executive, and all that is good in a republican government, viz: the representative form blended with the democratic, surrounded by the necessary checks. Still all

forms of governments are, of course, useless, if the laws are not executed with a good will. The first thing in most monarchical countries, that would happen with the Boston journal, if speaking there in favor of the republic, as it speaks in our republic in favor of the monarchy, is-suppression, closely followed up by persecution of the editors, printers, publishers, and all in the concern.

But let us turn away from such Boston notions. You have already experience enough in housekeeping to know that good masters make good servants. The exemplary good order, prev

alent in the regions where our four millions of African slaves are held, obviously proves that they are well managed. The men, fellow-citizens of ours, who are doing this work, which is not an easy one, deserve our thanks and that of mankind. And all we, as their countrymen, under the shelter of the same constitution, have to do is, to let them alone, and not interfere with their own affairs, nor deprive them of their share of the common privileges of every citizen in the Union. This is but fair and just. The sensible and generous American women have an immense influence upon these things, for they are the managers of the domestic affairs everywhere.

LETTER XXXII.

Annexation of Texas. - Portentous in regard to the Union. - New States. Their Admission into the Union. - Territory. - Land Surveying. — Indian Territory. Indian Agents. - Indemnification. Selling of Land. — Culture of Indians impossible in their own Country.-Acquisition of Foreign Country. Florida. - Louisiana. - Mexico. - Division of States.- Overgrown Municipal States, as New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania. — Mutual Control and Power of Self-government lost therein.-France. chies with blended National and Municipal Business. — Increase of Free States compared with that of Slave States.

- Monar

I SHOULD, perhaps, close my letters with number thirty-one, because I hardly believe that I shall be able to rivet your attention longer upon the constitution, after we have done with the fugitive slave law, which is common ground for writers and readers of both sexes. Still, I hope you will listen a little longer, as we

come now to the annexation business, which, at the time, at least, when Texas was admitted into the Union, caused so much universal anxiety-such a sea of alarming prophecies about the downfall of our political fabric, that it is indeed a real miracle how the Union could survive this crisis. And behold, there it stands still, upon a broader and, I say, surer foundation than ever, provided American women will-what?-turn not European with the abolitionists and free-soilers. Read on, then, a little longer in patience.

SECTION III.

"1. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, or any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress."

This section is a new political social feature-a novus ordo seculorum.

The rule is that a colony, settled upon an adjacent territory belonging to the United States, when she has reached a population of sixty thousand inhabitants, which entitles it to two senators, shall be admitted into the Union. As Congress has alone the power to transact business with foreign governments and the Indians, and as the acquisition of new wild lands or territory is made by the Union and for the same, so to the Congress necessarily belongs the whole disposition and regulation of the territorial affairs, from a national view. Therefore Congress has originated a land surveying and selling system, embracing the acquisition of the lands from the Indians, or adjacent governments, their indemnification, superintending, establishing of land-offices, Indian agents, bestowing titles to settlers, appointing governors, judges, and the necessary civil officers.

Congress has also tried to promote the culture of the Indians. Still, the official reports prove that little good has been promoted. The annuities paid to them in money and certain goods have produced but vice and laziness. Tribe after tribe dies off. The whole number of the Indians in the United States territories is little over three hundred thousand, at present. The twelve nations alone once numbered as much. This lesson proves what happens if governments meddle with the industry and culture (education