-oV^ ; ^iP-4:^ \' ^V'^^'.o** ^.•-f.t.'.'V %-^W\o«-* \. >> "' > y ^ si -THE NORTHERN MAN WITH SOUTHERN PRINCU^LES," SOUTHERN MAN WITH AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. The partisans of Mr. Van Burkn, in order to recominmd him to the suffrages of the South, have invento'd for him the title of "the JVorthern Man with Southern Principles." Let us try this title by the test of evidence, and compare it with Gen. Harrison's claims, examined in the same way, to the favor of the South. I. The power of the Fb;deral Government to abolish Slavery in the Dis- trict OF Columbia is renfarded by all the slaveholding States aa a lest question. What are the opinions of the two candidates on this question 'I MR. VAN BUREN'S OPINION. On the 23d of February, 1836, Messrs. Junius Amis and others, citizens of North-Caro- lina, addressed a letter to Mr. Van Buren, in which they say: "A portion of your fcllow-citizens in this section, feelinjj a deep anxi.'ty as to your views on a topic which most vitally affects our itnmediafe welfare and h,:j'pine.s-i, h:ive tliou^ouid be reviving the doctrine of the tories of Great Britain, in relation to the powers of P arliamont over'the Colonies, before the revolutioiiary waiV and in direct hostility to the principle advanced by Lord Chatham, that ' vvdiat was a man's own was absolutely and exclusively his own, and could. not be taken from him without his consent, given by himself or liis legal leprcsentative.' " To a similnr question, put by Thomas Sloo, Jua., of New-Orleans, Gen. HarrisoR answers, November 25th, 1836; "First. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the States, or in any manner interfere loilhthe property of the citizens in (heir slaves, but upon the application of the States ; in which case, aiid in no other, they miglit appropriate mono.y to aid the States so applying to get rid of their slaves. Ihese opinions I have always held, and this was.the ground upon which I voted against the Missouri restriction in tlie Fifteenth Congress. The opinions given above are precisely those which were entertained by Mr. J^ftlTson and Mr. M.idison. "Second. I do not beaovu that Congress can abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, without th3 consent of Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the District," In his speech at Vincennes, Indiana, July 4th, 1835, Gen. Harrison says that the efforts of the abolitionists are '' weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and nnconsfituiional," and are m conflict with the rights of tlie States. When that speech was delivered, the halls of Congress were flooded with petitions for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. In a letter to Harmar Denny, dated December 2, 1838, Gen. Harrison states, as a principle "proper to be adopted^ by any Executive sincerely desirous to restore the Ad- mmistration to its original simplicity and purity;" "that, in the exercise of the veto povi^er, he should limit his rejection of bills to, lst,"'such as are in his opinion loiiconstitu- Uonal; 2d, such as tend to encroach on the rights of the States or of individuals ; such as, involving deep interests, may in his opinion require more mature deliberation, or reference to the will of the people, to be ascertained at the succeeding elections." It thus appears that Mr. Van Bitren believes that a bill abolishing slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia will be constitutional, but would veto it because he thinks that it would be INEXPEDIENT ; and that Gen. Harrison would veto such a bill, on the ground of its being unconstitutional. On which pledge can the South more safely rely 1 On Gen. Harrison's pledge, founded on a confessed wa7it of power and of right ; or on Mr. Van Buren's pledge, assert'mg the power and the right, but waiving the exercise of them on considerations of expediency, which may be one thing to-day and another thing to-mor- row? Geo. Harrison's pledge meets the question at^the threshold, and settles it ; Mr. Van Buren's pledge keeps the question perpetually open to the influence of ever- varying circumstances. In estimating the value of this pledge, we should also consider the probabilities for and against its being kept. In the year 1827, Mr. Van Buren denounced a proposition to extend a general bankrupt law to corporations, as an invasion of State rights ; and said that " his idea of a bankrupt system was, that it could not be applied to any but individu- als or principals, and that it was not capable of being made to operate on associations, or on the subordinate agents either of individuals or corporations." — [See Gales ^ Seaton's Register of Debates, vol. 3, pp. 286, 287.] This was Mr. Van Buren's opinion, "from the lights before" him, on the 6th of February, 1827. But, afterwards, he urged upon Congress "the propriety and importance of a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of cor- PORATioNS and olher hankers r— [President Va,n Buren s Message, September 4, 1837, to Congress, at its special session,.] Should that most improbable of all contingencies ever arrive, when the South is to seek shelter under Mr. Van Buren's veto on a bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Virginia and Maryland and the people of the District, who can tell what new " lights " may then be before him ? II. VOTES AND SPEECHES OF MFi. xMARTIN VAN BUREN, ON THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE, DULY AUTHEN- TICATED AND VERIFIED. Extracts from the Journal of the Convention of the State of New- York, begun and held at the Capitol in the City of Albany, on the 28th day of August, 1821 : [Page 90.] » Thursday, ten o'clock, A. M., September 20, 1821. " The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. N. Sandford, the Convention then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Keport of the Committee on the right of suttrage, and the qualifications of persons to be elected ; and after some time spent thereon, Mr. Pre- sident resumed the chair, and Mr. N. Williams, from the said Committee, reported, that in further proceeding on the said Report, the first amendment proposed by the Select Committee was again read, 111 the words fallowing, to wit: " Every while male citizen, of tjie age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State SIX months neit preceding any election, and shall, within one year preceding the election, have paid any tax assessed upon him, or shall, within one year preceding; the election, have hf^en assessed to work on a public road, and shall have poriofmed the work assessed upon hiin, or shall havo paid an equi- valent in money therefor, according to law, or shall, within one year preceding the election, have been enrolled in the militia of this State, and shall have served therein according to law, shall be entitled to vote at such election in tlio town or ward in whicli he siiall reside, for Cioveruor, Lieutenant- Governor, .Senators, Members of the Assembly, and all other officers who are or may be elected by the people. "That Mr. Jay made a motion to strike out tlie word "i/-//;7p," in t!ic first line of the said amend- ment. " That debates were had tiiereon ; and the question having betin put, whether tlio Conmiittee would agree to the said motion, it was canied in the affirmative. " That the yeas and nays being called for by Mr. il. Clarke, seconded by Mr. Tallmadge, and having been required by ten members, were as follows, to wit: Ayes 63, Nays 59. FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. Mr. Park, Mr Paulding, Mr, Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Beckwith, Birdseye, Brinckerhoff, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carver, R. Clarke, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Duer, Mr. Eastwood, Edwards, Ferris, Fish, Hallock, Hees, Hogeboom, Hunting, Huntington, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Moore, Munro, Nelson, Pitcher, Piatt, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rogers, Rosebrugh, Sanders, N. Saudford, Seaman, Steele, D. Southerland, Swift, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Tattle, VAN BUREN, Van ISJess, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S.Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Ward, A. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams, Woodward, Woostcr, Yates. Mr. Bowman, Breese, Briggs, Carpenter, Case, Child, D. Clark, Clyde, Dubois, Dycknran, Fairlie, Fen ton, Frost, Howe, Humphrey, Mr, FOR THE NEGATIVE. Hunt, Hunter, Hurd, Mr. Kuowles, Lansing, Lawrence, Loffin-ts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, McCall, Millikin, Pike, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Starkweather, J. Sutherland, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Townley, Townsend, Tripp, Van Fleet, Van Home, Verbrvck, E. Webster, Wheeler, Woods, Younc Mr. Radcliff, Rockwell, Root, Rose, Ross, Russell, Sage, R. Sandford, Schenck, Seeley, Sharpe, Sheldon, J. Smith, R. Smith, Spencer, "State of New- York, Secretan/s Office. " I certify that I have compared the foregoing extracts with the original passages contained in the Journal of the Convention of the State of New-York, begun and held at the Capitol, in the City of Albany, on the twenty-eighth day of August, 18:21, [jrinted by the Printers to the State, and deposited in this office, and now in my custody, and that the same are correct transcripts therefrom, and of the whole of the said original passages. "In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office, at Albany, this twenty.third day of June, 1840. .. j^^j^ ^ SPENCER, Secretary of State." Extracts from Carter and Stone's Reports of the proceedings and debates in the Con- vention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amending- the Constitution of the State of New- York. Extract from proceedings of Thursday, September TI, 1821 — page 217. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. "Mr. Van Buren felt himself called on to make a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from Delaware. He observed that it was evident, and, indeed, some gentlemen did not seem disposed to disguise it, that the amendment, proposed by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, contemplated nothing short of universal suffrage. Mr. Van Buren did not believe that there were twenty members of that Committee who, were the bare naked question of universal suffrage put to them, would vote in its favor ; and he was very sure that its adoption was not expected, and would not meet the views of their constituents. " Mr. Van Buren then replied to a statement made yesterday by his honorable and venerable friend from Erie, (Mr. Russell,) in relation to the exclusion of soldiers who had fought at Quebec and Stoney Point, under the hannors of Monfgomory ainl Wayne. And ho C'lt tlie necessity oC doing tliis, be- cause such eases, urged by such irontleiuen as his lionorahle friend, wore calculated to make a deep and lasting impression. But altliough a regard for them did honor to that gentleman, yet it was thu duty of the Convention to guard against the admission of tliose impressions which sympathy, in indi- vidual cases, may excite. It was always dangerous to legislate upon the impulse of individual cases, where the law, about to be enacted, is to have a general operation. With rsfr'rence to the case of our soldiers, the people of this State and Country had certainly redeemed themselves from the imputation that republics are ungrateful ; with an honorable liberality they had bestowed the military lands upon them, and to gladden the evening of their days had provided them with pensions. Few of those pa- triots were now living; and of that few, the number was yearly diminishing. In fifteen years, the grave will have covered all those wlio now survived. Was it not, then, unwise to hazard a whole- some restrictive provision, lest, in its oijeration, it might aflVcl these few individuals for a very short time? He would add no more. His duty would not permit liinj to say less. " One word on the main question before the Counnittee. We had already reached tlie verge of uni- versal suffrage. There was but one step b-'yond. And are gentlemen prepared to take that st«p ? We were cheapening this invaluable right. Ho was disposed to go as fir as any man in the extension of rational liberty; but he could not consent to undervalue this precious privilege so far as to confer it, with an undiscriminating hand, upon every one, black or white, who would be kind enough to conde- scend to accept it." Extract from proceedings of Saiurda.]/, October 6, 1821 — page 366. The question in order was on the part of the section expressed in tire words following : «' And, also, every male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been, for three years next preceding such electisn, an inhabitant of this State, and for the last 3'ear a resident in the town, county, of district, where he may offer his vote, and shall liave been, within the last year, assessed to labor upon the public highways, and shall have performed the labor, or paid an equivalent therefor, according to law, shall be entitled to vote in tiie town or ward where he actually resides, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elective by tlie people. " Mr. Van Buren said, that as the vote he should now give, on what was called the highway qua- lification, would be different from what it had been on a former occasion, he felt it a duty to make a brief explanation of the motives which governed iiiin. 1'iie qualifications reported by the first Com- mittee were of three kinds, viz : the payment of a money tax, the performance of military dut)', and working on the highway. The two li)rmer had met with his decided approbation ; to the latter, he wished to add the additional qualification, that the elector should, if he paid no tax, performed no militia duty, but offered his vote on the sole ground tirat he had labored on the higirways, also be a householder ; and tliat was the only point in which he had dissonted from the repoit of the Committee. To effect this object, he sujiportod a motion, made by a gentleman from Dutchess, to strike out the highway qualification, with a view of adding ^'■house holder y That motion, after full discussion, had prevailed by a majority of twenty. But what was the consequence? The very next day, the same gentlemen who thouglit the highway tax too liberal a qualification, voted that every person of twenty- one years of age, having a certain term of residence, and excluding actual paupers, should be per- mitted to vote for any officer in the Government, from the highest to the lowest— far out-vieing, in this particular, the other States in tiie Union, and verging from the extreme of restricted, to that of universal suffrage. The Convention, sensible of the vi-ry great stride which had been taken by the last vote, the next morning referred tlie whole matter to a Select Committee of tliirteen, whose re- port was now under consuli ration. That Committee, though composed of gentlemen, a large ma- jority of whom had voted for the {)roposition for universal suffrage, had now recommended a middle course, viz : the payment of a money tax, or lal)or on the liij:liway, excluding militia service, which had, however, been very properly reinslnted. The question then recurred, shall mi attempt be again made to add that of householder to tlie higiiway qualification, and run the hazard of the re-introduc- tion of the proposition of tlie gentleman from Washington, abandoning all qualifications, and throw- ing open the ballot-boxes to every body — demolishing, at one blow, the distinctive ciiaracter of an elector, the proudest and most invaluable attribute of freemen ?" Extract from the proceedings of Monday, October 8, 1821. QUALIFICATIONS OF COLORED PERSONS. [Page 374.] Mr. Platt moved to expunge the proviso in the first section, which declares that no person, other tlian a ivhite man, shall vote, unless he have a freehold estate of the value of two hun- dred and fifty dollars. [Page 376.] Mr. Van Buren said he had voted against a total and unqualified exclusion, for he would not draw a revenue from them, and yet deny to them the riglit of suffrage. But this jiroviso met his approbation. They w'ere exempted from taxation until they had qualified themselves to vote. The right was not denied, to exclude any portion of the community who will not exercise tlie right of suffrage in its purity. This held out inducements to industry, and would receive his support. [Page 377.] The question on striking out the proviso was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided as follows : FOR THE NEGATIVE. Mr. Baker, Mr. Howe, Mr. Reeve, Mr. Tallmadge, Beckwith, Humphrey. Richards, Taylor, Bowman, Hunt, Rockwell, Ten Eyck, Breese, Hunter, Rose, Townley, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, D. Clarke, Cramer, Dubois, Dyckman, Edwards, Fairlie, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Mr. Bacon, Mr Barlow, Birdseye, Brooks, Buel, Child. R. Clarke, Day, Duer, I certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing extracts from the printed book entitled " Re* ports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amend- ing the Constitution of the State of INew-York, containing all the official documents relating to the subject, and other valuable matter, by Nathaniel H. Carter and William L. Stone, reporters, and Marcus T. C. Gould, stenographer, Albany — printed and published by E. tfc E. liosford, 1821 " and that the preceding are faithful copies of the passages extracted, and of the whole of such passages. Albany, June 23, 1810. JOHN C. SPENCER. From the foregoing extracts it appears that Mr. Van Buren, as a member of the New-York Convention, supported a proposition which made the negro equal to the white man, as to the right of voting: That after settling that principle, he voted to annex the restriction of a freehold qualification to the negro voter : That he Avas of opinion that the "invaluable right of suffrage" would be "cheapened " too much by being allowed to white men, who paid no tax and performed no militia duty, but who worked on the high- ways or public roads, unless they were " householders :" That the ^'■invaluable right of suf- frage''' would NOT be " cheapened " at all by being allowed to negro freeholder^: That some rohite men are not good enough, unless they are householders, to vote in any election; but that every negro, owning a freehold estate of a given value, is good enough to vote in every election. And we are asked to believe that these are " Southern principles .'" Hunting, Ross, TownsMid, Hurd, Russell, Tripp, Lansing, Sage, Tuttle, Lawrence, R. Sanford, VAN BUREN, A. Livingston, Schenck, Van Fleet, P. R. Livmgston, Seaman, Van Home, McCall, Secley, Ward, Moore, Sharpe, A. Webster, Nelson, Sheldon, Wendover, Park, I. Smith, N. Williams, Porter, R. Smith, Woods, Price, Stagg, Yates, Pumpelly, Starkweather, Young. — 71. Radclitf, Swift, FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. Eastwood, Mr . Munro, Mr. Spencer, Fish, Paulding, Sylvestei*, Hees, Pitcher, Van Ness, Hogeboom, Piatt, J. R. Van Rensselaer, Huntington, Rhinelander, S. Van Rensselaer, Jay, Root, Wheaton, Jones, Sanders, E. Williams, Kent, N. Sandford, Wooster.— 33. III. OPINIONS OF MR. VAN BUREN AND GENERAL HARRISON ON THE COMPETENCY OF NEGRO TESTIMONY AGAINST WHITE PERSONS. MR. VAN BUREN On the 27th of May, 1839, a Naval General Court-Martial assembled on board the United States Ship Macedonian, lying at Pensacoia, to try Lieutenant George Mason Hooe, of Virginia, on certain charges preferred on the information of Commander Uriah P. Levy. In the course of the trial, two negroes were produced as witnesses against him; one the cook, and the other the body servant of his accuser. He objected to their exami- nation; the Court overruled his objection, and allowed them to be examined. Lieutenant Hooe declined to cross-examine them. The proceedings of the Court were approved by the Secretary of the Navy. Lieutenant Hooe addressed a memorial to the President, in which he complained of the outrage. The President endorsed his decision on the papers in the following words: "The President finds NOTHING in the proceedings in the case of Lieutenant Hooe which RECiuiRES his interkerence. M. V. B." On the 12th of June, 1840, this subject was brought to the notice of Congress by the Hon. John M. Botts, a member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, and that body adopted a resolution calling on the Secretary of the Navy for a copy of the record and of the subsequent proceedings. On the 24th of June the copy was transmitted, being Document No. 244, 2G th Congress, \st Session, House of Representatives, Navy Department. The following are extracts from the Document : [Page 22.] ^^ James Mitchell, Captain's Steward of the United States Ship Vandalia, called and sworn. " The accused objected to the examination of the witness, upon the ground that he was a colored man. "The Court, after deliberation, did not consider the objection a valid one, and ordered the exami- nation to proceed. " The accused then offered a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and desired that the same be spread upon the record : "'The accused begs leave to state to the Court most distinctly that he solemnly protests against the evidence of this witness being received and recorded. It is far from the wish of the accused to object to any evidence which the Court may deem legal ; but the witness is a colored man, and there- fore, in the opinion of the accused, is not a competent witness, even before this tribunal. '"G. M. HOOE, Lieutenant U. S. Navy.'" [Page 23.] " The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and re- quested that the same be spread upon the record, wliicli was ordered by the Court : "'The accused having protested against the, evidence of tliis witness, on the ground that he con- ceives his testimony to be altogether illegal, that lie knows it would be so considered before the civil tribunals of this Territory, tlie forms and customs of which, he humbly thinks, slioiild be as closely followed by a martial court as possible ; tlierefore asks leave to spread upon the record the fact that he cannot consent to, and has totally declined cross-examining this witness. '"GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy." [Page 25.] ^^ Daniel Waters Captain's Cook of tlie United States Ship Vandalia, called and sworn. "The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and requested that the same be spread upon the record, which was ordered : "'The Court having decided to receive and record tlie testimony of colored persons, the accused, in regard to this witness, can only reiterate his objections as set forth in the case of Mitchell, the Captain's Steward. The accused will pursue the same course with this witness that he decided to take with the other colored man. '"GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy.'" [Pago 42.] " At the close of the proceedings of the Court is the approval of the Secretary of the Navy, in these words : " » Approved. J . K. PAULDING.' " [Page 60-61.] Extract from the Letter or Memorial of Lieutenant Hooe to the Presi- dent of the United States. "There is one other point in the proceedings of the Court (touching their legality) to which I in- Tite the particular attention of your Excellency. It respects a matter as to wliich all Southern men are deeply sensitive; and, if not overruled by your Excellency, will assuredly drive many valuable men from the Navy. In the progress of the proceeduigs of this Court, two negroes — one the cook, the other the private steward of Commander Levy — were introduced as witnesses against me. I protested against their legal competency to bo witnesses in the Territory of Florida, on the ground that they were negroes. The Court disregarded my exception, and, as the record shows, they were allowed to be examined and to testify on my trial. This I charge as a proceeding illegal and erro- neous on the part of the Court; and, if so, according to established law and precedent, must vitiate and set aside their whole proceedings." [Page 61.] Letter from the Secretary of the Nary to the President. " Navy DcrARTMENT, December 14, 1839. " Sm : In obedience to your directions, I have the honor to transmit a report in tlie case of Lieu- tenant George Mason Hooe, and to return tlie memorial addressed to you by jiim, in relation to the proceedings of the Court on his trial. "I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. K. PAULDING." Endorsement on the above Letter by Martin Van Bureri, President of the United States, V'ith his own hand. "THE PRESIDENT FINDS NOTHING IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT HOOE WHICH REQUIRES HIS INTERFERENCE. " M. V. B."* ANOTHER CASE.— CASE OF MR. MURCH. The following letter is from Oliver K. BarVvEll, Esq., a highly respectable citizen of Newcastle, Del., to Thomas Allen, Esq., Editor of the Madisonian. In a subsequent * While this decision of tlie President was unJ(noicn to the public, the Secretary of the Navy wrote a letter, dated April 15, 1840, which has since been published in Mr. Ritchie's "Crisis" of June 20, 1840. In this letter the Secretary, after justifying the examination of the negroes, and the sentence of the Court, says, " The President had nothing to do with the Court or its froceedings ! ! 1 1 " letter, addressod to another gentleman, Mr. Barrelt, says: " Since tlic appearance of the article in the Madisouian, the counsel for Mr. Miirch, Anrrkw C. Grav, Esq., who is a supporter of Mr. Van Barents administration, has publicly vouched for its correctness, iu all its essential particulars." Newcastle County, Del., Angust 3, 1840. Dear Sir: That the South may be informed correctly, in regard to Mr. Van Buren, I send you for publication certain facts in relation to his approval of negro testimony, in the trial of an officer in tlie revenue service, before the Collector of this District, iu June, 1839. At that time charges and specification.'? of them were preferred by a certain Henry D. Nones, a Captain in tlie revenue cutter service, against .losiah Mnrch, then First Lieutenant in the same ser- vice. The Colh^etor of the District, Henry VVliitciey, Esquire, was ordered by the Secretary of tiio Treasury to conduct the examination. Mr. Murch was defended by couiisal, and tho prosecution in behalf of the Captain carried on by counsel employed by liimself. The ciiaracler of the testimony, on the part of the complainant, generally, was sucii, that the counsel for Mr. March deemed it unne- cessary to enter upon any defence ; it was composed entirely of the crow and officers under tho im- mediate command of the co.aiplaiuant, (Nones,) and of negroes, his own servants, employed in tile ward-room. Five negrojs, if I am correctly informed, were brought forward to testify. The moment the first was called to the stand, Mr. Murcii and his counsel (protesting against such evidence, it not being competent in the Courts of this State for negroes to testify against white persons) left the room. The Collector proceeded, however, to take the testimony, and, after closing the same, forwarded it to Washington; the whole of which I presume you can find in the office of the Secretary of the Trea- sury. A copy of one of the negro depositions I now have before me. Mr. Murcli had iiis commis. sion taken from him ; the testimony having been laid before the President and " approved by him." So unexpected was this decision to Mr. Murch, and indeed to every one who knew the character of the testimony adduced against him, that Mr. Murch thought it proper to appeal directly to tho Presi- dent for reinstatement. He did so both personally and by letter. To impress more flilly upon the minds of the powers that be at Washington the injustice done to him, Mr. Murcli forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury a deposition of one of the negroes, taken at the negro's own request, after his discharge from the cutter, by a magistrate of the town of Newcastle, in which he states that what he testified to before Colonel Whiteley, the Collector, was falsa, " that he was compelled, by threats made by Captain Nones, to give such testimony," &,c., &c. Upon the receipt of this deposi- tion by Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, he informed Mr. Murch, in substance, by letter, "that this testimony of the negro could not go to rebut his first deposition, but mio-ht be made the groundwork of new proceedings against Captain Nones " — (I have not the letter before me, and therefore merely give the substance) — to which Mr. Murch, under date of September 10, 1839, made the following reply, after acknowledging tlie receipt of Mr. Woodbury's hitter of the Gth instant. He says : " I have to say that the affidavit of William Kork [negro] was sent to the Department not for the purpose of commencing new proceedings against Captain Nones, or any other person, but witii the object of showing to the Department the character of the evidence on which my dismissal has been founded." Several letters were written to the Department and to the President, by the friends of Mr. Murch, and, I think, a formal remonstrance sent by his counsel to the Treasury Department. On the ith of January, 18-10, the Secretary of the Treasury wrote to me (who had addressed a letter directly to the President in regard to Mr. Murch) as follows : " Sir, in reply to your letter of the 27lh ultimo, to the President of the United States, which has been referred to this Department, I would inform you that Lieutenant Murch was dismissed from the revenue service by the President, on satis. factory evidence of improper conduct, which, though the charges and proof have been once or twice re-examined, has never been satisfactorily rebutted or explained." These proceedings are now matter of record, or ought to be, in the Treasury Department; copies of most of which I took the precaution at the time to retain. If you think any good can be had by publish- ing it, please do so, and make whatever remarks you may think proper. 1 will only add that no officer however high or honest, is safe for a moment, if the Govermnent is to tolerate neoroes, under the im- mediate control of an officer, to give testimony against another whom he has thought proper to prefer charges against. P. S. You will perceive that Woodbury was willing for Murch to make the deposition of the negro Kork sufficient ground to commence proceedings upon against Nones. Copies of letters from and to the Secretary of the Trmsiiry, in relation to Mr. MurcKs case. Treasury Department, September G, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the 2d instant, enclosing the affidavit of William Kook, is this da}' received. I have to observe, in reply, that the affidavit of a person who admits he has been guilty of perjury cannot be made the ground of new proceedings, unless it is taken over again, with notice to the Collector and Captain Nones to appear before the magistrate and cross-examine that witness, as well as rebut his testimony by other evidence. I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't, LEVI WOODBURY. Newcastle, Sept'r 10, 1839. Sir: I have had the honor to receive your favor of the 6th instant this day, and, in reply, have to say that the affidavit of William Kork was sent to the Department, not for the purpose of commencing 2 10 new propnedings against Captain Nones, or any other person, bnt with (lie object of sliowing to the Department the character oftlie evidence on whicli iny dismissal has been fonuded. I have the honor to be, Sir, vcrj^ respectfully, yonr obed't servant, JOSIAH MURCII. The Hon. Levi Woodbuiiy, Secretary of the Treasury, U. S. of America. TiiEAsuRY Department, Sept'r 9, 1839. Sir: The papers in your case having been submitted to tlie President, I have to inform you that he does not yet feel satisfied that the public interest would be promoted by yonr reappointment. 1 am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't, LEVI WOODBURY, Sec'y of the Treas'y. JosiAH MuRCH, Esq., Newcastle, Delaware. Treasury Department, January 4, 1840. Sir : In reply to your letter of the 27th ultimo, to the President of the United States, which ha.« been referred to this Department, I would inibrin you that Lieutenant Murch was dismissed from the revenue service by the President, on satisfactory evidence of improper conduct, which, though the charges and proofs have been once or twice re-cxainined, has never been satisfactorily rebutted or explained. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. , Oliver K. Barrell, Esq., Newcastle, Del. I, Ignatius Mudd, a citizen of Washington, in the District of Columbia, do hereby certify, that I liave examined the foregoing printed copies of three letters from the Hon. Levi Woodbury, and that I have carefully compared the same with the originals, aud also that I have examined the foregoing printed cop}^ of a letter signed Josiah Murch, and liave compared the same with a manuscript purport- ing to be a copy of a letter from said Murch to said Woodbury, and that the said four printed letters are true copies of said originals and said manuscript copy. I further certity, that in the letter from said Woodbury, dated Treasury Department, January 4, 1840, the same being one of the aforesaid four letters, a horizontal line is drawn througli the word '■'■satisfactory" and there is an appearance on the face of the word of a purpose to erase it, though it still" remains perfectly legible. IGNATIUS MUDD. District of Columbia, County of Washington, to loit : Be it remembered, that on this 23d day of September, 1840, Ignatius Mudd, well known to me as a respectable citizen of Washington, appeared before me, a Justice of the Peace in and for the said County, and made oath to the truth of the facts contained in the foregeing statement. DAVID A. HALL, Justice of the Peace. United States of America — Department of State. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting; I certify, that D. A. Hall, whose name is subscribed to the paper hereunto annexed, is now, and was at the time of subscribing the same, a Justice of the Peace for the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia, duly commissioned ; and that full faith and confidence are due to his acts, as such. In testimony v^'hereof, I, John Forsyth, Secretary of State of the United States, have hereunto sub- scribed iny name, and caused the seal of the Department of State to be atiixed. r , Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1840, and of '• ^ ■•' the Independence of the United States of America the sixty-fifth. _ JOHN FORSYTH. Mr. Van Buren then thinks it perfectly 'proper that negroes should be examined AS WITNESSES AGAINST WHITE MEN ! ! ! Not so General Harrison. In the Laws of the Indiana Territory, printed at Vin- ccnnes, Indiana, b}^ Messrs. Stout & Smoot, in 1807, and in the Library of the State De- partment, Washington City, is the following: [Chapter 46, page 311.] '■'An Act regulating the Practice in the General Court and Court of Com- mon Pleas, and for other purposes. " Section 24. No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be a witness, except in pleas of the United States against negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or in civil pleas where negroes, inulattoes, or Indians alone shall be parties. JESSE B. THOMAS, Speaker of the House of Representatives. "B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. "Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON." IV. MISSOURI aUESTION. Akin to the topics just mentioned is the conduct of the two candidates on the Missouri .11 ]\IR, VAN BUREN'S COURSE. RuFUS King was elected a member of tlie Senate of tlie United States for six years from March 4, 1813, by the votes of the old Federal i)arty in New- York. IJnring the last year of his terra, a bill was sent to the Senate, from the House of Representatives, entitled " An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States." A proposition was introduced into the Senate to amend it by a clause prohibiting slavery, which proposition was sustained throughout by Rufus King-. " The substance " of two elaborate speeches from him, in favor of it, may be found in Niles's Register, vol. 17, pp. 215-221. In a letter dated April 22, 1820, to John Holmes, on the Missouri Question, Mr. Jef- ferson says : " I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a pas.sengor in our bark to the slioro from which I am not distant. But fliis momentous question, lilce a fire bell in the niglit, awakened and filled me uiith terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.'''' — [JeJferson''s Writ/ tigs, vol. 4, j). 323.] In the winter of 1819-20, Mr. Van Burkn, then a member of the Legislature of New- York, published a pamphlet in support of ]Mr. King's re-election, entitled ''Considerations in favor of the appointment of Rufus King to the Senate of the United States." He also addressed a letter to a friend, in which he says : "I should sorely regret to find any flagging on the subject of Mr. King. We are committed to his support. It is both wise and honest ; and we must have no fluttering in our course. Mr. King's views towards us are honorable and correct. The Missouri Question conceals, so far as he is concerned, no plot, and we shall give it a true direction. You know what the feelings and views of our friends were when I saw you, and you know what we then concluded to do. My ' Considerations,^ &c., and the aspect of the Albany Argus, will show you that we have entered on the work in earnest. We cannot, therefore, look back. Let us not, then, have airy halting. I ivill put my head on its propriety. ^^* Rufus King was accordingly re-elected to the Senate. The following preamble and resolution were adopted by both Houses of the Legislature of New- York: " Whereas the inhibiting of the further extension of slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern to the people of this State ; and whereas we consider slavery as an evil much to be de- plored, and that every constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension ; and that the Constitution of the United States clearly giving Congress the right to require of new States, jiot comprehended within the original boundaries of the United States, the prohibiting of slavery as a condition of their admission into tiio Union ; therefore, » ^'■Resolved, (if the honorable Senate concur therein.) That our Senators be instructed, and onr Rep- resentatives in Congress be requested, to op))ose the admission, as a State, into the Union, of any Ter- ritory not comprised as aforesaid, making the prohibition of slaver}' therein an hidispensable condi- tion of admission." On the 29th January, 1820, the »SeMa^e took up the resolution, and passed the same unanimously, the following Senators being present: "Messrs. Adams, Austin, Earnum, Bartow, Browne, Ciiilds, Dudley, Dayton, Ditmiss, Evans, Forthington, Hammond, Hart, Livingston, Loundsberry, McMartin, iVIoons, Mallorj', Moor5, No3'es, Paine, Ross, Rosencrantz, Skinner, Swan, Va.n Bujien, Wilson, Young — 29." The Globe says that the resolution, which had passed the House of Assembly, '' was sent to the Senate, of which Mr. Van Bur en was a member, and was there also passed, but without division or debate. Mr. Van Buren had no agency in bringing the sub- *This extract will be found in page 144 of a life of Mr. Van Buren, (published in 183.5,) written by William H. Holland, with the aid, he tells us in the preface, of "the Hon. James Vanderpoel" and ••the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler," two well-known ])artisans of Mr. Van Buren. The authenticity of Holland's work is admitted by Mr. Van Buren. Messrs. W. Fitliian, J. C. Alexander, and others, in a letter to him, dated Danville, Illinois, May 23, 1840, put several questions, one of which is: "Have you examined Holland's life of Van Buren, of date of 1835 ; and, if so, is it a faithful and true his- tory of your political opinions?" Mr. Van Buren answers the letter, June 22, 1840, and sa}-?, in reference to Holland's life of him : " It has been suggested to me that spurious copies of this work have been put in circulation in Illinois ; it is therefore desirable that j'ou should send me the copy to which your question relates, before I answer it. This I will thank you to do at your earliest convenience. When inspected, it shall be returned to you." — Niles's Register, vol. .58, page 3G4. On the 29th of August, 1840, Mr. Van Buren sends a further answer ; at tlie close of which he says: ''■The publica- tion sent to me by Mr. Alexander is a genuine copy of the first edition of Professor Holland's 7Vork. I herewith return it, with the remark that it was written witliout communication with me, but con- tains, as far as it goes, a substantially correct history of my political course." The extract given in the text is published also in Niles's Register, vol. 49, page 93 ; the word "sorel}'" being omitted, and the word "committed" being printed "submitted." 12 jpct before the Legislature. ITe was present when it passed, but did not participate further in the matter than is here stated." — {Extra Globe, June 16, 1840.) 'I'he Rich- mond Enquirer (June 23 1840,) says: "Upon these resolutions he gave no vote, /or the Legislature was unanimous. They passed without a division or count." We are willing to take, as true history, either of these official expositions; to admit with the Globe that Mr. Van Buren had onl]/ the same agency, in passing the resolutions, which every body else had who voted for them ; or to agree with the more ingenious Enquirer, that Mr. Van Buren voted, not as an individual, but only as a Senator. In ''Holland'' s Life of Van Burenf edition 1335, page 146-147, authenticated, as has been already shown, by Mr. Van Buren, the writer, after referring to a recommenda- tion of Governor Clinton, at the opening of the session, in January, 1820, of the Legisla- ture of New- York, says; " In compliance with this recommendatioBi, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution, in- structing- tlieir Senators, and requesting the Reprcsoiitativcs of tlie State, in Congress, ' to oppose the- ADMissio.v, .\s A State, in the Union, of any Territory not comprised within the original, boundary OF the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condi- tion OF admission.' " " The Senate concurred in this resolution without division or debate, and among them Mr. Van Bu- ren ; though it was not brought before the Logishiture by his agency, still he must be reoarded as having concurred, at that time, in the senti.ment of the resolution thus adopted by the legisla- ture." It thus appears that Mr. Van Buren was the champion of the re-election of the great champion of the Missouri restriction; staked his head on its '^ proprieti/ ;" denounced any "flagging,'" 'fluttering,^' or "halting," in sending Mr. King to the Senate again, to ring the ''knell of the Union ;" and after having procured the re-election of Mr. King, to make assurance doubly sure, joined in instructing him to peal that fearful alarm. What, on this subject, was General Harrison's course.^ When the Missouri ques- tion was agitated in the House of Representatives, at the session of 1818-1819, (second session, fifteenth Congress,) he was a member of that House fromOhio, anon-slaveholding State. The agitation of that question shook, as is well known, the Union to its centre. On reference to the Journal of the House of Representatives, (page 271—274, &c., &c.,) it will be found that on the motion to prohibit the further introduction of slavery into Mis- souri, and on the other questions growing out of that motion. General Harrison voted with the South. His course, on this momentous subject, prevented his re-election to Con- gress, when he again became a candidate. The National Intelligencer, of October 20, 1822, says: " It is confirmed to us that Mr. Gazely is elected, in opposition to General Harrison. A friend in- forms us, which we are sorry to lear-n, that he was opposed particularly on acconnt of his adherenca to that principle of the Constitution which secures to the people of the South their pre-e.xisting riffhts." V. THE ARKANSAS AND FLO^IIDA QUESTIONS. GENERAL HARRISON'S COURSE ON THE ARKANSAS QUESTION. . On the 18th of February, 1819, a bill for establishing a separate Territorial Govern- ment in the southern part of the Territory of Missouri, was, with certain amendments which had been made thereto, taken up in the House of Representatives. Mr. Taylor, of New- York, moved a further amendment, ''that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be introduced into the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." On this amendment, Cteneral Harrison voted with the South. — [See Journal House cf Representatives, 2d Session I5th Congress, 1818-19, pa^e 283-4.] MR. VAN BUREN'S COURSE ON THE FLORIDA QUESTION. On the 6th of February, 1822, a bill was reported to the Senate of the United States for the establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida. On the 6th of March^ 1822, after various intervening proceedings, the Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill for the establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida; and, the bill having been amended, it was reported to the House accordingly. It was moved to strike out a provision which prohibited the introduction of skves into the Florida Territory, except by citizens of the United States removing thither, and owning; 13 such slaves at the time of removal, or by citizens of the United Stales, travelling in the Territory with not more than two servants. Mr. Van Burkn voted in the negative. It thus appears that Mr. Van Buren voted against striking out the restriction on slavery in the Territory of Florida. The principle of this restriction, and of the restriction in the case of Arkansas, was the same as that involved in the Missouri question. Certified copies of the Votes of Gen. Harrison a7ul Mr. Van Buren, referred to in the tico foregoing sections. On the 16th February, 1819, "the House lookup and proceeded to consider the amend- ments reported from the Committee of the Whole, to the bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Missouri to form a Constitution and Slate Ciovernment, and for the admis- sion of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States; and the said amendments, being read, were concurred in by the House, with the exception of that to the end of the 4th section, which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude in the pro- posed State ; which said amendment being amended to read as follows : "And provided, also, Tltat the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servifvile be prohi- bited, except for the ^Junishment of crimes, whereof the part y shall be duly convicted ; and tliat all chil- dren of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, sliall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-fize years. " Mr. Beecher movod further to amend the saili amendment, by striking out all tlicreof after the word convicted; which motion was rejected. " A division of the question to agree to the said amendment was then called for, and the question was put to agree to so much thereof as is contained within the same, to the word convicted, inclusive, and passed in the affirmative : Yeas 87, Nays 76. " The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the affirmative are — "Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Beecher, Bennett, Boden, Campbell, Clagett, Conistock, Crafts, Cusliman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Flostctterj Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. ¥., Kinscy, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason, R. 1., Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams, Con., Williams, N. Y,, Wilson, Mass., Wilson, Pa. — 87. " Those who voted in the negative are — " Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Edwards, Ervin, S. C, Fisher, Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Jolmson, Va., Johnson, Ken., Jones, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Bal. Smith. Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, ^. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C, Walker, Ken.. Williams, N. C— 76. " The question was then put upon agreeing to the residue of the said amendment, and also passed in the affirmative : Yeas 82, Nays 78. "The yeas and nays being required by one-fiflh of the members present, tliosc who voted in the affirmative are — " Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Hostettcr, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moscley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Samp, son. Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, S. Smith, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams, Con., Wil- Hams, N. Y., Wilson, Mass., Wilson, Pa.— 82. "Those who voted in the negative are — " Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloom- field, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, David- son, Desha, Edwards, Ervin, S. C, Fisher, Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ken., Jones, Lewis, Linn, Little, Lowndes, McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., Mason, R. I., Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Riiea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Bal. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, N. (,'., \S'aikcr, Keti., Williams, N. C— 78. [House Journal 1818-'19, pp. 271-274.] On the 18th of February, 1819, the following proceedings, in regard to the Territory o[ Arlcatbsas, were had iu the House of Representatives ; 14 " Tlie House took up and proceeded to consider tlie amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, to the bill est ibliKhiiig a separate Territorial Governiuent in the southern part of the Ter- ritory of Missouri ; and the said amendments, having been read, were concurred in by tiie House. " Mr. Taylor then moved further to amend the said bill, by inserting the following as the second section thereof; '^ And be it further enacted, Tliat neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be introduced into the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. And all children born of slaves, within the said Territory, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years. "A division of the question, to agree to tlie said amendment, was called for ; and the question was put on so much thereof as is contained within the same, down to the word convicted, inclusive, and determined in the negative : Yeas 70, Nays 71. " The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the affirmative are — ." Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O,, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Com- stock. Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Folger, Fuller, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Her- rick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason, R. I., Merrill, Robert Moore, Sam- uel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Rugglcs, Sampson, Savage, Scudder, Seybort, Sherwood, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wcndover, Whiteside, Williams, Con., Williams, N. Y., Wilson, Pa.— 70. " Those who voted in the negative are — " Messrs. Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Culbreth, Desha, Earl, Edwards, Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ken., Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass... II. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Porter, Quarlcs, Reed, Cfa., Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va.., Tucker, S". C, Tyler, Walker, N. C, Williams, N. C— 71. ■ " The question was then put to agree to the residue of the said amendment, and passed in the affirmative : Yeas 75, Nays 73. " The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the affirmative are — " Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Pa., Barber, Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Comstock, Crafts, ■Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gilbert, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herrick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Kiitland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Rugglcs, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Seybert, Sher- 'wood. Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Williams, Con., Williams, N. C, Williams, JV, Y., Wilson, Pa.— 75. "Those who voted in the negative are — "Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ky., Austin, Ball, Baibour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, .Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, La., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, Desha, Earl, Edwards, •Oarnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ky., Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, ///., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Ncsbitt, New, Ogdcn, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Quarlcs, ^Reed, Md., Reed, Ga., Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alex. Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, JV. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Fa., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C— 73." Office, Ho. Reps, of the U. S., Washington, September 9, 1840. This is to certify that the foregoing writing, on seven pages of paper, is a true extract from tlie Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States on the IGth and 18th days of February, 1819. This certificate is given at the request of the Hon. John C. Clark, now a member of the House of Representatives from the State of New-York. H. A. GARLAND, Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S. Extract from the Journal of the Senate at the First Session of the Seventeenth Congress, Wednesday^ March 6, 1822. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideratien of the bill for the establish- ment of a Territorial Government in Florida; and the bill having been amended, it was reported to the House accordingly ; and. On the question to concur in the amendment to the Uth section, to strike out, after the word " free- dom," ill the 14th line thereof, the residue of said section, as follows: " No skive or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into the said Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into the said Territory for actual settlement, and being, at the time of such removal, buna fide owner of such slave or .slaves ; or any citizen of the United States travelling into the said Territory with any servant or servants, not exceeding two ; and every slave imported or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be satitled to and receive his or her freedom." 15 Tt was tlotci'iuiiicd in the anirniative : Yeas 23, Nays 20. Oil motion of Mr. Mills, The yeas ami nays being dnsired by one-fiflli of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are : Messrs. Barbour of Va., Benton, Brown of La., D'Wolf, Eaton, Elliott, Gaillard, Holmes of Miss., Johnson of Ky., Johnson of Ln., King of Ala., I.loyd, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Sovithard, Stokes, Van Dyke, Walker, Ware, Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn. Tiiose who voted in the negative are : Messrs. Barton, Boardman, Brown of Ohio, Chandler, Dickerson, Findlay, Holmes of Mo., King of N. Y., Knight, Lanman, Lowrie, Mills. Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrot, Ruggles, Seymour, Tlioinas, VAN BUREN. Office of the Clerk of the H. R. of the U. S., Washington, September 11, 1840. I do hereby certify that the foregoing, purporting to be an extract from the Journal of the Senate of the United States, has been truly and correctly copied therefrom. HORATIO N. CRABB, Ass't Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S. VI. ABOLITIONISM. Enougli appears in the foregoing pages to show that General Harrison is not an abolitionist. 1'he following remarks were made by him before he was a candidate for the Presidency: Extracts of General Harrison^ s speech at Cheviot^ Ohio^ July 4, 1833. There is, however, a subject now beginning to agitate them, [the Southern States,] in relation fo which, if their alarm has any foundation, the relative situation in which they may stand to some of the States will be the very reverse to what it now is. I allude to a supposed disposition hi some in- dividuals in the non-slaveholding States to interfere with the slave population of the other States, for the purpose of forcing their emancipation. I do not call your attention to this subject, fellow-citi- zens, from the apprehension that there is a man among you tcho will lend'his aid to a project so preg- nant with mischief, and still less that there is a State in the Union which could be brought to give it any countenance. But such are the feelings of our Southern brethren upon this subject — such their views, and their just views, of the evils which an interference of this kind would bring upon them, that long before it would reach the point of receiving the sanction of a State, the evil of the attempt would be consummated, as far as we are concerned, by a dissolution of the Union. If there is any principle of the Constitution of the United States less disputable than any other, it is, that the slave population is under the exclusive control of the States ichich possess them. If there is any measure likely to rivet the chains and blast the prospects of the negroes for emancipation, it is the interference of unauthorized persons. Can any one who is acquainted with the operations of the human mind doubt this ? We have seen how restive our Southern brethren have been, from a supposed violation of their political rights. What mxist be the consequence of an acknowledged violation of these rights, {for every man of sense must admit it to be so,) conjoined with an insulting interference with their domestic concerns 1 Shall I be accused of want of feeling for the slave, by these remarks ? A further examination will elucidate the matter. / take it for granted that no one will say that either the Government of the United States or those of the non-slaveholding States can interfere in any way with the right of jiroperty in the slaves. Upon whom, then, are the efforts of the misguided and pretended friends of the slaves to operate ? It must be either on the GovernmeiTts of the slaveholding States, the indivi- duals who hold them, or upon the slaves themselves. What are to be the arguments, what the means, by which they are to influence the two first of those ? Is there a man vain enough to go to the land of Madison, of Macon, and of Crawford, and tell them that they either do not understand the princi- ples of the moral and political rights of man ; or that, understanding, they disregard them ? Can they address an argument to the interest or fears of the enlightened population of the slave States, that has not occurred to themselves a thousand and a thousand times? To whom, then, are they to address themselves but to the slaves ? And what can be said to them, that will not load to an indiscriminate slaughter of every age and sex, and ultimately to their own destruction ? Should there be an incar- nate devil who has imagined with approbation such a catastrophe to his fellow-citizens as I have de- scribed, let him look to those for whose benefit he would produce it. Particular sections of the country may be laid waste, all the crimes that infuriated man, under the influence of all the black passions of his nature, can commit, may be perpetrated for a season; the tides of the ocean, however, will no more certainly change, than that the flood of horrors will be arrested, and turned upon those who may get it in motion. / loill not stop to inquire into the motives of those who are engaged in this fatal and unconstitu- tional project. There may be some who have embarked in it without properly considering its conse- quences, and who are actuated by benevolent and virtuous principles. But, if such there are, I ain very certain that, should they continue their present course, tlicir fcllow-citizcns will, ere long, ' curse the virtues which have undone their country.' Should I be asked if there is no way by which the General Government can aid the cause of emaiicipation, 1 answer, that it has long been an object near my heart to sec the whole of its surplus; 16 revenue appropriated to that object. With the sanction of the States holding the slaves, there appears to nie to be no constitutional objection to its being thus applied ; embracing not only the colonization of those that may be otherwise freed, but the purchase of freedom of others. By a zealous prosecu- tion of a plan formed upon that basis, we might look forward to a day, not very distant, when a North American sun would not look down upon a slave. To those who have rejected the plan of coloniza- tion, I would ask, if they have well weighed the consequences of emancipation without it ? How long would the emancipated negroes remain satisfied with that ? Would any one of the Southern •States then (the negroes armed and organized) be able to resist their claims to a participation in all their political rights? Would it even stop tliere ? Would they not claim admittance to all the social right* and privileges of a community in which, in some instances, they would compose the majority ? Let those who take pleasure in the contemplation of such scenes as must inevitably follow, finish out the picture. If I am correct in the principles here advanced, I support my assertion, that the discussion on the subject of emancipation in the non-slaveholding States, is equally injurious to the slaves and their masters, and that it has no sanction in the principles of the Constitution. I must not be understood to say, that there is any thing in that instrument which prohibits such discussion. I know there is not. But the man who believes that the claims which his fellow-citizens have upon him are satis- fied by adhering to the letter of the political contract that connect them, must have a very imperfect knowledge of the principles upon which our glorious Union was formed, and by which alone it can be maintained. I meau those feelings of regard and affection which were manifested in the first dawn of our Revolution, which induced every American to think that an injury inflicted upon his fellow-citizen, however distant his location, was an injury to himself; which made us, in effect, one people, before we had any paper contract; wliich induced the venerable Shelby, in the second war for independence, to leave the comforts which age required, to encounter tlie dangers and privations incident to a wilderness war ; which drew from the same quarter the innumerable battalions of volun- teers whicli preceded and followed him ; and from the banks of the distant Appamattox, that band of youthful heroes, which has immortalized the appellation by which it was distinguished. Those Worthy sons of immortal sires did not stop to inquire into the alleged injustice and immorality of the Indian war. It was sufficient for them to learn their fellow-citizens were in danger, that the toma- hawk and scalping-knife were suspended over the heads of the women and children of Ohio, to in- iduce them to abandon the ease, and, in many instances, the luxury and splendor by which from infancy they had been surrounded, to encounter the fatigues and dangers of war, amidst the horrors of a Canadian winter. . In 1835, after he was nominated for the Presidency, General Harrison delivered the speech at Vincennes, Indiana, which we have before cited, and which the Abolitionists call " infamous.^'' The following is extracted from it : Extracts from General Harrison^ s speech at Vincennes^ Indiana, July 4, 1835, I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say on another subject, and which is, in my opinion, of more importance than any other that is now in the course of discussion in any part of the Union. I allude to the societies which have been formed, and the movements of certain indi- viduals, in some of the States, in relation to a portion of the population in others. The conduct of these persons is the more dangerous, because their object is masked under the garb of disinterested- ness and benevolence ; and their course vindicated by arguments and propositions which, in the ab- stract, no one can deny. But however fascinating may be the dress with which their schemes are presented to their fellow-citizens, with whatever purity of intention they may have been formed and sustained, they will be found to carry in their train mischief to the wliole Union, and horroi's to a large portion of it, which it is probable some of the projectors and many of their supporters have never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils which are to spring from this source, are such as you have read of to have been perpetrated oh the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scy- thian hordes of Attila and Alaric; and such as most of you apprehended upon that memorable night, when the tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Tecumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I regard not the disavowals of any such intention on the part of the authors of these schemes, since, upon examination of the publications which have been made, they will be found to contain every fact and every argument which would have been used if such had been their objects. I am certain that there is not in this assembly one of these deluded men, and that there are few within the bounds of the State. If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their career, and deliberately consider the consequences of their conduct to the whole Union, to the States more immediately interested, and to those for whoso benefit they profess to act. That the latter will Jae the victims of the weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts to serve tliem, a thorough examination of the subject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there must be) anay connucnco with horrors such as I have described, but it will end with more firmly riveting the chains, or in tlie utter extirpation of those whose cause they advocate. Am I wrong, fellow-citizens, in applying the terms iccak, presumptuous, and unconstitutional, to the measures of the emancipators? A slight examination will, I think, show that I am not. In a vindication of the objects of a conven- tion which was lately held in one of tlie towns of Ohio, which I saw in a newspaper, it was said that nothing more was intended than to produce a state of public feeling which would lead to an amend, ment of the Constitution, authorizing the abolition of slavery in the United States. Now, can an amendment of the Constitution be cffiicted without the consent of tiie Southern States? What, then, is the proposition to be submitted to them ? It is this : The present provisions of the Constitution secure to you the right (a right whicli you held before it was made, and which you have never given 17 Mp) 1,0 manage your domestic concerns in ynur own way; but as we are convinced that you do not inanago them properly, we want you to put in tiie hands of tlie t^enerul Ciuvfrnment, in tiie coimcils of which we have the majority, the control over these matters, the effect ol' which will be virtually to transfer the power from yours into our hands. Again, in some of the States, and in s<3ctions of others, the black population far exceeds that of the vvliite. Some the emanciijators propose an im- mediate abolition. What is the proposition, th'-n, as it regards those States and paits of States, but the alternatives of amalgamation witli the blacks, or an exchange of situations with thern ? Is there any man of common sense who does not believe that the emancipated blacks, being a majority, will not insist upon a full participation of political rights with the wliites, and, when possessed of these, that they will not contend for a full share of social rights also? What but the extremity of weakness and folly could induce any one to think that sucli propositions as these could be listened to by a j>eo- ple so intelligent as those of the iSouthdni States? Further, the emancipators generally declare that it is their intention to effect their object (althougii their acts contradict the assertion) by no other means than by convincing the slaveholders th.it the immediate emancipation of the slaves is called for both by moral obligation and sound policy. An unfledged youth at the moment of his leaving (indeed, in many instances before he has left it) his Theological Seminary, undertakes to give lec- tures upon morals to the countrymen of Wythe, Tucker, Pendleton, and Lowndes, and lessons of political wisdom to States whose affairs have so recently been directed by Jefferson and Madison, Macon and Crawford. Is it possible that instances of greater vanity and presumption could be ex- hibited ? But the course pursued by the emancipators is unconstitutional. I do not say that there are any words in the constitution which forbid such discussions as they say they are engaged in. I know that there are not. And there is even an article which secures to the citizens the right to express and publish their opinions without restriction. But in the construction of the constitution it is al- ways necessary to refer to the circumsl inces nndi^r which it was framed, and to ascertain its meaning by a comparison of its provisions with each otiior, and with the previous situation of the several States who were parties to it. In a portion of these slaver)'^ was recognised, and they took care to have the right secured to them to follow and reclaim such of them as were fugitives to other States. The laws of Congress passed under this power have provided punishment to any wlio shall oppose or interrupt the exorcise of this right. Now, can any one believo that the instrument which contains a provision of this kind, which authorizes a master to pursue his slave into anotiior State, take him back, and provides a punishment for anj' citizen or citizens of that State who should oppose him, should at the same time authorize the latter to assemble together, to pass resolutions and adopt addrasses, not only to encourage the slaves to leave tlieir masters, but to cut their throats befoie they do so ? I insist that, if the citizens of the non-slaveholding States can avail themselves of the article of the constitution which prohibits the restriction of speech or of the press, to publish any thing injurious to the rights of the slavehoiding States, they can go to the extreme that I have mentioned, and effect any thing further which writing or speaking could effect. But, fellow-citizens, these are not the principles of the constitution. Such a construction would defeat one of the great objects of its for- mation, which was that of securing the peace and harmony of the States which were parties to it. The liberty of speech and of the press were given as the most effectual means to preserve to each and every citizen their own rights, and to the States the rights which appertained to them at the time of its adoption. It could never have been expected that it would be used by the citizens of one portion of the States for the purpose of depriving those of another portion of the rights which they had reserved at the adoption of the constitution, and in the exercise of which none but themselves have any concern or interest. If slavery is an evil, (and no one more readily acknowledges it tlian I do,) the evil is with them. If there is guilt in it, the guilt is theirs, not ours, since, neither the Stales where it does not exist, nor the Government of the United States, can, without usurpation of power and the violation of # solemn compact, do any thinff to remove it without the consent of those loho are immediately interested. With that consent, there is not a man in the whole world who would more willingly contribute his aid to accomplish it than I would. If my vote could effect it, every surplus dollar in the Treasury should be appropriated to that object. But they will neither ask for aid nor consent to be aided, so long as the illegal, persecuting, and dangu-ons movements are in progress of which I complain; the interest of all concerned requires tliat tliese should be immediately stopped. This can only be done by the force of public opinion, and that cannot too soon he brouglit into operation. Every movement which is made by the abolitionists in the non-slavdiolding States is viewed by our Soutliern brethren as an attack upon their rights, and which, if persisted in, must in the end eradicate those feelings of attachment and affection between the citizens of all the States which were produced Iry a community of interests and dangers in the war of the Revolution, which was the foundation of our happy Union, and by a continuance of which it alone can be preserved. I entreat you, then, fellow-citizens, to frown upon the measures which are to produce results so much to be deprecated. The opinions which I have now given, I have omitted no opportuniiy for the last two years to lay before the peo- ple of my own State. I have taken the liberty to express them here, knowing that, even if they should unfortunately not accord with yours, they would be kindly received. If additional evidence of General Harrison's hostility to abolitionism were wanted, we need only look to the facts that he is denounced, in terms of unsparing vituperation, by the Abolition presses; and that the Abolitionists, at a Convention held in Albany on the first of April last, nominated James G. Birney, of New- York, as their candidate for the Presidency, and Thomas Earle, of Pennsylvania, [a zealous partisan of Mr. Van Bu~ ren,) as their candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Mr. Gerritt Smith, the pride and 3 18 boast of the Abolitionists, is dow a candidate, and, as is ■well understood, the Va7i Buren candidate, for the office nf CTOvernor of the State of New- York. Let Southern men listen to another partisan of Mr. Van Buren, and one of his right-hand men in the Senate of the United States — the notorious Benjamin 'J'appan. This man published a book of Reports, entitled "7'appan's Reports." One of the cases reported is that of Barrett vs. Jarvis, page 212. It was a slander suit. The slander charged was, that one man had said of another, that he was " akin to negroes." Tappan, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said : " If the action does not lie for imputing a want of moral virtue, can it lie for imputing a consan- guinity witii any particular race of mon ? for sayinjx of another, that lie has a drop of African blood in his veins "^ that he is of kin, in some degree, roiiiote or near, to tlie negroes — to that race of men who have benn, for ages, the victims of a bloody and unrelenting avarice, and who are bound down to the ground, and trodden under foot by oppression, so wide and so enormous, that no man can for a moment contemplate their situation vvilhout the deepest commiseration and horror — commiseration for their sufForings, and liorror at tlie immense mass of wickedness and crime which holds tliem in subjection ? " I know of no principle of ethics or law which would forbid a descendant of the fair-haired and ruddy Teutone from marrying the swarthy native of Africa." The following is an extract of a letter from Mr. .Tames Collier, of Steubenville, Ohio; "In the conversation alluded to, Juik.e Tappan observed, 'that as he was returning from Columbus, ho was waited upon at Zancsville, by a Coaunitteo from tlie State Abolition Society, tlien in session at Putnam, with a request that he would accept some appointment, or some office, (what particular office I do not now recollect,) from tlie Society.' The Judge stated that he declined, and assigned as a reason, that he disapproved of the course they were taking ; ' but,' said he, ' I told them if they wanted five hundred dollars to purchase arms and ammunition, to put into the hands of the blacks, that they might free tliemsolves, I would give them the money.' I tlien asked him if ho had reflected upon the consequences of such a step ; that insurrection would be the inevitable result, and that he might thereby put in peril the lives of his connexions and neigiibors. He inquired how? To which I replied, that the President was bound, by his oath of office, to suppress insurrections, and, to do that, was authorized to call out the whole aimed force of the country. He remarked, that the Presi- dent would do no sucli thing. To this I replied, that the President had ordered the troops to South- ampton, and would do it again, if necessary. I then said, 'Judge, I think I can put you a case where you would go yourself.' ' Let me hear your case, Cojoiijl,' said lie. ' Suppose sir,' I observed, 'that the County of Brooke, opposite to us, in Virginia, contained a dense population of slaves; that they should rise up against their masters, and that you should be standing with your ntighbors on one side of the river, and see ihc.n marching down on the other side, burning and destroying every thing within their roach, and murdering, witliout distinction, men, women, and children, and that our friends and acquaintances should call upon us for assistance, would not you go?' 'No, by God,' said he, ' I would not, and would disinherit any child I have that would go !' " Mr. J. H. Hallock, in a letter, says: " He [Tappan] habitually denounced slavery and .slaveholders. His expressions were very strong, such as — 'that the slaves ouglit to rise and cut their iinasters' tliroats ;' 'if tliey [the slaves] should rise, he would not aid in subduing them, but would rather aid them.'" Mr. D. S. Collier, in a letter dated March G, 1S40, confirms the statements of Mr. Hallock and Mr. .Tames Collier. D. S. Collier says: it " In a conversation between the Judge [Tapj)an] and a gentleman then resident of this place, but now of Baltimore, on the subject of slav.;ry, this case was presented to the Judge : ' Su])pose, sir, we should see tlie slaves rising against t'leir masters, on the opposite side of the river, (Virginia,) and about to succeed in subduing tiiem, or in enlling their throats, would you not interfere to ])revvnt this, and save tlieir lives?' To wliich lie r plird, in substance, 'that if he interfered at all, it would be to supply the slaves with ammunition.'" Mr. Stanly, a Representative in Congress from North-Carolina, in a speech delivered by him in the. House of Representatives on the 13th April, 1840, said that he had in his possession the original letters of the Messrs. Colliers and Mr. Hallock, and ''dared any supporter of this Administration to contradict them." No contradiction was made. In confirmation of the statements of those gentlemen, Mr. Stanly read an extract of a letter, published in September, 1S37, (before Tappan was in Congress,) written by Mr. James Mears, ''ffl Van Buren man." The extract is as follows: " There is another thing. I consider him the worst kind of an abolitionist, as he holds to doctrines the most mischievous and absurd on the subject of slaverj'. I believe it could be proved that he has said he would give five hundred dollars to purchase arms to put in the hands of the slaves to free themselves; and tha,t they ought to cut their masters' throats. lie has also said, if the slaves were butchering men, women, and children, on the op]iosite side of the river, he would not lift a finger to rescue them ; and that he would (hsinhfril a son wlio would oiler to go to their relief. Now, although not an advocate for slavery, I would not support any man i'^v office, who entertains such inhumaQ feelings and opinions as these.' 19 Let us now hear Alf.xandkr 'Juncan, a rabid Vnn Huronito, and the Tappan of the House of Representatives. This man, in a letter dated September 1 5, 1838, and published in the Globe, says of slavery: " It is an evil that has, does note, and ii-ill, in nil (hnr to roinr, V)bilr it exists, involve in it, as well in its present i'osskssion as in its future operations, crime, fraud, thuft, robbery, murder, and death." Among the expedients resorted to, in order to excite prejudices at the South against General Harrison, Mr. Senator Grundy, the Globe, and other mouth-pieces of Mr, Van Buren, have published the following: "TO THE PUBLICK. " FKLLow-CiTrzENS : Being called suddenly home, to attend to my sick family, I have but a mo- ment to answer a few of the calumnies which are in circulation against me. " I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth, up to the present moment, I have been the ardent friend of human liberty. At the age of eighteen, I became a member of an Abolition Society, established at Richmond, the object of which was to ameliorate the condition of slaves, and procure their freedom by every legal means. My venerable friend. Judge Gatch,'of Cler- mont County, was also a member of this Society, and has lately given me a certificate that I was one. The obligations I came under, 1 have faithfully performed. "WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON." This publication is made as if it had appeared, for the first time, in the Cincinnati Ga- zette of February 14, 1840; thus affecting to show that General Harrison is an Abo- litionist of the present day, and also that the publication is an entire letter. The misrepresentation is both fraudulent and foolish. The publication is only a few sentences of an address published by General Harrison, when he was a candidate for Congress, in 1822, eighteen years ago, at which time aboHtion was as different from what it is now, as light is from darkness. The true paper is as follows : "TO THE PUBLICK. " Fellow-Citizens : Being called suddenly home, to attend my sick family, I have but a moment to answer a few of the calumnies which are in circulation concerning me. " I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth, to the present moment, I have been the ardent friend of human liberty. At the age of eighteen, I became a member of an Abolition Society, establi-slied at Richmond, Virginia, the object of wliicli was to ameliorate the con- dition of slaves, and procure their freedom by every legal means. My venerable friend, .ludge Gatch, of Clermont County, was also a member of that Society, and has lately given me a certificate that I was one. The obligations which I then came under, I have fiithfully performed. I have been the means of liberating many slaves, but never pliiced one in bondage. I deny that my votes in Congress, in relation to Missouri and Arkansas, are in the least incomf)atible with these principles. Congress had no more legal or constitutional right to emancipate the negroes in those sections of Louisiana, without the consent of their owners, than they have to free those of Kentucky. These pco])le were secured in their property by a solemn covenant with France, when the country was pur- chased from that power. To prohibit the emigration of citizens of the Soutlicrn States to the part of the country the situation and climate of which was peculinrly suited'to them, would have been highly unjust, as it had been purchased out of the common fund; particularly, too, when it is recollected that all the immense territory, to the northwest of the Ohio, had been ceded by Virginia, and that, with an unexampled liberality, she had herself proposed, by excluding slavery from it, to secure it for the emigration of those States which had no slaves. Was it proper, then, when her reserved territory was, in a great measure, tilled up, to exclude her citizens from every part of the territory purchased put of the common fund. I was the first person to introduce into Congress the proposition that all the country above Missouri, (which, having no iuJiabitants, was free from the objection made to Mis. souri and Arkansas,) should never have slavery admitted into it. / repeat what I have before said, that, as our Union was only effected by mutual concession, so only can it be preserved. My vote against the restriction of Missouri, in forming hor constitution, was not a conclusive one. There would have beMi time enough, had I continued to be a member, before the question was decided, for my constituents to have instructed me, and / should hare rejoiced in any opportu- nity of sacrificing my seat to my principles, if they had instructed me in opposition to iny construction of the Constitution. Like many other members from the non-slaveholdiug States, of whom I men- *tion Shaw, Holmes, Mason, of Massachusetts, Lanman, of Connecticut, and Baldwin, of Pennsylva- nia, I could see nothing in the Constitution, which I had sworn to su|)port, to warrant such an inter- ference with the rights of the States, and which had never before been attempted. And where is the crime in one set of men not being able to interpret the Constitution as other men interpret it ? As ice had all sworn to support it, the crime would have been in giving it a construction which our consciences would not sanction. And, let me ask, for what good is this question again brought up? It has been settled, as all our family differences have been settled, on the firm basis of mutual compromise ; and patriotism, as well as prudence, devoted the effects of lh;it awful discussion to eternal oblivion. Is it not known that from that cause the great fabric of our Union was shaken to its foun- dation ?' Is it not known that Missouri would not have submitted to the restriction, and that the other slaveholding States had determined to support her? But for this compromise, the probability is, that at this moment we might look upon the opposite shore of Ohio, not for an affectionate sister State, 20 but an armed and implacable rival. What patriotic man would not join the gallant Eaton in execrating the head and the hand that could devise and execute a schome productive of a calamity so awful ? Upon the whole, fellow-citizens, our path is ar plain one; it is that marked out as well by humanity as duty. We cannot emancipate the slaves of the oilier States, without their consent, but by pro- ducing a convulsion which would undo us all. For tliis much to be desired event, we must wait the Blow but certain progress of those good principles which are every where guining ground, and which assuredly will ultimately prevail. #*♦*» + ******* WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. MR. T. W. PLEASANTS'S LETTER. [from the RICHMOND WHIG.] The real object of the society in Richmond of wliicli Gen. Harrison became a member, is explained in the following letter from Turlton Woodson Pleasants, now of the county of Goocliland, but then a citizen of Richmond, and a member of the society. It cotiipletely dissipates tlie chargi; ag.iinst Gen, Harrison, so far as his letter, quoted in Mr. Garland's letter, was relied upon as evidence to sustain it, and establishes that the views of the society were principally directed to the extirpation of the African slave trade — a trade which we pre.-ume not one man in the United States could at this day be brought to defend. The whole mistake was in Gen. Harrison's calling that an Abolition Society which was wholly different : " In the year 1798* I was a member of a society in Richmond, called the ' Humane Society.' Robert Pleasants, of Curies, was Presidunt of the society. The object of this association was, in conjunction with the parent society in Philadelphia, to aid in nhulishing the slaoe trade, and to assist negroes who were illegally held in bondage, to obtain their rights through the courts of justice. I was once a dele- gate from the society in Richmond to a convt;ntion in Pliiladelphia, and there were delegates from the different societies of Pennsylvania, New-York, New-Jersey, and Delaware. Dr. Benjamin Rush, James Todd, William Rawle, Dr. Wister, Thomas P. Cope, and others, were from Penns)'lvania ; Mr. Boyd, from New-York; Richard Hartshorn, from New-Jersey; Csesar A. Rodney, from Dela. ware; and many others, whose names I do not recollect. A v;ry lengthy discussion took place upon the slave trade, in which William Rawle, Drs. Rush and Wister, particularly distinguished them, selves. Dr. Rush made one of the most elegant speeches I ever heard. This was the principal sub- ject before the convention. If the abolition of slavery in the United States was alluded to at all, I do not recollect it. Thomas P. Cope and Timothy Paxton were the secretaries to the convention ; and I have no doubt either of thern, if living, would furnish a copy of tiie constitution, if written to by yourself. I have no recollection that Gen. Harrison was a member of the Richmond ' Humane So- ciety;' but I have no doubt this was the very society of which he was a member, about which so much has latterly been said in the public journals. I should have stated that Gov. James Wood was Vice ^President of the Richmond society. " You can make what use you please of this, except that I do not wish my name to be made public, as I wish to live and die in obscurity. " Yours, TARLTON W. PLEASANTS. " P. S. I was twenty-two years old in 1798, and Gen. H. must have been twenty-five : he had con- sequently gone to the West, and must have been a member of this society six or seven years before, as it is said he was only eighteen years old at the time he became a member. The society existed for some years." [We publish the name, nevertheless, upon our " own responsibility." It is certain that this " Hu- mane Society" was the same to which Gen. Harrison alluded — for when in this city, in 1836, he said Robert Pleasants, of Curies, was its President. If its journals could be found, th<-y would undoubt-' edly show that numbers of Virginia's most distinguished sons of that day were members. — Ed, Whig.} Gen. Harrison, in his letter to Mr. James Lyons, says, on this subject : "In answer to the inquiry why I used the word 'abolition,' in designating a society of which I was a member in Richmond, in the year 1791, instead of the word ' humane,' which is known to be the one by which the society was really distinguished, all that I can say upon the subject is, that if I did really term it an abolition society— a fact which I can hardly believe, for I have not been able to see the paper containing my address to the people of the District in 1822— it must have been from torget- fulness, which might easily happen after a lapse of twenty-one years. At any rate, the word ■■ aboli- tion' was not understood to mean, in 1822, what it now means. There can be no doubt that the soci- ety of which Mr. Tarlton Pleasants was a member, and which, in his publication in the Richmond Whig, he calls the 'Humane Society of Richmond,' (and by this title Judge Gatch, who gave me the certificate in 1822, also designated it) was the same of which I was a member. Mr. Pleasants was a member in 1797, I in 1791. Mr. Robert Pleasants was the President at the former period, as he was when I was admitted." This society, whatever was its name, was in the city of Richmond, in Virginia, a slave- holding State, and was composed of slaveholders! — a sufficient guaranty, one would think, of its harmlessness, and that its objects were purely '' humane'' Modern " abolition" was then not dreamed of. Robert Pleasants was its President, and James Wood was * I am pretty confident this was tlie year. 21 Vice President. Mr. Stanly, now a Represr ntative in Congress from the slaveholding State of North-Carolina, and one of the most strenuous and formidable foes of the modern abolitionists that can be found in the whole South, in his speech, delivered in the House of Representatives, April 13, 184U, says: " I am able to throw additional light upon this subject. I have obtained a copy of the ' minutes of the proceedings' of the convention of deh-gates whicli assembled at Pliiladelphia in 1797. I have looked througli these proooediiigs, and there is not the slightest evidence of any design of intei'fering with the rights of the slaveholding States. The proceedhigs of this convention fully sustain Mr. Tarlton Woodson Pleasants in his statement. Delegates were in attendance from the States of New- York, New-Jersey, and Pennsylvania, from Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria. No man can be foolish enough to suppose that societi'^s could i)e formed in Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria, in the midst of slaveholders, and appoint drU-gates to consult upon the propriety of abolishing slavery, as abolitionists now propose. " At this convention, in 1797, a connnittee was appointed, 'to whom was referred the several com- munications made to the convention, and who wore diroctod to consider wjiat objects are proper for the attention of the convention.' ' "The committee, of which the delegates from Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria, were mem- bers, recommended to the convention 'to iiddrcss a letter, or memorial, to the Secretaiy of State of the United States,' ' and to inform him of the atti'mpts made, by citizens of the United States, to evade the law prohibiting our citizens from supplying foreign countries witii sLivos, by clandestinely using the Danish flag and registers, and praying sucli aid and interference of the Government of the United States, with the Court of Denmark, or with other Governments under whose authority such practices now obtain, as may consist with propriety,' &.c. The convention, in this, was sustained by the South- ern members. They asked nothing in this which it would be wrong to ask at this day. The prin. cipal object the convention had in view was, to put a stop to the slave trade, which was forbidden by the laws of the United States, and to aid, by suits in courts of justice, the emancipation of such slaves as had once been liberated, and were afterwards unjustly and unlawfully reduced to slavery. This seems to have been tlic ' very head and front of their oftcuding.' "There is another fact which explains most satisfiictorily their proceedings, and affords a justifica- tion to this convention. They were entirely different in their objects and feelings from abolitionists of the present day. They did not assemble, ofliciously and impertinently, to devise ways and means for taking away their neighbor's property; nor did they propose or intend, by issuing inflammatory pamphlets, to excite insurrection. At this time, as appears from the pamphlet to which I have refer, red, the States of New-York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, wore shiveholding States. What.ever measures, therefore, were adopted by this convention must have operated on themselves — must have affected their own rights, and the welfare of their own neighbors, kindred, and friends." VII. CHARGE AGAINST GENERAL HARRISON OF HAVING VOTED IN FAVOR OF SELLING WHITE MEN FOR DEBT. In support of this ridiculous calumny, the palace slaves refer to the following extract from the Laws of the Indiana Territory, printed at Vincennes, by Messrs. Stout & Smoot, in 18U7, and now in the Library of the State Department, Washington City: Chapter vi. An Act respecting Crimes and Punishments. Sec. 30. When any person or persons shall, on conviction of any crime or breach of any penal law, be sentenced to pay a fine or fines, with or without the costs of prosecution, it shall and may be law- ful for the court before whom such conviction shall be liad to order the sheriff to sell or hire the per. son or persons so convicted to service to any porson or persons who will pay the said fine and costs, for suck term of time as the said court shall judge reasonable. And if such person or parsons, so sentenced and hirod or sold, shall abscond from the sorrice of his or her master or mistress before the term of such servitude shall be expired, he or she so abscond- ing shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, be whipped with thirty-nine stripes, and shall, moreover, serve two days for every one so lost. Sec. 31. The judges of the sRveral courts of record in this Territory shall give this act in charge to the grand jury at each and every court in which a grand jiuy shall be sworn. JESSE B. THOMAS, Speaker of the House of Representatives, B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. It has even been said, that in approving this law, General Harrison approved a law for seUing white persons to free negroes ! This is about as true as the rest of the story. At page 343, chap. 48, sec. 9, of the book already cited, is the following: No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time purchase any servant other than of their own com. flexion, and if any of the persons aforesaid sliaU, nevertheless, presume to purchase a white servant, such servant shall immediately become free, and shall bo so held, deemed, and taken. Signed as follows: JESSE B. THO.\IAS, Speaker of the House of Representatives, B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. 22 Mr. Van Buren's partisans also pretend to rely on a vote given by General Harrisoi^ in the Legislature of Ohio. The following is an authentic and concise statement of facts relating to the charge against General Harrison of "voting to sell AVhite men for debt:" The vote which h;is been the sul)ject of so much misrepresentation was given by General Harri- SON in the Senate of Ohio, at the session of 1820-'21. Previous to that time, a law " For the puu.- ishment of certain off^uices therein specifier!," passed February 11, 1815, had been in force.* This act defined and punished crimes or olFonces considered less heinous than crimes which were punish- able by imprisonment in the peuitsntiary, such as petty larceny, house breaking, rescuing prisoners, and offences of the like grade. Thesj offences were, by this law, made punishable by fine and imprisonment in the county jail. Tliis law also provided that if the offender refused to pay the fine imposed on liini by the court, and cohts of prosecution, and the sheriff could find no property of the offender that ho could levy on and sell, to pay the fine and costs, then he should imprison the ofl:*ender in the county jail until the fine and costs should be paid. But it also provided that the county com- missioners might order the sheriff or jailer to discharge the offender imprisoned for the non-payment of such fine and costs from prison, if they were satisfied that he was unable to pay the fine and costs.t It was found in practice that the conviction and punishment of offenders under the act added greatly to the expenses of the counties, and consequently served to increase the burden of taxation on the people. ,Most of these potty criminals had little or no property, or adopted means to keep it out of the hands of the sheriff, so as to prevent effectually his collection of the fines and costs imposed on thera for the violation of the law. Tiie result was, that, in a majority of cases, the counties had to pay the costs of prosecuting these offenders, and of sustaining them in prison ; thus compelling the innocent to pay for the conviction and punishment of the guilty. At the session of 1820-'21, a select com- mittee was raised in the Housy of Representatives to examine this subject and report to the House what amendments, if any, were necessary and proper.t This committee reported a bill supplementary to the act above referred to, the principal object of which seems to have been to diminish the expenses imposed on the counties by the prosecution and punishment of these offenders. || This supi)lementary bill was recommitted to the Committee on the .ludiciary, and was afterwards reported back to the House by Mr. MoRpas, (late Senator in Congress,) with sundry amendments, containintr provisions for the pujiishmont of certain additional oflences not contained in the original act, and containing also the obnoxious section authorizing the sheriff to sell offenders to such persons as would pay the fine and costs lor which the offenders were in prison, for the shortest period of scr- vice of such offenders. The bill passed the House, with this obnoxious section in it, by a vote of forty-two ayes to twenty-one noes — Thomas Morris, late .Senator in Congress, Thomas Shannon, now Senator in the Ohio Legislature, brother to Governor Shannon, M. T. Williams, late Surveyor-Gen. €ral of the United States, E. Whittlesey, late member of Congress, among others, voting in the affirmative. § When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, Mr. Fithian moved to strike out the nine- teenth section of the bill, as it came from the House. This section, as has been previously stated, authorized the sheriff" to sell the services of the offender who was imprisoned for the non-payment of the fine imposed on him by the ce-urt, and the costs of conviction, to the person who would pay such fine and costs, for the shortest term of service, and secured the offender from cruelty or abuse from tlie purchaser, during the term of service, by giving him the same remedies as are provided, by law, in the "case of master and apprentice.''^ * See Ohio Laws, vol. 13, page 249. tSee section 37 of same act. tSee Journal H. R.. page 182. USee sections 11, 12, and 14. of supplementary act, Ohio Laws, vol. L, page 197. § See Journal H. R., page 320. IT The section proposed to be stricken out is, at lengtli, in these words : ^^ Be it further enacted, That when any person shall be imprisoned, either upon execution or otherwise, for the non-payment of a fine or costs, or both, it shall be lawful for the sheriff of the county to sell out such person as a servant to any person within this State who will pay the whole amount due for the shortest period of service, of which sale public notice shall be given at least ten days ; and upon such sale being effected the sheriff shall give to the purchaser a certificate thereof, and deliver over the prisoner to him, from which time the relation between such purchaser and tiio prisoner shall be that of master and servant, until the time of service expires; and for injuries done by either, remedy shall be had in the same manner as is or may be provided by law in the case of master and apprentice. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent persons being discharged from imprisonment according to the provisions of the thirty-seventh section of the act to which this is supplementary, if it shall be considered expedient to grant such discharge. Provided, That the court, in pronouncing sentence upon any person or persons convicted under this act, or the act to which this is supplementary, may direct such person or persons to be detained in prison until the fine be paid, or the person or persons otherwise disposed of, agreeably to the provisions of this act." — Senate Journal, page 304, sec. 19. The thirty-seventh section of the act for the punishment of certain offences therein specified, which is here referred to, is as follows : "Sec. 37. Be it further enacted. That when any person shall be confined in jail for the payment of any fine or costs that may be inflicted agreeably to the provisions of this act, the county commis- sioners may, if it be made to appear to their satisfaction that the persons so confined cannot pay such &ie amd costs, order the sheriff or jailer of such county to discharge such person from imprisonment , •23 This section was stricken out in the Senate, by a vote of twenty ayes to" twelve noes; General Harrison, Eli Baluvvi,\, late Van Buron candidutu for Governor of Oiiio, wit!i otiiers, voting in the negative.* In addition to thi^ privilege seevired to tlie iivprisoned oili:ndur wiio should be unable to pay his fine and costs, of biniig liboratutl liy the county coniniissioners, if tliey considered it expe- dient, the bill contained, when this vote on striking out tlic selling section was taken, a section pro- viding that tlie otl':nder might discharge his fine by labor on the public liighways, at sucii rates as might bo prescribed by the court passing sentence on the convicted offender. t From this statement of facts it clearly appears — First. That the selling, so nuicii complained of, was only the selling of the services of the con- victed offender for a limited period of time. Second. Tiiat the offender, during the period of his service, was secured from injustice, cruelty, or abuse, in the sinie maimer as appr.uitices are secured against abuse from their masters. Third. That if the offender was able and willing lo labor, he might diseliarge tlie fine imposed on hini for his violation of the law, by kUor on the public higliways, and thus avoid being sold out to service. Fuurth. Tliat if he was unable Ao 1 ibor on the higliways, and so poor as to lie un;ible f o pay his fine and costs, he might, in such a ease, be discharged by the county- coininissiouers without either paying or being sold for the payment of his fine and costs. Fifth, and last. That the s'lling had no i\;f'rence to hon 'st men or to debtors, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but only to cjiiricted offenders against the penal laws of the State. And, even in these cases, it was only substituting temporary service, in lieu of imprisonment for an indefi- nite length of time, hi the noisome cells of a county jail, where the offender could earn nothing to pay his fine nor to support himself or family. This bill was under consideration at a time of great pecuniary einbarrassment in the State of Ohio. So difiieult was it for the people to raise money for the payment of taxes, tiiat the collections were inadequate to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government. The Legislature were engaged during a large part of the session in considering various plans for reducing the current expenses of the State, and a law was passed authorizing the Governor to borrow the sum of ijp^O.OOO, in aid of the proceeds of taxation. During the pendency of the supplementary act for the punishiujent of offenders, above referred to, attempts were made in both branclies of the Legislature to substitute lohipping for impri. snnnient in the county jail, as a method of punisiung offences less expensive to the counties; and the plan of selling the services of the convicted offender, for a limited period, to pay the -fine and costs imposed on him as a punishimait for violating the laws of his country, was advocated by many re- spectable members of both br.uichcs of the General Assembly, as a mode of punishment less expen- sive to tlie public than that of imprisonment, and less barbarous than that of whipping the offender «.t the post. Columbus, April 6, 1840. Dear Sir: Agreeably to your request, I have carefully examined the journals of the General As- sembly for the session when the proposed measure '^ of selling oat the services of convicted offenders against the penal laiLis of the State, for a limited time, to pay the fines imposed on them by the court and costs of conviction" was under consideration, as well as the statute laws of the State in relation to tiic subje<;t, and have given you, above, a correct statement of all the material facts and circuin- Stances in the case. At my request, William Miner, Esq., Clerk of the United Stati's Courts for Ohio, and Lyne Star- ring, Junior, CI rk of the Superior (^)urt and ("oiirt of Common Pleas for Franklin County, have examined and comj)ared the statement with the laws and jounKi.L-., and added their certificate of its correctness Very respectfully, ALFRED KELLF. To the Hon. Thomas CoRwrN. At the request of Alfred Kelly, Esq., we have carefully examined the foregoing statement, and compared the same with the laws and journals tli-arein referred to, and find the s;ime to be fairly and correctly set forth. WfLI.LVM MINER, LYNE STARLING, Jun. I have often examined the laws, as above set forth, and I know they are accurately copied, and their effect, if the proposed bill had passed, is truly stated. April 14, 1840. THOMAS CORWIN. When the votes of Gen. ITaruison, and those who voted u ith him on the foreg-oing subject, were first made the subject of misiH'presentation, ho published the following tri- umphant defence : To the Cincinnati Advertiser : Sir: In your paper of the I.Sth instant I observed a most violent attack upon eleven otlier members of the late Senate and myself, for a supposed cote, given at the last session, for the ])assage of a law and the sheriff' or jailer, upon receiving such order, in writing, shall discharge such person accord- ingly. Provided, That the commissioners may, at any lime thereafter, order and cause to be issued an execution against the body, lands, goods, or chattels of the person so discharged from imprison- ment, for the amount of such fine and costs." — [See Ohio Laws, vol. 13, page 239.] * Sec Senate Journal, page 30. tSee section 16 of the supplementary act, Ohio Laws, vol. 19, page 197. 24 to '^ sell debtors in certain caseaV If such had been our conduct, T acknowledge that we should not only deserve the censure which the writer has bestowed upon us, but the execration of every honest man in society. An act of that kind is not only opposed to the principles of justice and humanity, but would be a palpable violation of the Constitution of the State, whicli every legislator is sworn to support ; and, sanctioned by a House of Representatives and twelve Senators, it would indicate a state of depravity which would fill every patriotic bosoin with the most alarming anticipntions. But the fact is, that iio such proi)o«itiou was ever made in the Legislature, or even thought of. The act to which the writer alludes has no more relation to tiie collection of "debts," than it has to the dis- covery of longitude. It was an act for the " punishuii^ut of offences" against the State; and that part of it wliicli has so deeply wound 'd the feelings of your correspondent Was passed by the House of Representatives, and voted for by the twelve Senators, under the impression that it was the most mild and humane mode of dealing with the off^'uders for whose cases it was intended. It was adopted by the House of Representatives as a pirt of the general system of the crimin il law, which was then undergoing a couiplete revLsion and amendment. The necessity of this is evinced by the following facts : For several years past it had become apparent that the penitentiary system was becoming more and more burdensome at every session; a large appropriation was called for, to met the excess of expenditure above the recii»ls of the est iblishment. In the commencement of the session of 1820, the deficit amounted to near twenty thousand dollars. This growing evil required the inunediate interposition of some vigorous legislative measure. Two were recommended, as being likely to produce the effect; first, placing the institution under better management; and, secondly, lessening the number of convicts wiio were sentenced for short periods, and whose labor was found, of course, to be most unproductive. In pursuance of the latter principle, thefts to the amount of fifiy dollars or upwards were subjected to punishment in the penitentiary, instead of ten dollars, which was the former minimum sum. This was easily done. But the great difficulty remained — to determine what should be the punishment of those numerous larcenies below the sum of fifty dollars. By some, whipping was proposed; by others, punishment by hard labor in the county j ills ; and by others it was thought best to make them work on the highways. To all these there appeared insuperable objections. Fine and imprisonment were adopted by the House of Representatives, as the only alternative ; and, as it is well known these vexatious pilferings were generally perpetrated by the more worthless vagabonds in society, it was added, that when they could not paythe fines and costs, which are always part of the sentence and punishment, their services should be sold out to any person who would pay their fines and costs for them. This was the clause that was passed, as I believe, by a unanimous vote of the House, and stricken out in the Senate, in opposition to the twelve who have been denounc^id. A little further trouble in examining the journals would have shown your correspondent that this was considered as a substitute for whipping, which was lost only by a single vote in the Senate, and in the House by a small majority, after being once passed. I think, Mr. Editor, I have said enough to show that tliis obnoxious law would not have applied to *' unfortunate debtors of sixty-four years," but to infamous offenders, who depredate upon the property of their fellow-citizens, and who, by the Constitution of the State, as well as the principle of existing laws, were subject to involuntary servitude. I must confess I had no very sanguine expectations of a beneficial effect from this measure, as it would apply to convicts who had attained the age of matu- rity ; but I had su))posed that a woman or a youth who, convicted of an offence, remained in jail for the payment of tiie fine and costs imposed, miglit with great advantage be transferred to the residence of some decent, virtuous private family, whose precept and example would gently lead them back to the paths of rectitude. I would appeal to the candor of your correspondent to say whether, if there were an individual confined under the circumstances I have mentioned, for whose fate he was interested, he would not gladly see him transferred from the filthy enclosure of a jail, and the still more filthy inhabitants, to the comfortable mansion of some virtuous citizen, whose admonitions would check his vicious pro- pensities, and whose authority over him would be no more than is exercised over thousands of appren- tices in our country, and those bound servants which are tolerated in our as well as in every other State in the Union. Far from, advocating the aboviinahle principles attrihutcd to me by your cor- respondent, I think that imprisonment for debt, under any circumstances but that where fraud is alleged, is at loar icith the best principles of our Constitution, and ought to be abolished. I am. Sir, your humble servant, WM. H. HARRISON. North Benh, December 21, 1821. In 1836, the charge was revived, and while Gen. Harrison was in Virginia the fol- lowing correspondence took place : Richmond, September 15, 1836. Dear Sir: Your political opponents in the State of Maryland have for some time been actively urging against you a nev\r charge — that oi selling white men — which probably had no inconsiderable effect in the recent elections in that State, and which is evidently much relied upon to influence the approaching elections throughout the United States. I enclose you a paper (the Baltimore Republi- can) containing the charge in full ; and I beg of you, as an act of justice to yourself and your friends, to enable me to refute a charge against the uniform tenor of your life, which, I am well aware, has been replete with instances of distinguished in-ivate liberality and public sacrifice. With the highest respect, I have the lienor to be your fellow-citizen, ^ ,,r n n.„..,.r.v JOHN H. PLEASANTS. Gen. William H. Harrison. 25 Richmond, September 15, 1836. Dear Sir: I acknowledge the receipt of your favor of this date. I have before heard of the accu- sation to which it refers. On my way hither, I met yesterday with a young gentleman of Maryland, who informed me that a vote of mine in the Senate of Ohio had been published, in favor of a law to sell persons imprisoned under a judgment for debt, for a term of years, if unable otherwise to discharge the execution. I did not for a moment hesitate to declare that 1 had never given any such vote ; and that, if a vote of that description had been published and ascribed to me, it was an infamous forgery. Such an act would have been repugnant to my feelings, and in direct conflict with my opinions, public and private, through the whole course of my lifa. No such proposition was ever submitted to the Legislature of Ohio ; none such would, for a moment, have been entertained, nor would any son of hers have dared to propose it. So far from being willing to sell men for debts which they are unwilling to discharge, I am, and ever have been, opposed to all imprisonment for debt. Fortunately, I have it in my power to show that such has been my established opinion, and that, in a public capacity, I avowed and acted upon it. Will those who have preferred the unfounded and malicious accusation refer to the journals of the Senate of the United States, 2d session, 19th Congress, page 325 ? It will there be seen that I was one of the Committee which reported a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. When the bill was before the Senate, 1 advocated its adoption, and, on its passage, voted in its favor. [See Senate Journal, 1st session, 20th Congress, pages 101 and 102.] // is not a little remarkable, that if the effort I am accused of having made to subject men to sale for the non-payment of their debts, had been successful, I might, from the state of my pecuniary cir. cumstances at the time, have been the first victim. I repeat, the charge is a vile calumny. At 7io period of my life would I hare consented to subject the poor and unfortunate to such a degradation ; nor have I omitted to exert myself, in their behalf against such an attempt to oppose them. It is sought to support the charge by means of garbled extracts from the journals of the Senate of Oliio. The section of the bill which is employed for that purpose had no manner of reference to the relation of creditor and debtor, and could not by possibility subject the debtor to the control of his creditor. None know better than the authors of the calumny tlrat the alleged section is utterly at variance with the charge which it is attempted to found upon it ; and that, so far from a proposition to invest a creditor with power over the liberty of his debtor, it had respect only to the mode of dis. posing of public offenders, who had been found guilty, by a jury of their fellow-citizens, of some crime against the laws of their State. That was exclusively the import and design of the section of the bill upon the motion to strike out whicli, I voted in the negative. So you perceive, that in place of voting to enlarge the power of creditors, the vote which I gave concerned alone the treatment of malefactors of crimes against the public. It would extend this letter to an inconvenient length to go fully into the reasons which led me at the time to an opinion in fivor of the proposed treatment of that class of offenders who would have fallen within its operations, nor is such an expose called for. The measure was by no means of novelty in other pails of the country. In the State of Delaware, there is an act now in force in similar words with tlie section of the bill before the Oiiio Senate, which has been made of late the pretext of such insidious invective. Laws with somewhat similar provisions may probably bo found in many other of the States. In practice, the measure would have ameliorated the condition of those who were under condemnation. As the law stood, they were liable under the sentence, to confinement in the common jail, whore otfeuders of various degrees of profligacy — of different ages, sex, and color, were crowded together. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the bad must become worse, whilst reformation could hardly be expected in respect to any. The youthful offender, it might be hoped, would be re- claimed under the operation of the proposed system, but there was great reason to fear his still greater corruption amid the contagion of a common receptacle of vice. Besides, the proposed amendment of the law presupposed that the delinquent was in confinement for the non-payment of a fine and costs of prosecution — (the payment of which was a part of the sentence:) it seemed, therefore, humane in respect to the offender, to relieve him from confinement which deprived him from the means of dis charging the penalty, and to place him in a situation in which he might work out his deliverance even at a loss, for a time, of his personal liberty. E But I forbear to go turther into the reasons which led me, sixteen years ago, as a member of the Ohio Senate, to entertain a favorable opinion of an alteration which was proposed in the criminal police of the State. It is certain that neither in respect to myself, or those who concurred with me was the opinion at the time considered as the result of unfriendly bias towards the poor or unfortunate' Nay, the last objection which I could have anticipated, even from the eager and reckless desire to assail me, was a charge of unfriendliness to the humble and poor of the community, I am, my dear Sir, with great respect, your humble servant, WM. H. HARRISON. J. H. Pleasants, Esq. Penal laws, like those of Indiana and Ohio, which have been made the ground of absurd clamor against General Harrison, exist in many States of the Union. Take for ex- ample tlie following : MARYLAND.— Za«J o/1793. Chap. 57, Sec. 16. Sec. 16. And be it enacted. If any person committed for non-payment of any penalty, fine or for- feiture, shall remain in prison above thirty days, and shall not, within that time, enter into recogni- zance with such security as any one of the said justices may approve, for the payment of such penalty fine or forfeiture, and costs, within six months thereafter, that it shall be lawful for the sheriff 4 26 -OF THE SAID COUNTY TO SELL SUCH PERSON AT AUCTION AS A SERVANT, FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING ONE VEAR, or such less time as will produce the penalty, fine or forfeiture, and costs, or, if so directed by any two of the said justices, for any term not exceeding two years, or such less time as will produce the penalty, fine or forfeitures, and costs ; and the money arising from the sale shall be applied to the payment of such penalty, lino or forfeiture, and costs. YlRGimA.—Vagrmits. Act of February 10th, 1819— January 1, 1820, R. C. ch. 239. 1. Sec. 43. Any able-bodied man, who, not having wherewithal to maintain himself, shall be found loitering, and shall have a wife and children, without means for their subsistence, whereby they may become burdensome to their county or town ; and any able-bodied man, without a wife or child, who, not having wherewithal to maintain himself, shall wander abroad, or be found loitering, without betaking himself to some honest employment, or shall go about begging, sliall be deemed and treated as a vagrant. (1787, c. 48 ; 1792, c. 102, R. C.) 4. Sec. 36. The overseers of the poor, or any one of them, shall be, and are hereby empowered, upon discovering any vagrant or vagrants, within their respective districts or corporations, to make information thereof to any magistrate of their county or corporation, and to require a warrant for apprehending such vagrant or vagrants, to be brought before him or some other magistrate ; and if, upon due examination, it shall appear that the person or persons are within the true description of a vagrant, such magistrate shall, by warrant under his hand, order such vagrant or vagrants to be de- livered to some one of the overseers of the poor of the district or corporation in which such vagrant or vagrants shall have been apprehended, to be employed in labor for any term not exceeding three months, and, by the said overseer of the poor, hired out for the best wages tliat can be procured, to be applied to the use of the poor. If any such vagrants shall, during such term of service, run away from the person so employing him or them, he or she shall be dealt with in the same manner as other runaway servants. (1787, c. 48; 1792, c. 102, R. C.) This law against vagrants still stands on the statute book of Virginia, and was voted for, in 1787, by such men as John Marshall, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, George Nicholas, Bushrod Washington, Paul Carrington, Ludwell Lee, Archi- bald Stuart, Daniel Browne, Charles M. Thurston, and William Fitzhugh. The two sections just cited are, respectively, sections 17 and 13, of the act of 1787, ch. 48. (See Heni'y's Statutes at large, vol. 12, pages 579, 577.) They were re-enacted at the revision of 1819, and are still in force. They operate not on the honest poor, but on the unworthy, whether rich or poor. They were enforced, several years ago, in Alex- andria, against a gambler, who had plenty of money. In 1810, white men were sold out to service in Virginia for gambling. In Berkley County, an instance is recollected to have occurred, in which the offence was playing billiards. The true description of the votes of General Harrison which have been so much misrepresented, is, that they were votes to allow convicted criminals to regain their liberty l)y working out their time. A similar law exists in North-Carolina, It is an old law .'lof the State, and was re-enacted in 1836-37. Vin.— THE TARIFF. Mr. Van Buren voted for the Tariff of 1824. (See Senate Journal, May 13th, 1824,^ :,;:page 401.) At a meeting held at Albany, July 10th, 1827, to send Delegates to a Tarilf ''Convention, he advocated a Tariff^ not only for revenue, but for " i'rotection." He said: That having now stated, as fully as the time would admit, his general views upon tlie subject, his opinion of the settled policy g^ the State, as to the propriety and expediency of aflbnling legislative protection to the manufacturing interests of the country, by temperate and wise, and therefore salu- tary laws, and his reudintss to aid in the passage of all such laws, he would trespass for a fewr moments, &c. He also said : He owed many thanks to the meeting for the very kind attention with which he hadTjeen listened to by gentlemen, between many of whom and himself there had, upon public matters, been differences of opinion of long standing. His situation, in reference to the wool-growing interest, was well known to most of them. He had, at present, invested more than twenty thousand dollars in sheep, and farms devoted, and which he meant to devote, to that business. He felt all proper concern for his own interest, and would, of course, cheerfully unite in all suitable measures for its advantage. Mr. Van Buren voted also for the Tariff Act of 1828, and sustained it throughout, as will appear from the following extract of the Senate Journal, May 13, 1828: The amendments to the bill entitled "An Act in alteration of the several Acts imposing duties on imports," having been reported by the Committee, correctly engrossed, the bill was read the third time, as amended ; and, 27 On motion of Mr. Hayne, that the said bill be postponed indefinitely, it was determined in the negative. Yea.s, 20, Nays, 27. Those who voted in the affirmative are — Messrs. Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chambers, Chandler, Cobb, Ellis, Hayne, .Johnston, of Lonisi- ana, Kingf, McKinley, Macon, Parris, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South-Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury. Those who voted hi the negative are — Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bateman, Benton, Chase, Dickerson, Eaton, Foot, Harrison, Hendricks, JOHNSON, of Kentucky, Kane. Knight, McLane, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Rug- gles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, VAN BUREN, Webster, Willey. On the question, " Shall the bill pass as amended," it was determined in the affirmative. Yeas, 26, Nays, 21. Those who voted in the affirmative are — Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bateman, Benton, Bouligny, Chase, Dickerson, Eaton, Foot, Harrison, Hendricks, JOHNSON, of Kentucky, Kane, Knight, McLane, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Rug- gles, Sanford, Seymour, Thomas, VAN BUREN, Webster, Willey. Those who voted in the negative are — Messi's. Berrien, Branch, Chambers, Chandler, Cobb, Ellis, Hayne, Johnston, of Louisiana, King, McKinley, Macon, Parris, Robbins, Silsbee, Smitli, of Maryland, Smith, of South-Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury. So it was resolved, that the bill do pass with amendments. Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the amend- ments.— (Senate Journal, 1827-'28, pages 409, 410.) Mr. Van Buren's apology to the South, for having voted for the tariff bill of 1828 is, that he voted under instructions. The apology is on its face insufficient; because, if he really thought that the bill was a "hill of abominations" he might have resigned his $eat without voting, and no good instruction man would have blamed him. This is just what Mr. Rives did, on a similar occasion, and his constituents sustained him in the act. It is what General Harrison Avould have done, 'as he expressly says, in his letter before cited, to the Cincinnati editor, published in 1822, if he had considered that by voting for instructions '' he would violate the constitution," though he was an unflinching believer in the right of the people to instruct their representative, when elected ; " in such case he would," he says, ''have thought it his duty to resign, and give them an opportunity of electing another representative, whose opinions would accord with their own." But what were these instructio7is, on the strength of which Mr. Van Buren so clamorously begs pardon of the South ? They are contained in the following resolutions, passed by the Legislature of New- York on the 30th and 31st of January, 1828 : Resolved, (if the Senate concur herein,) That the Senators of this State, in the Congress of the United States, be, and they are hereby instructed, and the Representatives of this State are requested, to make every proper exertion to effect such a revision of the tariff as will afford a sufficient protec- tion to the growers of wool, hemp, and flax, and the manufacturers of iron, woollens, and every other article, so far as the same may be connected with the interest of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce. Resolved, as the sense of this Legislature, That the provisions of the woollen bill, which passed tho House of Representatives at the last session of Congress, wliatever advantages tiiey may have pro- mised to the manufacturers of woollen goods, did not afford adequate encouragement to the agricultu- rist and growers of wool. It is plain that these instructions did not bind Mr. Van Buren to any given rate of duties. They only instructed him to obtain, if he could, "a sufficient protection" for certain articles, ancl left him to judge of the sufficiency. And yet he resorts to these instructions as a shelter from the apprehended consequences of his vote for the tariff law of 1 828. Again : What is the history of these instructions ? A Senator, from Mr. Van Buren's own State, has recently charged him, on the floor of the Senate, with having himself got up these instructions, and offered to bring proof of the fact, should it be denied. It has not been denied. It had been made before, and not denied. Mr. Tazewell, Senator from Virginia, is known to have said to him, "Sir, you have deceived me once, that was your fault; if you deceive me again, the fault will be mine." About that time, Mr. Van Bu- ren was held out at Albany as a friend of the tariff while he represented himself to the southern Senators as reluctantly stipporting it, contrarily to his own convictions, but com- pelled by his instructions. His present opinions are equivocal. We shall presently cite General Harrison's direct, straight-forward avowal of his determination to support the "Compromise Act." No distinct opinion on this measure could be traced to Mr. Van Buren till very recently. In a long, argumentative, electioneering letter, under date of July 31, 1840, in answering the question, ''Are you in favor of preserving, entire, the 28 tariff compromise?" he says: '' I was seriously friendly to the passage of the Compro- mise Bill, and have always been and still am disposed to carry it into full and fair effect." The Globe says that ''seriously" is a misprint for ''sincerely." Be it so. General Harrison voted for the tariff of 1828, and he voted for it openly and like a man; but he has distinctly pledged himself to abide by the Compromise Act, which is entirely satisfactory to the whole South. In his letter to Messrs. Dort, Taylor, and others, dated Zanesville, November 2, 1836, he says : I regret that my remarks of yesterday were misunderstood in relation to the tariff system. What I meant to convey was, that I had been a warm advocate for that system, upon its first adoption ; that I still believed in the benefits it had conferred upon the country ; but I certainly never had, nor ever could have, any idea of reviving it. What I said w^as, that I would not agree to the repeal as it now stands; in other words, I am for supporting the Compromise Act, and never will agree to its being altered or repealed. And so in his letter of November 4, 1836, to Judge Berrien, General Harrison says: Good faith, and the peace and harmony of the Union, do, in my opinion, require that the compro- mise of the tariff, known as Mr. Clay's bill, should be carried out according to its spirit and in- tention. In opposition to these explicit declarations. General Harrison is held up by his enemies at the South as having said that he would adhere to the tariff "until the streets of our cities were covered with grass." This charge is founded on a fraudulent perversion of a passage in his Address to the Hamilton County Agricultural Society of Ohio, held upon the 15th and 16th of January, 1831. The reader will find, on reading the speech, that General Harrison expressly denies such a consequence to the tariif; and that his sentiments, in the passage relied on, are such as every American patriot, whether for or against the tariff, must cordially approve. In referring to a speech made in 1821, by James M. Garnett, President of the Agricultural Society of Fredericksburg, General Harrison said: Mr. Garnett is a man of the finest talents, and as conspicuous for the excellence of his character. He is a farmer ; and the products of his farm, and those of his district of the country, are, perhaps, precisely such as ours, corn and wheat being the staples. In a previous or subsequent address, Mr. Garnett denominates the tariff " political quackery," the effects of which had been to cover the streets of Norfolk with grass ! That this was the case at Norfolk, there was no doubt, as Mr. Garnett says so ; but it is impossible that it should have been caused by the tariff, unless it operated retrospectively; for its direct operation could not have been felt, for good or for evil, until long subsequent to the de- livery of the speech. In a subsequent part of this same speech. General Harrison said: It may be asked whether, under any circumstances, I would be willing to abandon the tariff. I ;cember, as a part of his anniial 35 messagfe, and which, in that messacfe, he says, '' / cannot rerommend loo strongly to your consideration.'^ The ''plan" of November 30, 1839, which he thus recommends, is the plan which was denounced, as far back as the 15th of February, by Mr. Rives, in a pub- lished letter, and which had excited, long before any subsequent plan was broached, so much alarm throughout the State of Virginia, where the gentlemen resided whom the President was addressing. It had been submitted to him, on the 30th of November, by the Secretary of War, and was before him till the 24th of December, when his message was sent to Congress. The Constitution of the United States requires the President to ''give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con' sideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The President cannot be presumed to deny that he approved of this plan of November 30, 1839, unless he wishes to be understood as having, in the discharge of a high constitutional duty, re- commended a measure as " 7iecessary and expedient" which in his conscience he disap- proved, or which he had not examined, and knew nothing about. To avoid this dilemma, he affects, in his letter to Messrs. Gary and others, total silence as to this plan of Novem- ber 30, 1839, and confines his answer to one of the subsequent communications of the Secretary of War — the Report of March 20, 1840. And even, as to this, how does his assertion stand the test of facts? Tlie Secretary's plan or report to the President, dated November 30, 1839, says; "The manner of enrollment, the number of days of service, and the rate of compensation, ought to be fixed by law; but the details had better be left subject to regulation — a plan of which I am prepared to sub nit to yon." The Secretary tells the Pveskient.'-^ I aoi prepared to submit" a plan of details to you; and the Secre- tary tells Congress that the plan is "submitted." Again, the ['resident says to Messrs. Gary and others, the plan ^^ not only never had been submitted to me^ but urns not even matured until more than three m.onths after the message was sent to Congress." And the Globe, in defending the President, brings out proof that this "matured" plan was sent to the Senate on the 2Sth of January — only Jive weeks, instead of' more than three months, after the message loas sent to Congress l" The President's charge of ''garbling" is understood to be meant for the Address, dated May 24, 1840, of Messrs. Alford, Dawson, Habersham, King, Nesbit, and Warren, Representatives from the State of Georgia, to their constituents. In some of .the copies first printed of this able and patriotic paper, the writers, in quoting the President's message, had accidentally omitted the words " to your consideration;" an omission which, so soon as discovered, was supplied. But the omission was wholly immaterial, either as a matter of philology or of constitutional law. We have seen that the Constitution of the United States makes it the duty of the President to recomiaend to the '■^consideration" of Con- gress only " SKch jneasures as he shall judge necpssnrry and expedient." The attitude in which the President has placed hims<^lf. before the American people, by his defences on the subject of the Army Bill, present a (lU'-stion for their consideration even graver than any arising out of the bill itself, bad as the bill is. But let us now advert to some provisions in the Constitution, and apply them to this " nxAiwcedi" ,plan. of which the President says that he '' cannot pronounce defiuitimly upon its constitutionality." 1st. The Constitution of the United States {art. 1, .fee. 8, clause 14) gives Congress power "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laros of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel innasions." These three are the only purposes for which the militia can be co/i.5^t/!'i;!Jort,'j//// called out. According to the "matured plan," they may be called out for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution. 21. The Constitution of the United States {art. I, sec. 9. clause 15) gives Congress power ''to provide for org.mizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as miy be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training \he mili- tia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." The seventeenth section of the "plan" of March 20, 1840, takes from the States the power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution, of " training" the militia, and vests it in the President. The section referred to is as follows: 17th. That the President of the United States be authoriz-d to call fortti and assemble such fA'"- ier.? of the active force of the militia, at such places within their respnctivs districts, and at suck times, not exceeding twice, nor days in the sam«5 year, as he may iieem necessary ; and ^Ifyiey such period, including the time when going to and returning from the place of rendezv^(|''pj.g^j_ shall be deemed in the service of the United States, and be subject to such regulations a9 36 dent may think proper to adopt for their instruction, discipline, and improvement in military know- ledge. 3d. The Constitution of the United States, {art. 3, sec. 2, clause 3,) is as follows:- The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed ; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. The first article of the amendments to the Constitution is as follows : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the frpe.doin of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to .assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The fifth article of the amendments is as follows: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infiimoue crime, unless on a present- ment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mili- tia, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE, IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; uor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to bo twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal ease, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process lof law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The sixth article of the amendments to the Constitution is as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an IMPARTIAL JURY of the State and district wlierein the crime shall have been committed, (which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,) and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted wini the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for ob- taining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. The 17th section, before cited, of the "plan" of March 20, 1840, after providing that the President may "call Ibrtli and assemble such numbers of the active force of the mili- tia, at such places within their respective districts, and at such times (not exceeding twice, jior days in the same year) as he may deem necessary," declares that "during such period, &c., the militia shall be deemed in ike service of I he United States^ By the twentieth section of the same "plan," it is declared "that the militia of the Uni- ted States, or any portion thereof^ when employed in the service of the United States, shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States." Of these "rules and articles of war," (see Act of April 10, 1306, Laws of the United States, vol. 4, pages 13-28,) some are as follows: Art. 5. Any officer or soldier who shall use contemptuous or disrespectful words against the Presi- dent of the United States, against the Vice President thereof, against the Congress of the United States, or against the Chief Magistrate of any of the United States, in which they may be quartered, if a commissioned officer, shall be cashiered, or otherwise punished, as a court-martial shall direct; if a non-commissioned officer or soldier, he sliall suffer such punishment as shall be inflicted on him by the sentence of a court-martial. Art. 6. Any officer or soldier who,shall behave himself with contempt or disrespect towards his commanding officer, shall be punished, according to the nature of his otience, by the judgment of a court-martial. Art. 7. Any officer or soldier who shall begin, excite, cause, or join in any mutiny or sedition, in any troop or company in the service of the United States, or in any i)arty, post, detachment, or guard, shall suffer death, or such otiier punishment as by a court-martial shall be indicted. Art. 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, who being present at any mutiny or sedi- tion, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress the same, or, coming to the knovvjledge of any in- tended mutiny, does not, without delay, give information thereof to his commanding officer, shall be punished, by the sentence of a court-martial, with death, or otherwise, according to the nature of his offence. Art. 9. Any officer or soldier who shall strike his superior officer, or draw or lift up any weapon, or offer any violence against him, being in the execution of his office, on any pretence whatever, or shall disobey any lawful command of his superior officer, shall suffer death, or such other punish- ment as shall, according to the nature of his offence, be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court, martial. Art. 20. All officers and soldiers who have received pay, or have been duly enlisted in the service of the United States, and shall be convicted of liaving deserted the same, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as by the sentence of a court-martial shall be inflicted. Art. 21. Any non-coinmissioncd officer or soliher wlio shall, without leave from his commanding officer, absent himself from his troop, company, or detachment, shall, upon being convicted thereof, ^e punished, according to the nature of his oH'ence, at tiie discretion of a court-martial. ■*>rt. 23. Any officer or soldier who shall be convicted of having advised or persuaded any other •officti- or soldier to desert the service of the United States, sliall suffer death, or such other punishment ■^ ^la'.l be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court-martial. 24. Ko officer or soldier shall use any reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures to another, 37 upon pain, if an officer, of being put in arrest; if a soldier, confined and asking pardon of the offend- ed, in the presence of the commanding officer. Art. 37. Any non-cominiss;ioned officer or soldier who shall be convicted, at a regimental court, martial, of having sold, or designedly or through neglect wasted, the ammunition delivered to him, to be employed in the service of the United States, shall be punished at the discretion of such court. » Art. 41. All non-commissioned officers and soldiers who shall be found one mile from camp, with- out leave in writing from their commanding officer, shall suffer such punishment as shall be inflicted upon them by the sentence of a court-martial. Art. 4:2. No non-commissioned officer or soldier shall lie out of his quarters, garrison, or camp, with- out leave from his superior officer, upon the penalty of being punished, according to the nature of his offjnce, by 'the sentence of a court-iaartial. Art. 43. Every non-comniissioned officer and soldier shall retire to his quarters or tent at the beating of the retreat; in default of which, he shall bo punished according to the nature of his offence. Art. 44. No non-commissioned officer or soldier sliall fail in repairing, at the time fixed, to the place of parade, of exercise, or other rendezvous appointed by his commanding officer, if not prevented by sickness or some other evident necessity ; or shall go from the said place of rendezvous, without leave from his commanding officer, before he shall be regularly dismissed or relieved, on the penalty of being punished, according to the nature of his offence, by the sentence of a court-martial. Art. 45. Any commissioned officer who shall be found drunk in his guard party, or other duty, shall be cashiered. Any non-commissioned officer or soldier, so offending, shall suffer sucii corporal pun- ishment as shall be inflicted by a court-martial. Art. 4b". Any sentinel who shall be found sleeping upon his post, or shall leave it before he shall be regularly relieved, shall suffer death, or such otlier punishment as shall be inflicted by a court-martial. Art. 50. Any officer or soldier who shall, without urgent necessity, or without the leave of his superior officer, quit his guard, platoon, or division, shall bo punished according to the nature of hi» offence, by the sentence of a court-martial. Art. 53. Any person belonging to the armies of the United States, who shall make known the watchword to any person who is not entitled to receive it, according to the rules and discipline of war, or shall presume to give a parole or watchword different from what he received, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a general court-martial. .\rt. 64. General courts-martial may consist of any number of coainiissioned officers, from five to thirteen, inclusively ; but they shall not consist of less than thirteen, where tliat number can be con- vened without manifest injury to the service. Art. 65. Any general offici;r cominanding an army, or colonel comminding a separate department, may appoint general courts.mirtial whenever necessary. But no sentence of a court-martial shall be carried into execution, until after the whole proceedings shall have been laid before the officer order- ing the same, or the officer commanding the troops for the time being ; neither shall any sentence of a general court-martial, in time of peace, extending to the loss of life, or the dismission of a commis- sioned officer, or which shall, either in time of peace or war, respect a general officer, be carried into execution until after the whole proceedings shall have been transmitted to the Secretary of War, to be laid betore the President of the United States, for his confirmation or disapproval, and orders in the case. All other sentences may be confirmed and executed by the officer ordering tiie court to assem- ble, or the commanding officer for the time being, as the case may be. Art. 66. Every officer commanding a regiment or corps maj' appoint for liis own regiment or corps, courts-martial, to consist of three commissioned officers, for the trial and punishment of oftences not capital, and decide upon their sentences. For the same purpose, all officers commanding any of the garrisons, forts, barracks, or other places where the troops consist of ditlereut corps, may assemble courts-martial, to consist of three commissioned officers, and decide upon tlieir sentences. Art. 67. No garrison or regimental court-martial shall have the power to try capital cases or com- missioned officers, neither shall they inflict a fine exceeding one month's pay, nor imprison, nor put to hard labor, any non-coinmissionod officer or soldier, for a longer time than one month. Art. 74. On the trial of cases not capital, before courts-martial, the depositions of witnesses, not in the line or staff of the army, may be taken before some justice of the peace, and read in evidence: Provided the prosecutor and the person accused are present at the taking the same, or are duly notified thereof. The restriction in the 67th article of war applies only to '' garrison or regimental courts-martial." General courts-martial may try "capital cases." Such is the code which is to be applied, in a time of profound peace, to the free citizens of these United States. Let them examine the offences which it creates, the mode of trial which it prescribes, the evidence which it authorizes, and the punishments which it inflicts, and they will see at least /oj^r clear and palpable violations of the Constitution of the United States. We have before shown that the ^' plan" involved two other violations of the Constitution — in all, six ! This is the plan of which the President says, even at this late and pressing- moment, that he '' cannot pronounce definitivehj upon its constitaitionality ,*" and thinks that he shall best perform his '' duty, by refraining to do so until it becomes necessary to act ojficially in, the 38 matter V This is the case for hesitation, selected by a Chief Magistrate who is so ready, on convenient occasions, to threaten Congress iu advance with the veto ! ! XI. NATIONAL BANK AND SUB-TREASURY. It has been seen that General Harrison^ in his letter to the Editor of the Cincinnati In- quisitor, expressed his opinion that the charter given to the late Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. When a candidate for the Presidency, in 1836, he was^asked by Mr. Slier rod Williams, whether he would, if elected, sign a bill incorporating a Bank of the United States. He answered: '' I would, if it were clearly ascertained that the pub- lic interest, in relation to the collection and disbursement of the reveriue, would materially suffer without one, and there toere unequivocal manifestatioyis of public opinion in its favor." This is the doctrine of Mr. MADISON. [See his speeches in opposition to the first Bank of the United States, his special message of January 30, 1815, and his annual mes- sage of December 5, 1815.] Mr. Van Buren, who formerly petitioned for the establishment, at Albany, of a branch of the Bank of the United States, has, since he became President, repeatedly threatened to veto any act of Congress creating another Bank of the United States, and in a manner which leaves no room to doubt that his determination would not be changed by the "peti- tions" of the whole American people, should they think proper to call for such an institu- tion. He has, however, in contempt of their will, over and over again, persevered in pressing his Sab-Treasury project — a project worse than a National Bank of the worst type, because it is an Executive Government 'Bank. His own confidential partisans had before denounced it as an usurpation and tyranny, as exposing the public Treasury " to be plundered by a hundred hands, inhere one cannot noto reach it;^^ — [See Globe, 1834] — as increasing, " in so alarming a degree, the patronage, power, and influence of the Execu- tive;" as a. '■'wild and dangerous scheme, establishing two sorts of currency — the better for the officers of Government, the baser one for the people ;" as a '' notable scheme," which ''will enlarge the Executive power, already too great for a Republic f as having " no security in it;" as involving " heavy and unnecessary expense ;" as an " endless source of patronage^ and " a patronage of the most dangerous influence;" and as a. '^ fruitful source of mischief." — [See Richmond Enquirer, 1837.] The journal last cited also said, ''temptation will creep in, and corruption, in every form, following at its heels." Such, \\ovievQr,\si)\e despotism o[ Executive influejice, under the new Administration system, that so soon as the President had forced the Sub-Treasury scheme into a law, the author of the denunciations last cited exclaimed, " This important measure, so dear to the heart of every pa.triot, has now become the law of the land ;" '' no one, who has any regard for truth, can now say that it has not received their assent and approbation!" And branded individuals, who had formerly approved, but who, on further examination, condemned the project, as having " basely reversed their solemn judgments, and entailed upon themselves Mn everlasting disgrace! !" — [See Richmond Crisis, July 8, 1840.] Of the power of the President, in forcing this scheme on the country, and of the vassalage of his partisans, an adequate idea seems to have been formed by a distinguished convert to it. '• The Presi- ■dent," he says, '■'should long since have compelled his party to carry out the m.easure." This remarkable passage is the closing sentence of a letter of the Hon. George M. Troup, of Georgia, published in the Extra Globe of July 1 and July 8, 1840. The date of the .letter should, doubtless, be May 16, 1840; but is printed May 16, 1040 — a far more suit- able date, considering the character of the measure recommended. A "complicated sys- tem,"" of which hard money, hard work, low wages, low prices, no meat, direct taxes, and the perpetual ignorance and depression of the great mass of the people, are elements, is more appropriate to the year te7i hundred and forty, than to the year eighteen hundred and forty; to the darkness and despotism of the eleventh century, than to the enlightened and free spirit of the nineteenth century. It is well known that the President obtained the authority of law for holding the people's money in his own hands by means even more objectionable than the result — by a coali- tion with politicians between whom and himself the relations of only yesterday had been those of a political and personal hostility, which could find no language of crimination bitter enough or low eriough to express the hatred and scoin that were felt on both sides. 39 The moral sense of tlie country was shocked by the unhallowed union; its first fruits were a litter of spurious legislators, and its next, the "wild and dangerous" I'reasury Bank. It was a suitable beginning of a project which gives the President the control, through the people's monej', of the people's liberties, that a sovereign Slate of the Union should be laid prostrate at his feet. That this Sub-Treasury scheme is, in truth, a Trea- sury Bank, no candid and discriminating inquirer can doubt. The President himself says, in substance, that it is so, as will appear by the following extracts from the Presi- dent's message to Congress, at the special session, September 4, 1837: "The various transactions which bear the name of domestic exchanges differ essentially in their nature,. op,;rdtion, and utility. One class of them consists of bills of exchange drawn for the pur- pose of transf< iring actual capitil from one part of the country to another, or to anticipate the pro- ceeds of property acflially tr.insniitted. Bills of this description are highly useful in the movements of trade, and well deserve all the encouragement which can rightfully be given to them. Another class is made up of bills of exchange not drawn to transfer actual capital, nor on the credit of pro- perty transmitted ; but to create fictitious capital, partaking at once of the character of notes dis- counted in bank, and of bank notes in circulation, and swelling the mass of paper credits to a vast extent, in a most objectionable manner. These bills have formed, for the last few years, a large pro. portion of what are termed the domestic exchanges of the country, serving as the means of usurious profit, and constituting the most unsafe and precarious paper in circulation. This species of traffic, instead of being upheld, ought to be discountenanced by the Government and the people." "In transferring its funds from place to place, the Government is on the same footing with the pri- vate citizen, and may resort to the same legal means. It may do so, through the medium of bills DRAWN BY itself, OR PURCHASED FROM OTHERS; AND IN THESE OPERATIONS, IT MAY, IN A MANNER UN- DOUBTEDLY constitutional AND LEGITIMATE, FACILITATE AND ASSIST EXCHANGES OF INDIVIDUALS FOUNDED ON REAL TRANSACTIONS OF TRADE. ThE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS MAY BE DONE, AND THE BEST MEANS OF EFFECTING IT, ARE ENTITLED TO THE FULLEST cqNsiDERATioN. This has been bcstowed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and his views will be submitted to you in his Report." " If to these considerations be added the facilities which will arise from enabling the Treasury to satisfy the public creditors by its drafts or notes, receivable in payment of the public dues, it may be safely assumed, that no motive of convenience to the citizen requires the reception of bank papei." XII. MR. VAN BUREN'S OPPOSITION TO MR. MADISON. Mr. Holland, in his life of Mr. Van Buren, edition of 1835, which we have seen is au- thenticated by Mr. Van Buren, adopts as his own, the account given in a " Letter of Hon. Benjamin F. Butler to Hugh A. Garland, Esq., of Virginia, in March, 1835," of the course of Mr. Van Buren in regard to the nomination of De Witt Clinton for the Presi- dency, and his course in relation to the war. At page 90, of the " Life," Mr. Butler, as quoted by Mr. Holland, after stating the fact of Mr. Clinton's nomination to the Presidency, on the 29th of May, 1812, says: Mr. Van Buren was not then a member of the Legislature, nor was he in any way connected with these proceedings. He, however, concurred in the propriety of supporting the nomination thus made and accepted, and, at the session of the Legislature held in November, 1812, in conjunction with a majority of the Republican members of each branch, he took a decided part in support of Presiden- tial ELECTORS, WHO WERE VOTED FOR AS FRIENDLY TO Mr. Clinton, and who ultimately gave him the vote of the State. Here we have the historical /rtc< admitted, that Mr. Van Buren " took a decided pari^^ in support of Mr. Clinton's pretensions to the Presidency. What was the political cha,- racter of the movement is a matter of opinion; and, on this head, Mr. Butler diflers widely from some other political critics. The Washington Globe, a journal whose loyalty to the President is not less fervid than Mr. Butler's, expresses, under date of August 8, 1840, the following opinion : In 1812, these Federalists had another remarkable vision. It was revealed to them, in a dream that James Madison had involved the country in a "wicked and ruinous war;" that the Democrats who supported him were all " war hawks ;" and that none were true patriots and friends of their country but those who took sides against it, and favored Great Britain, the "bulwark of our religion." They also dreamed that Madison " deserved a halter," and ought to be " sent to the Isle of Elba," and that De Witt Clinton, who had previously compared them to the " fallen angels, who had rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven," was destined to take his place. From this dream they were awakened on the ides of November, and, to their great astonishment, found that only eighty-nine to one hundred and twenty-seven of the people had been dreaming. 40 APPENDIX. GENERAL HARRISON^S ELECTION MORALLY CERTAIN. In 1836, the votes for Harrison as President were as follo^ys : IT i. . - 7 votes. Uliio, . . - ~i v">-^ • Vermont - I . g Indiana,- - - - 9 New-Jersey, - _ « Kentucky, - - - 15 Delaware, " " ' iq — 73 votes. The fw'^lttimed SUtes-have'recently answered, in the m^^^^^^ promine r r;;rS^^^- H-i- O^^c^ these .anders charged I;;- -^^^ tJ ,^ nrkv wiUa 54 S99 voices! No candid man doubts, though Administration Chapmana says Kentucky, ;!'^'^ »^'S»^^^ q^^^^.^i Harr .jr? Add Harrison's vote in 1836, '.'"'"'Jl'- „;„ . In addition to these votes, the following may be regarded as also reasonably certam for Harrison, . New.York, - - - 42 votes. Mississippi, . - - 4 votes. Tennessee, . - - 15 Michigan, - - - d lennessee, Massachusetts, - - U ^^■ Georgia, - ■ ^^ Pennsylvania, . . .30 | , ^^^^^ 25 Whole number of votes, 294; necessary to a choice, 148 So that, on '^^%^'^^'^^^^^f '^^l^f^^^^^ 257 votes as reasonably certain for Gen. Harrison, he wiH have enough, and 109 ^o ;PT;x^tlon !*''," „p «i,ooo O"^? vntpt! for Harrison and Tyler maybe secured, 11 proper exeriion SrSaned If the progress of public opinion, in resolving to purge the national councils, con Inu be obtamea. ";7, ^ J^ , , ^^ ^^,;^^ fo,. surprise if the Administration now m power should 1 at it^ present '"'^t^'J^^^^^^,,';'" UNANIMOUS VOICE of the electors of the American People! ^^X ;ui- fi-L;'dt oS fnoVdL^^^^^ to relax their exertions. They should remember th: thev are contendin.. with the immense patronage of the Government, wielded by unscrupulous ar they are contenam wiui Conservative act as if believing that the result of the ele S de Ldfot his'^own'terUonf a^d vote; and such a victory must follow as will render sk... DEMAGOGUES POWERLESS IN THIS COUNTRY FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY TO COME. 89 W V ^ •'■• ^V ■» • o .^^ ^^, V .V 4,* vtv <*ii. av •rv" <^ - * . . •9 ^-s. ° H ^ov