■ belief may, perhaps indicate a "wild fanaticism;" it seems, however, to be a fanaticism shared by the Legislatures of Pennsylvania and New-York, and even by the House of Representatives.

In 1828, the Pennsylvania Legislature, by an almost unanimous vote, "RESOLVED, that the Senators of this State, in the Senate of the United States, are hereby requested to procure if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, in such a manner as they may consider consistent with the rights of individuals, and the Constitution of the United States."

66

On the 9th January, 1829, the House of Representatives RESOLVED, that the Committee of the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the expediency, (not the right) of providing by law for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, in such manner that no individual shall be injured thereby."

On the 28th January, 1829, a Committee of the New-York Assembly reported to the House:

"Your Committee cannot but view with astonishment that in the Capital of this free and enlightened country, laws should exist, by which the free CITIZENS of a State are liable, without trial, and even without the imputation of a crime, to be seized while prosecuting their lawful business, immured in prison, and though free, unless claimed as a slave, to be sold as such for the payment of JAIL FEES." The Committee recommended the following resolution, which was adopted by the Assembly: RESOLVED, (if the Senate concur herein) that the Senators of this State, in the Congress of the United States, be and are hereby instructed, and the Representatives of this State are requested to make every possible exertion, to effect the passage of a law for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia."

66

And now again do we ask, are Abolitionists fanatics and incendiaries, and nullifiers, and traitors, and all that is foolish, and all that is wicked, because they wish Congress to suppress slavery, and the slave trade, in the District of Columbia? It cannot be, that Messrs. Frelinghuysen, Walworth, Ogden, and other upright and intelligent Colonizationists have founded their grievous charges against Abolitionists on this ground, Let us then see how far Abolitionists have merited these char

ges, for their endeavors to abolish slavery existing under the authority of the several States.

CHAPTER VI.

SLAVERY UNDER STATE AUTHORITY.

:

We have seen, that the charges against the Abolitionists are vague, and without specifications. Friend Hubbard and Mr. Gurley, however, give their accusations something of a tangible shape. The one asserts, that Abolitionists are laboring to abolish slavery, by causing the national legislation to bear directly on the slave holders, and compel them to emancipate their slaves the other insists that it is one of their fundamental principles, that slavery is to be abolished in a great degree against and in defiance of the will of the South. The obvious and only meaning of these assertions is, that it is the wish and object of the Abolitionists to induce Congress to abolish slavery in the States. One would think that this charge, if true, might be easily proved: some petition, some recommendation might be quoted; but so far from having ever seen any proof of this charge, we have never seen even an attempt to prove it.

Perhaps the testimony on this point of a Vice-President of the American Colonization Society, and one who is equally distinguished by his moral worth, and his zeal in the cause of Colonization, will be listened to with respect by many of his brethren. Gerrit Smith, Esq., of New-York, in a speech at the Anniversary Meeting of the Society, 20th January, 1834, speaking of the Anti-Slavery Society, remarked: "I believe that Society to be as honest as our own-as benevolent and patriotic as our own. Its members love their fellow men, and love their country, and love the union of the States, as sincerely and as strongly as we do; and much as is said to the contrary on this point, I have never seen a particle of evidence, that the Anti-Slavery Society meditates any interference with the provisions of the laws of the slave States on the subject of slavery. It alleges, and I have no doubt sincerely, that it is by moral influence alone, and mainly by the changes wrought

by the application of truth to the conscience, that it seeks to compass its object."

It seems Mr. Smith has never seen a particle of evidence in support of the charge, that Abolitionists meditate interference with the laws of the slave States. They who make the charge, offer not a particle of evidence in its behalf. We will now offer a MASS of evidence in proof of its utter falsity.

Our first witness is one whose competency and credibility will not be questioned; and who, like Mr. Smith, is a VicePresident of the Colonization Society. The following is extracted from a letter to John Bolton, Esq. of Savannah, written for publication, by the Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, and dated 17th May, 1833:

66 In my opinion, the domestic slavery of the Southern States is a subject within the exclusive control of the States themselves; and this, I am sure, is the opinion of the whole North. Congress has no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States. This was so resolved in the House of Representatives, in 1790, on the report of a committee consisting almost entirely of Northern members; and I do not know an instance of the expression of a different opinion in either House of Congress since. I cannot say that particular individuals might not possibly be found, who suppose that Congress may possess some power over the subject, but I do not know any such persons, and if there be any, I am sure they are very few. The servitude of so great a portion of the population of the South, is undoubtedly regarded at the North as a great evil, moral and political, and the discussions upon it, which have recently taken place in the Legislatures of several of the slave-holding States, have been read with very deep interest. But it is regarded, nevertheless, as an evil, the remedy for which lies with those Legislatures themselves, to be provided and applied, according to their own sense of policy and duty. The imputations which you say, and say truly, are constantly made against the North, are, in my opinion, entirely destitute of any just foundation."

Thus we find that Mr. Webster, living in Boston, the seat of the New-England Anti-Slavery Society, a fellow townsman of Garrison's, and surrounded by Abolitionists, knows nothing of the nullifiers denounced by Mr. Ogden-nothing of the men who Mr. Gurley says are for freeing the slaves in defiance of

the will of the South-nothing of those who the North-Carolina quaker tells us, are for bringing the " National Legislation" to bear upon emancipation.

And has DANIEL WEBSTER, a sworn sentinel on the ramparts of the Constitution, been sleeping at his post; and is it to more faithful and more intelligent watchmen, that we owe the discovery of the meditated treason?

Mr. Webster's letter contains, as far as it goes, THE POLITICAL CREED OF THE ABOLITIONISTS, and we may challenge the whole Colonization Society to name a single Abolitionist, who does not most heartily assent to its doctrines. The New-York Emancipator transferred the letter to its columns, remarking "Mr. Webster's opinion on the subject of slavery in the States of this Union; so far as expressed, is just the same as has been more than once avowed in every Anti-slavery paper in the country-that it is a subject within the exclusive control of the States themselves."-Emancipator, 6th July, 1833.

Not only has Mr. Garrison declared his readiness to sign his name to every sentiment expressed in Mr. Webster's letter, but he has used in the Liberator, the following language, "Abolitionists as clearly understand, and as sacredly regard the constitutional powers of Congress, as do their traducers; and they know and have again and again asserted, that Congress has no more rightful authority to sit in judgment upon Southern slavery, than it has to legislate for the Abolition of slavery in the French colonies.'

We will now select a few from the many official declarations of Abolitionists on this subject.

"The national compact was so framed as to guaranty the legal possession of slaves; and physical interference would bea violation of Christian principles." I. Rep. of New-England Anti-Slavery Society-p. 21.

"We do not aim at any interference with the constitutional rights of the slave-holding States; for Congress, as is well understood, has no power to abolish slavery in the several States."-Address of the New-York city Anti-Slavery Society p. 5.

"We freely and unanimously recognize the sovereignty of each State to legislate exclusively on the subject of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits; we consider that Congress has no right to interfere with any of the slave States in relation

to this subject."-Declaration of Anti-Slavery Convention at Philadelphia, 4th December, 1833.

"While it admits that each State in which slavery exists, has by the Constitution of the United States exclusive right to legislate in regard to its Abolition, it shall aim to convince all our fellow citizens by arguments addressed to their understandings and consciences, that slave-holding is a henious sin in the sight of God.”—Constitution of American Anti-Slavery Society.

In December 1833, the managers of the New-York city Anti-Slavery Society printed and circulated a petition to Congress, for the Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It commenced as follows:

TO THE HON., THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

"Your petitioners, inhabitants of the city of New-York, beg leave to represent to your Honorable body, that whatever views they may entertain of the evils of slavery as it exists in certain States of the Federal Union, they are fully aware that these evils are beyond the Constitutional control of the federal government; and so far from soliciting your interposition for their removal, they would deprecate the interference of Congress on this subject, as a violation of the national compact." The petition then proceeds to assert the Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the district, and asks for its exercise.

We

And now we ask, is there any thing in the extracts we have given, to justify, excuse, or palliate the heavy accusations made against Abolitionists? Surely it must now be conceded that however unconstitutional may be the emancipation contemplated by Abolitionists, it is not to be effected by Congress. lament that Chancellor Walworth did not condescend to explain how and why it was unconstitutional. He is accustomed to assign reasons for his decisions, and it may fairly be doubted whether, in withholding the reasons for the judgment he has pronounced against Abolitionists, he has administered equity. He has adjudged that the emancipation contemplated by Abolitionists would" violate the rights of property," but in what way does not appear. As physical force is disclaimed, and congressional interference deprecated, the alleged violation of property must arise from the appeals made to the holders to