of slaves carried from the District last year, was about one thousand, but it would be much greater this year. He expected their house alone would ship at least eleven or twelve hundred. They have two vessels of their own, constantly employed in carrying slaves to New-Orleans."

One of the vessels being in port, Mr. Leavitt went on board of her. "Her name is the TRIBUNE. The Captain very obligingly took us to all parts of the vessel. The hold is appropriated to the slaves, and is divided into two apartments. The after hold will carry about eighty women, and the other about one hundred men. On either side were two platforms running the whole length; one raised a few inches, and the other half way up to the deck. They were about five or six feet deep. On these the slaves lie, as close as they can stow away."

In 1831, the Brig Comet, a slaver, belonging to this very house, and which had sailed from Alexandria with a cargo of one hundred and sixty slaves, was wrecked on Abaco, one of the Bahamas.

water.

But this vile commerce is carried on by land, as well as by Slave-coffles are formed at the prisons in the District, and thence set off on their dreary journey into the interior, literally in chains. A gentleman thus describes a coffle he met on the road in Kentucky. "I discovered about forty black men all chained together in the following manner :-each of them was hand-cuffed, and they were arranged in rank and file. A chain, perhaps forty feet long, was stretched between the two ranks, to which short chains were joined, which connected with the hand-cuffs. Behind them were, I suppose, thirty women in double rank; the couples tied hand to hand."

These coffles pass the very capitol in which are assembled the Legislators by whom they are authorized, and over whose heads is floating the broad banner of the Republic, too justly, alas! in such instances, described by an English satirist as "The fustian flag that proudly waves,

In splendid mockery o'er a land of slaves."

But the tale of iniquity and infamy is not yet ended. In the capital of our confederated Republic, and with the sanction of the Congress of the United States of America, MEN ARE LI

CENSED FOR FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS TO DEAL IN HUMAN FLESH !!

And now we ask, ought these things so to be? If not who can remedy them? There is no power on earth but Congress. No State Legislature can interfere with the District of Columbia, or suppress the accursed traffic of which it is the seat. But who shall rouse Congress to action? Do we wait for the interposition of slave holders? It is they who foster and encourage the trade. Do we appeal to the benevolence of the Colonization Society? Alas, all their sympathy is expended on the victims of the African commerce; their Constitution authorizes no interference with the American traffic. We have seen how far their first President himself, embarked in this trade. No less than four Vice Presidents of the Society are at this moment, February 1835, members of Congress, and three of them Senators; but not a word has fallen from their lips, relative to slavery, or the slave trade in the District of Columbia. We are wrong-one of them has spoken.

MR. CHARLES FENTON MERCER, one of the most devoted officers of the Society, during the present session of Congress voted to lay on the table, a petition presented to the House of Representatives for the abolition of slavery in the District, thus endeavoring to stifle all inquiry into those outrages upon human rights, and human happiness, which are perpetrated under the authority of the national Legislature. Yet this very gentleman has distinguished himself, by his zeal against the African slave trade.

The American Anti-Slavery Society avows its intention to endeavor to influence Congress to refuse any longer to authorize these abominations. And is it for this avowal, that its members are branded as traitors and nullifiers? If so, then they appeal for their justification, to the Constitution of the United States.

By the 8th Section of the 1st Article of that instrument Congress is authorized to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia; and by the first article of the amendments, Congress is restrained from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Hence Abolitionists have believed, that Congress possess the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that they themselves are authorized to petition that it may be abolished. Such

a 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."

46

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 particie 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:

"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