master, he was desirous of sending him back, and seemed anxious that both master and servant, should behave in a manner becoming their christian profession. To insure Onesimus a favorable reception from his owner, Paul wrote the Epistle mentionnd, which has been much admired as a prudent and masterly production for the purpose intended, well calculated to restore the proper relations that had before existed between the parties. St. Paul in this case conducted as became his christian character-he knew it to be improper for Onesimus to absent himself from his master's service without leave; and he knew also, that the manner of his coming away, might naturally excite a spirit of resentment which he was desirous to moderate--he therefore induced the servant to return to his duty, and exerted himself to secure him a favorable reception from his owner. The latter object could scarcely have been more effectually accomplished, than by informing Philemon, that Onesimus had become a member of the same church with himself, and whom he might therefore, in that respect, receive as a brother, without any relinquishment of the services he had a right to claim from him as his servant, and which services he would no doubt, under the change of circumstances, demand with becoming tenderness and moderation. Had Paul been influenced by the spirit of some of our modern Abolitionists, he would probably have disregarded the master's rights in this case, and have encouraged the slave to continue in a course of disobedience, and have aided in obstructing, rather than in promoting his return to his duty. But Paul being a christian, he knew what was becoming in christians in all situations, and there can be no doubt, but that both master and servant were made better by the Apostle's interference and advice.

With these facts, and with a multitude of others that might be presented from the same source, will the Abolitionists assert that there is no sanction for slavery given in scripture, or will it not be necessary before making such assertions, to prove that all such facts should be expunged from the sacred records? It will not, however, be pretended though the scripture sanctions slavery, that it any where commands it, and from the principle of brotherly love which the sacred volume inculcates, no one will pretend, I presume, that it would be a transgression of any of its rules, for the owners of slaves to emancipate them whenever they should deem it expedient to extend to them this privilege. But this is a matter resting altogether with those, whose interests and whose feelings would be effected by such a proceeding. There exists no authority in any body of men, so far as I know, to destroy the relationships existing between masters and servants in our country, without the voluntary consent of the master himself.

But the Abolitionists at the North openly avow a determination to effect an eventual emancipation of the slaves in the Southern States at all events, and not to cease their exertions until this object is accom. plished, whether their owners will consent to it or not. As an entering wedge on the subject, to be driven up according to the success attending their first efforts, they propose an application to Congress, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and if this purpose is accomplished they calculate upon more extended success. The petitions to Congress, those heretofore presented and those preparing, are predicated upon the exclusive authority vested in Congress for certain purposes over the District in question. But the authority of Congress does not in my view extend to this subject even in Columbia. By the 16th clause of the 8th section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that Congress shall have power, "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals," &c. Under this clause from the cessions of the States of Maryland and Virginia the seat of government was established in the now District of Columbia; but the authority granted to Congress to legislate exclusively over the District, was an authority to exercise control over such matters as were the usual subjects of legislative regulation. It never was intended, when the ten miles square should be ceded to Congress, that the citizens within those limits should hold their property by a different tenure from that, by which the inhabitants without those limits held theirs. It was never intended that Congress should have the exclusive right of dispos ing of the possessions of individuals within those limits, any more than that they should have the right to dispose of the possessions of individu. als in other sections of the country. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia, have the same exclusive right to all their possessions-to their houses, lands, money, goods or slaves, as the individuals of any other part of the country have to theirs, and Congress could with as much propriety pass a law to deprive any and every citizen of that District, of his house, his land, or his money, as of his slaves, for every citizen has the same exclusive right to one species of property as to ano. ther. With what propriety then could Congress pass a law depriving the citizens of that District of their slaves, any more than they could pass a law for robbing them in any other way? I saw it stated in one of the anti-slavery publications, that there were a number of "human beings framed in the image of God," held in slavery by the government

3

of Columbia who ought to be liberated, &c. Now, according to my idea, there is not a single human being held in slavery in the District of Columbia, by the government: if the government own any slaves there, they may certainly liberate or sell them; but to say the government hold them in slavery, because individuals own them there, seems not to be a very correct mode of speaking-it is making the government hold in its hands the property of its citizens, and to be able to dispose of it at pleasure. The government no more hold the servants of the citizens of Columbia District in slavery, than it holds the carriages, the horses, and the funds of the people there in its power. Congress have the same kind of legislative authority over the places purchased by the consent of legislatures of the respective States, for forts, arsenals, magazines, &c., that they have over the District of Columbia; and will it be pretended that they would be authorized to pass a law, liberating the slaves that might be found in these various locations in the different States, without the consent of their owners? Does the power of exclu sive legislation granted by the Constitution, convey the right of making a separation between property and its owners in those Districts, without regard to the claims or rights of those by whom the property is held? Congress can legislate for the District of Columbia, but the robbery of citizens can surely be no part of legitimate legislation. If the slaves are ever liberated in the District in question, it must be by the voluntary consent of those who own them: if this consent is obtained, the question is there at an end-without it, their rights are not to be shaken.

In many of the speeches and publications of the Abolitionists, some pretty highly drawn descriptions of the state of slavery in the Southern States are presented, which those living there would scarcely recognize as correct representations of their country. From some of these, a person who did not know better might be inclined to suppose that there was a constant feeling of hostility or oppression encouraged or maintained, between the slaves and their owners, and that this feeling, where power was altogether on one side, and unconditional submission on the other, led often to acts of cruelty and injustice; and cases in confirmation of this idea are sometimes furnished by writers, who appear to have given a furlow to truth, that the imagination might range unrestricted. That acts of cruelty may and do occur in countries where slavery exists, no rational individual will question-and that acts of cruelty may and do occur in places where slavery is not known, is most certainly demonstrated both by experience and testimony; but to consider occasional acts of cruelty as presenting a correct view of the country in general, where they happen, would be as unreasonable as it would be to consider a country perpetually inundated, because a traveller on a journey happened to fall in with a mill pond in it. Let the

writers who are so sensitive on this subject make a visit to one of the Southern States, in company with some moderate or extensive slave holder who has been with his family on a summer excursion, and let him witness the cheerful excitement, the undisguised satisfaction and heartfelt joy manifested by the slaves at home, as the family return to their dwelling-let him witness the delight with which the old servants and the young ones, meet their owners and their children, and let him then judge for himself, whether there are any of those hostile feelings, those inimical sensations on either side, which he might have previously supposed both sides to have entertained. The fact is, there is a warm and sincere attachment very generally felt by the slaves for their owners, and there is an affectionate regard felt and manifested by their owners towards them-a mutual sort of friendly feeling naturally growing out of the relation they sustain towards each other, and which tends to the comfort of both. And in numerous cases, neither the prosperity or happiness of the slave would be promoted by an acceptance of emancipation, if the anti-slavery associations could furnish it. In many cases I have no doubt it would be rejected; and where it was not, the instances would not be few, where the condition of the slave would be made worse by accepting it.

I happened a few years ago to be passing from Providence, in Rhode Island to Boston, I stopped for a while on my way, at a large, well known and elegant establishment, some miles from the latter place. I sat down while there in the front piazza to converse a short time with the landlord, a very pleasant and intelligent man, who finding where I came from, made various remarks upon the different classes of popula tion at the South and the North, and seemed inclined to believe that the actual condition of the slaves in the Southern States, was not correctly understood in the quarter where he lived. He remarked to me, that a few days before, an elegant carriage with a genteel family stopped at his house-that the driver, a fine looking black man, was very active in relieving his horses, and taking them to the stable, and that when they were provided for, he was brushing and cleaning his harness and putting every thing in the best order. He said he went and entered into conversation with him, and found he was from South Carolina, that his owners had been on a summer trip, and were now returning home, and he with them. The landlord asked him if he wished to get back to the country where men of his color were generally slaves, and whe. ther he would not rather remain in that quarter, if he might be permit ted to do so, where he might enjoy the sweets of liberty-He replied, that he wanted to get back to Carolina with his master and mistress, he said he had seen "enough of the free negroes in Boston, and that he would be very sorry to change places with any of them." He appeared, the

landlord said, to look with contempt upon the free blacks in the places where he had been, and seemed to rejoice that he did not belong to that "poor sort o' class." This case, I presume, was not a solitary one-many a Southern servant, who witnesses the miserable condition of much of the free coloured population of the Northern cities, returns rejoicing to that servitude in the Southern country, which many of the Northern emancipators would try to persuade him was enormously oppressive. The Carolina carriage driver, it is probable, would have retained all his Southern preferences, even if one of the leading Abolitionists in New York had introduced him into his drawing room, and had him amused with the pleasant notes of the piano; for in defiance of such allurements he would have indulged the pleasing anticipations of again enjoying the less refined, but more acceptable vocal music, which he well knew might be expected on his master's premises.

An account was published some days ago in a Northern paper of an application made for the admission of a little white girl to the alms house in New York. On enquiry, it was found that she had been from her infancy under the charge, or in possession of an unfeeling man who had treated her like a dog-she was ther a good looking girl, about fourteen years of age; and after the applicant had secured her a place where he wished, and was about retiring, he offered her his hand in taking leave of her-she shrunk back from his offered hand, and the circumstance being noticed, led to some examination by the person she was left with, when it was found that her hand and arm was much bruised; and, oh! sir, said she, "my back is very sore where my master has beat me❞—and on investigation it was found, that she was cut with a whip, from the shoulders to the calves of her legs, and some of the stripes were inflamed and festered. Whether the person who had charge of this little defenceless female belonged to the Aboli. tion Society or not, I have not heard-it is likely enough that he did, for such differences between theory and practice amongst sentimental philanthropists, sometimes happen. Be this as it may, here was an instance of cruelty, barbarous, unfeeling cruelty, which it is believed has few equals in the slave holding States, towards any portion of their colored population. But should we from this instance undertake to judge of the usual conduct of those having white servants, or friendless children under their care in New York? Should we from this vile instance pretend to estimate the humanity and feeling of that great and polished city, or of that flourishing State? Surely no reasonable being would do any such thing; and yet it would be just as rational and proper, to make up a general opinion from this solitary case, as it would be to judge of the usual treatment of slaves at the South, from some instances of abuse, which an abolition writer might collect, or which in