The Raleigh Register from Raleigh, North Carolina • Page 2

wilt be thrown! upon ut. Let them Jbe pointed miiiib jl 1 Manufacturing EstaX when the United Sbitet it pftmtrily and solely, bound, as in this case, I ask from whom it State officer were directed to act; but this does not weaken the conclusion furnished by this act of the view its framera. The same thing has been done in many cases falling within the ordinary jurisdiction of the United States. Do not the laws of the United States authorize the arrest of offenders against the laws of the United Slates, and the nf (hem before State magistrates or I ABOLITWMIATICISM. Some: time Gerrit Smith' issued a proclamation, headed tiberty; Equality and Fraternity, inviting all persons, white and black: free men and fugitive slavei, to a Con-yentioni ff; Thit production had no precedentin history that we know except in certain of the vagaries of Clootz, in the convention of the first revolution in France, when he announced hiratelf as the "orator of the human race," and eulogised mankind in general and himself particularly.

As the orator aforesaid, when the, French revolutionists rushed into Atheism, and paraded a public prostitute in a public procession in the streets of Paris, decked out and worshipped as the Goddess of Reason. Clootz flourished was in his element, as mad as a March hare, (though we do not know why March hares are particularly mad,) and should have been in a straight jacket. Political fanatics followed him with a yell of triumph, while the intelligent world looked on and feared that madness had broken out in Paris, and become an epidemic. Doubtless there is a kind of moral madness which becomes an epidemic, just like Mormonism and Millerism but er dispute jTlt Congress might not have a limiledgicope of legislation we see by the act of 1793, that Congresa did pass laws to carry into effect that clause of the constitution, and that act presupposes that there is some obligation upon individual States to carry into effect that clause, of the constitution. Mr.

Badger What part shows obligation upon individual States Mr. Butler. The act imposes the obliga. tion. which, derives its authority from the constitution to enforce that obligation.and that act imposes positive duties on State officers.

The Senator has gone as far as I have ever heard anv may be effected by money may be effected by the United States government; and I believe there was no limit to the proposition, because, if it li the duty on the part of the United States government to carry out exclusively this article of the constitution, and the States are exonerated from passing laws to allow their officers to be employed in carrying put the constitution, then that part which sayt slaves shall be delivered necessarily implies that the United States shall go into ihe States and compel the slaves to be delivered up, which certainly was not required when the act of 1793 was passed because that act ragards the action of State officers as well as those of the United States. Once make it exclusively the duty of Con-gress, and you open a wide scope as to means. These means may be the sword or the purse the latter being more acceptable. So I maintain that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg and Pennsylvania imposes no obligation any further than I choose to approve the decision. And in constrain that article of the constitution.

out if there are such eases, let me cases oesoow," in whichUhi. government has imposed upon it the certain specific duty do particular thing and when this shown, I will maintain that the mmMt bound to do itthat particular thin and, failing to do it justly beld td in-'i demniiy me parties ior uie toss orawjucm yt- and resulting Irom tne lanure. tie win unu eases are very few. I doubt whether he wilt find one in the constitution falling within the principle to which this duty of indemnity is attached, ex cept this case ol fugitive slaves. I maintain, then, that the principle of the amendment is right, and some such amendment is absolutely necessary to make bill perfect to complete it so as to conform in eveiy respect to the obligations of this government to cause the surrender of fugitive slaves.

The bill of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) provides the legal means for enforcing the surrender, and the amendment of the Senator from Maryland is a just and proper arrangement for the entire redress of the party injured. The duty being clear, we should provide in this bill for that indemnity, the claim to which will result from the insufficiency of the mean, should they fail to accomplish the end proposed. Then what is the objection to this provision? If a man provides himself with proof of ownership of the fugitive, applies to the proper officer, uses all the means which, are at his disposal by the law which we are now passing, and fails to accomplish that which the law is intended to give, and which we are bound to secure to him, 1 pray you, if he is not entitled to redress to this stage, when will he be entitled 1 Then, if he is entitled to redress, what will you give? It may be possible that that which is proposed by my friend from Maryland may not be just what is in all respects proper. I know that he wants nothing but what is fair and equitable and if any gentleman will suggest a mode which will be free from objections, 1 hare no doubt it will be accepted.

But it seems to roe that the course he has marked out in his amendment is well catcu la ted to secure the favor of the Senate it is practical, it is judicious, it is sufficiently well guarded. What is it? Why, first, the claimant is required to show that he has asserted his claim, and, to prove produced prima ftteie evidence before the officer upon whom the duly of examination i3 devolved by the government of the U. States, and, doing all this, has failed to obtain redress. There is no objection to that. If the proof is made, the government of the United States is bound to pay the money and it is therefore just and proper that the United States should have a tribunal of their own to investigate the case, and that is secured by the amendment.

There is to be a trial in the customary form, by a jury. It does not belong to the ordinary duties of a judge to find facts or assess damages. The judge presides over the trial guards against the introduction of improper or incompetent testimony takes care that the case is brought within ihe provisions of the statute; and then the jury, upon such evidence as he admits, and according to such rules as he declares, are to settle the facts, and determine the amount of damages. The Senator from INiew. Jersey objects that the suit is to le brought against the district attorney.

Where is the harm in that? This is not the only case in ihe history of our covernment where such a thing has been done. How did we dispose of claims to lands acquired by treaty, which were in dispute between ihe United States and individuals? We authorized by law suits to lie brought against the United States. We gave jurisdiction to the courts. But how was the suit brought how was the complaint instituted? Against the attorney representing she United States. The U.

States musi be represented by some one who so proper, in any particular case, to be that representative, as the attorney to whom we have committed ihe general charge of the interests of the United Slates who holds this appointment from the President, with the concurrence of the Senate Certainly he is the most unexceptionable person, who, in his district, is the law agent of the United btates in all matters civil and criminal. Then, when we are providing lor a suit to be brought by the claimant, I pray you on whom can we more properly devolve the duty of representing the United States than on him who represents the U. States in every other case within the district 1 nave oo doubt that you may arrange this a-mendmenl as you please, and it will still be iru-perlect. What work of man is otherwise? I entertain a strong conviction that if the Senator from New Jersey should occupy himself for a month upon this subject, he would find at last that his work was imperfect, and not likely to secure, in allnspects, the approval of every member of this body. But this is the best which, in its general provisions, it is in our power to present, and may be amended in its details, if defects pointed out.

It comes recommended by the fact that its obj-ct is the accomplishment of a thing right in itself; that ils provisions aim to prevent its being abused for a bad end and, for this purpose, resorts to such means as have in other cases been adopted for the protection of the United States, and which, though not in all instances affording a perfect protection, have been found in general a sufficient safe-guard against wrong. Then, sir, it is said the money is to be paid out of the treasury. How else should it be paid it is to be paid by that party who is bound to. discharge the duly, and has failed to discharge it he must redress out of his own means the losses which have resulted to individuals from the failure on his part to discharge his own duty. I am perfectly willing you should put into the bill a provision, giving the right of action against individuals in any State who shall aid to prevent the recovery of the fugitive, ana that they may be prosecuteu ana nnea, and the United States be indemniGed from them.

But with that, as between the United States and himself, the claimant of the slave has nothing to do he needs the discharge of the duty devolved upon this government, which it is bound to discharge, and failiog-to do it, is bound to make him indemnity. It ig just exactly what is done in every other instance. If an officer of the United States seizes the pro perty of an individual, that individual is to be indemnified out of the property of the U. States.for whose benefit his own was taken, and thi? particular injury was sustained. In the States where property is seized for the public use.

or if anv in jury or wrong be done by the public to a ciuzen, me government is oouud to make it good, and make it good out of the State treasury although it is true that he who receives the money contributes his portion of it, and rightly and properly does he do it. So that, so tar as 1 have been able to consider this amendment, it seems tm me that it is right in its spirit thai the provisions which it contains are weil considered, and adapted to accomplish the end with sufficient certainty of justice to the claimant on the one hand, and a sufficient safeguard to prevent the United States from being unjustly charged on the other. I do hope the Senate will adopt the a-mendment and pas the bill. If such a bill passes it wdl give the most confident assurance to the people of that portion of the country most interested in this subject, that there is a disposition on all hands to do what is right toward them; that the United States will not suffer them, directly or indirectly, to be wronged, out of complaisance to certain persons in other portions of the coo try who have scruples of conscience how far their neighbors can rightfully use this species of property secured to them by the constitution and laws of the country. It will show that the U.

States arc not speaking only, but are acting in earnest on ibis subject. It will show that the minds of men are actuated ov real beneficence are doing good, and not merely wishing it. The first part of the law proposes a plan for doing justice the second proves the sinceaty in which the first is proposed, by providing payment in snaaey where the slave himself cannot be had. Washing, sir, tt nothing. It was long since said by the Rev.

Sidney Smith, that. benevolence is common to mankind; A never ecft in distress without wishing to relieve him But this bill will give assurance it will satisfy the public mind ttoat the government is disposed, it truly anxious to accomplish the restitution of fugitive slaves; tmcerely wishes and it resol ved to do right to the uuerniott of its poWer. The proof of this will be complete, because we furnish the best means tor the recovery of the slave hunself, and if these fail we secure prompt and adequate indemnity for the loss. i TTOSEPIl WOLTERiwr of Tear. Foreman in 2.V i Bllfc, Kail Road Shop) prrprea to manofactor, Carriage Sprimgs, Bras, IB IS AliSO.rBKFAtEp TO EXECUTE BELlL SUBTEST NOTICE.

V0." Also ha on band an extensiv of all kiuda, at prices from in Edgetoofs, an HrtUei.t of Ur. HateheU, Hamroen, Filei of kit and a number of article. iD his line iT nieatioD. tKio All orders faithfully executed at the 0 and new work entrusted to car. PHu.

ed Orders from a distauce will be itnd executed at the nhortevt notice. Hi. will be found on Fsvetteville 8tbliial Repairing in his line performed with te despatch. Also, a general assortment of PHW0LTERING Raleigh, Aug. 30, STEAMBOAT NAVIGATION BISTWeej FAYETTETILLE AND WILSI5GT0.X.

arpHE undei signed Proprietofi of then, LL, Steam Boat Company beg leai'v" their thanks to the public lor the libii lBj, received during the last season, and uke J1'0" od to iuform ibeir patrun. and the public that they have added over fifty per Cem iial Stock of the Company, iu boat. tk. of the New Hteaboyt io navigate ihe river at all stages 0f vttu shippers by this line a decided advantage in Iheir goods up without delay, especi.liy JJt season, when the liiver is usually too low fur Boats of ordiuary draught to run. Stei The Boats composing this Line are The Steamer Gov Graham, 2i)eartol4 Iew.

do New. do Chatham Tow Boats Mike brown Telegraph Cumberland Ex(jre AU the above Boat? are iu the my best con, tion (or the Fall burinrsa. The uudersignrd warranted in appealing to the shipping pubi such an increased patronage as will 10 some extent at least for the additional cipn.iB. vested, and promise with every confidence tliiaW per by ttii Line shall be as well if not better aervii than they can be by any other on the River The arrangements by the Copartners Br iotradei to be permanent, and should exurif nee sutgea necessity of any further increase of boiU. the poi may rely upon their being put on the liner without delay.

Oaf rate far Freight at alt time wiHteth, rent fates charged by others. Bills of Lading for goods intended to come by thi, Line should be filled up to the tare of ib fjIM Fear Steamboat Oue cop, mg tent by mail toT C. Worth, Ajreni at thi'iii DIBBLE fc T.C. WOUTH, P. UKT, ffopnttori.

J.D.WILLIAMS. John. D. Williams, Agent, Cupe Fear Company, Fayftteville. July 19.

IbSO. 860 THE COLLEGEOF ST. JAMES. Washington County, Md The Diosesan College of the Protestant Epit-copal Church. THE Ninth Annual Session will open on Mot-day, October 7th, 1850, and continue till tin neat Commencement Day," the last Thurjdnjii July, 1851.

New students are recommended ton ter at the opening of the cession, but ire recti red tt any time they apply, and Ihe charge ia eatinotd from the -d4e of their entrance. The College has the usual number of if-fords all the opportunities for a complete edoeuioi, and. at the succesful of the collegitu course, confers upon its graduates the usual micnl degrees. The Grammar School, immediately adjoining tk Collt-ge, aud under the humediate supervision of lit Rector, but under distinct discipline, receives lads at the beginning of their academical conrse, iid prepares them for the collegiate classes. Thtow-sight aud direction of the Professouof the Cullegt secure special advoutages to the pupils iu the Gno-mar School In the Mercantile Classes the study of the Greek language is omitted, aud ils place supplied additional studies iu Mod rn Languages, Book-kerf-ing.

Commercial Arithmetic, Statistics, j-c. The location of the College is entirely faealtafal, and, by its distance from tow us and Tillages, rerj favorable to good morals and order. The whole annual charge (the same in the Csl-lrge and Grammar School) tor the session of months is two hundred and twenty-five dollars, p-. able semi-annually iu advance. Applications tot made to JOHN KERFO0T, Rector College of St.

James P. 0., Ml August 7th. 63 w2n liJGULES, IVllITIi: DAVIS, Grocery aud Ceuiiuiiou iTlerchafltt 014 fetenkarg, sfi, W7-EEP always on hand a large and well snort-ed supply of Groceries, abd pay particular leoiiun to the sale of Cotton, Tobacco, Wbesd Flour, aad all other kinds of produce. LEMUEL PEEBLES, THOiMAS WHITE, PETER R. DAVIS, J.

Petersburg, July SO Jl, ITlsEDICAsL of tlic STATE OF SOUTH-CAROLINA. HMIE Annual COURSE OF LECTURES Institution will commence on the fint Miadey in November next, on the followin cites Anatomy, by J. E. Holbrook, M. D.

Institutes and Practice of Medicine, by S. neWJ Dickson, M. U. Surgery, by Geddiogs, M. D-Physiology, by James Moultrie, M.

D. Materia Medico, by Henry R. Frost, M. D-Obstetrics, by Tlios G. Prioleau.

M. D. Chemistry, by U. Shepard. Al.

D. Demonstrator of Auatomy, St. Julun D. Or. IT rhysrenrniti tln MTB pital and Clinical Instructor.

Lectures 1" week on the Disease of that Institution. Dr. B. Fiagg, Physician to the Alius HW Lectures twice a week ou Diseases. Demonstrative Instruction in Medicine u4 9 gery at OoHege Hospital.

HKNKV R. FROST. M. De Angnst 15lh lSit. 67 Fall supply t)F BOOTS, SHOES, LEATHER.

BRUM ON YCHE are no ojgj their Fall supply of Boots, Shoes. Leather, Shoe Makers' Findings, PPer Trunks, Carpet Bags. Saddlery, EMBRACING UPWARDS OF OMK THOt'SAND VAUAnUS, OF FRESH JLND SEJSOJMBLE GOO suitable to the Fall and Winter Trade. PJI ed very early in the season, at low Gooas enabled to ofTer to the Trade a Stock 01 wLich. for variety of stvle and qualiti er surpassed by any house, ,.0 surpassed oy any nouse, We respectfully solicit country "ellXb eiocs.

oeiore VrHt, DKUMMOND Sycamore street, Petersbo ruKt wyw Liven oiijB A -LARGE supply of Pure Cod Li' U1 sskaatPae nl a 1 f) OH XUa, sMYed and lor sale uy pESCt ftakfgh, April 9th, 1850. CHLORIDE OF LIME. supply is just 'jjfjtD'S. the indemnity to come me amy iui the United Statet tbe-loss wlUfrom a failure to discharge that duty and if the U-niled States are ever bound to indemnify, tt must be in this very case. It teems to me, therefore, that the senator from New Jersey has founded his objection to this amendment upon a totally fallacious view of the subject.

la the next place, the honorable tenator seems to suppose that the only case in which there is any obligation upon this government, under this clause of the constitution, is where the surrender of Use fngitiv prevented consequence of iofine law or regulation of the State into which he escape's. His idea, if I understand him aright, i thie that if there be no hostile legislation if there be no law or regulation of the Slate under color of which the recapture is prevented, with the semblance of right if the recapture be prevented by mere unauthorized violence or fraudulent contrivance, then this clause imposes no obligation upon the United States to effect a redelivery, and the cae is not within the meaning of the clause. But a little consideration of that clause of the constitution will show that, as this interpretation is, upon the face of it, one which makes the clause speak absurdly, aad therefore cannot be correct, so also is it inconsistent with one of the express and definite provisions of that clause. The clause has two objects. The first is this to prevent a slave, by escaping into a State in which slavery is prohibited, from becoming free.

That is the first. He shall not discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any law or regulation" of the State into which he escapes. In other words, though he may escape into a State whose laws prohibit slavery, whose laws declare that every man who touches its jurisdiction is thereby immediately made free, yet in this case of a fugitive slave that rule shall not apply. Though he shall have escaped into a State whose laws contain such a provision, he shall still continue a slave. That is the idea clearly expressed and written, and the meaning of it cannot be mistaken.

The ne-ceisity of it is obvious. If my slave escapes from me and reaches Great Britain, we all know he is free the moment he touches the soil of that kingdom, and he will be free henceforth wheresoever I may find him. But when our ancestors formed this Union they intended to prevent anv such disastrous consequences from the different systems of laws which the several States might adopt. Therefore the first thing was to declare that the condition, the status of the slave who should escape, should not be Altered by the laws of the State into which he escaped. Therefore, although mv slave has escaped, I have the right to treat him as a slave therefore, as the Supreme Court decided in the case of Prigg and Pennsylvania, I have the right to take him from that State to which he has fled, and to bring him back to make such a disposition of him as laws of my own State authorize.

But, then, the article would have been singularly defective had it stopped there. The first thing was to prevent the alteration of the slave's civil condition the next was to bring him back again to the State from which he escaped to subject him in the direction and control of his master; otherwise, the provision would hav had no practical meaning, no real value would have sounded large, but would have produced no beneficial resuli. My slaves would have been slaves still in point of law, but I would have had no means of Bringing them back again to ray service, and making them profitable to me. Therefore, the second condition of the clause, he shall be delivered up" on the claim of him to whom the set- tic I Ukbor mmf ba luf .11 ba LrougUl again under the dominion of the master from whom he fled the two provisions put together faithfully carry out and make complete and effectual the design of those who framed the constitution. The first without the last would be a mockery of terms, giviog no real and effectual remedy.

Therefore, it seems to be clear that this duly ol securing the surrender of the fugitive is peculiarly and plainly incumbent on this government. The first part of that clause ot the constitution is declaratory it is immediate in its operaviou it executes nstlf, and needs no machinery of government to carry it out. The constitution declares that the civil condition, the Uatut of the slave, shall not be altered. It is not altered by his escape, and cannot be altered while the constitution lasts. But, then, there comes upon the basis of that proposition, and as a cousequence from it, an act to be performed.

There the constitution cannot execute itself there legislation is required to make the right effectual. The owner, it is true, may sozeiiis slave, but he may justly demand also public force and public authority to secure-his private right, and to accomplish for bim the recapture aud surrender the fugitive This demand it is our duty to "grant, and A this duty which the bill beforeyou is intended to discharge. Then, it seems to roe, thai the proposition offered by the Senator from Maryland is not only right in itself, but it is germane to the bill before the Senate. It is essential to make that bill perfect it is absolutely necessary, unorder that we may stand right in the view of our constituents, and stand right in our own hearts and consciences, that we put that provision in the bill. The first part of the bill is the establishment of that machin ery by which this government is to enforce the recapture of slaves.

That may be effectual, or it may not I have far better hopes of it than many southern gentlemen on this floor. Except in some particular neighborhoods, where fanatical senti ments prevail almost universally, and where a combination of efforts may overpower authority, or fraudulent contrivances may elude it, under the specious pretext of that higher power which, in their view, overrules the constitution except in such cases as these, my belief is that this law will be regularly executed. But, if it is not so executed, what, then, are we bound to do? As I bave stated, the passage of a law is not the discharge of our duy. it is Uauemplf it is the apparatus of legislation by which we set about the accomplishment of that which it is our duty to perform which is the delivery up of the fugitive. Suppose these means prove inadequate.

If they it is the duty of the government to see that indemnity is made to the extent of the loss incurred io consequence of the inadequacy of the means to the discbarge of the duty. 1 care not whether these means Fail in eonseqaence of a vitiated state of public sentiment, or ol laws passed by any State; whether in consequence of public authority, or private fraud and violence I care not how the recovery of the slave is prevented, this government is bound to indemnify the loser for the loss sustained, because this government is bound to cause such slave to be restored to his master. Is this any new principle 1 Has it not always been acted upon? It is the duty of this government to afford protection, under certain circumstances, from Indian hostilities aud violence. Measures are adopted for that purpose laws are passed, and troops are marched, and military posts are established. Do we hold that, it these arrange- ments lor protection turn out to be ineneetual, and these individuals; are robbed orwrongtd whom we are bound to protect, we teft jinder no obligation to make resututioB? Why ouj statute-book proves the contrary.

Scarcely a session of Con grass passes without furashing vidence that we understand thai the duty of this government is not I performed by marching by passing jaws add regulation upon parenment or aper. They are but arrangements tor discharging our duty for that end; and we recognize the duty of indemnifying the parties when the means provided for protection prove, in tact, iatufiicienu rbe Senator from New Jersey supposes that ii we adopt the principle of this -amendment we shall involve ooraelves in an inconvenient latitude of obligations, and that a vast variety of claims Ilr. Badger's Rcnart oir the 1 US UCW III VAIIIIUIIUVV v. having undercon indention the bill to provide for the more effectual execution of the third elaase of the second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United Stat, and the question pending being ttpt the -mendment of- Jlr. the debate cotirv principle offered by my friend Marlal (Mr.

Pratt) is free from bjection. The details may require some modifications and" I know he will cheerfully' assent to any -which may serve to make the provisions of his amendment more acceptable, without materially affect-in? their value. It appears to me. Mr. President, that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.

Dayton) has fallen into two great mistakes in the views which he has submitted to the Senate. In the first place, the Senator says that this a-mendment, to borrow his own expression, is to make the United States the grand en-doner' for the discharge by each and every one of the States, and by all the citizens of the States, of the obligations which they owe under the Constitution. Now, sir, the a-mendment does not make the United States either grand or petty endorser for States or persons. It binds the United States for th discharge of no duties except those which belong primarily and solely to the United State. That, sir, is evident Since the de-cision made in the case of Prigg vs.

Pennsylvania, it is the undeniable, undisputed, undoubted construction of the constitution of the United States, that this clause created an obligation upon the United States, and not upon the States. I do not myself agree in the opinion which was expressed by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts lately a member of this botfy, and now at the head of the State Department, (Mr. Webster,) that any other construction of this clause of the constitution would have been right o-riginajly. The view which that distinguished gentleman seemed to intimate here was, that this clause was intended to depend for its enforcement upon the several States. Sir, what is there in the clause which leads to any such supposition It is the provision in a constitution establishing a government Tor thepeopIe of the" United States.

It is not a stipulation in articles of a confederacy or league, by which the States, as distinct corporate bodies, or sovereignties, or politi- "cal communities, stipulated to do something for one another. It is a part of the constitution of the government, and like every other part, was intended to be accompanied by, and is accompanied by, adequate powers In the government thus established to carry it into execution. It creates a duty upon the government.which the government is vested with power to execute, and which the government is bound to execute. I see no more reason for supposing that this particular provision of the constitution was to be tamed over to the independent action of the States for its execution than any other pro. vision of that instrument.

I bave never heard any suggestion which takes this out of the other provisions of the constitution and maces it dependent for its execution, not upon the authority of the Union, not upon fJonjrress and upon the conduct of this government, Dot opon concurrent mwance to be rendered by the several members of the Union. Though such an idea was entertained by the gentleman from Massachusetts, it is evident that no such idea was entertained by those who passed the act of 1793, who were fresh from the formation of the constitution, contemporaneous with those who made it, and familiar with all-Mr. Butler. Will the Senator allow me Mr. Fadger.

The Senator has interrupted me in the midst of my sentence How hall I ever get back to it again and bring it to its end Mr. Butler. I wished to make a single inquiry. Mr. Badger.

I presume my friend had no intention io injure my argument but he must see the result of such an interruption in the case of a young rhetorician like myself, who is framing bis sentences as he proceeds, and can scarcely recover the position at which he was arrested. If be will allow me to finish my sentence, I will give' gtve way for bis inquiry. I was saying that this act was passed by the contemporaries of the rimers of thecon-- stitution, by men familiar with all the discussions which preceded its adoption, and that among them were many members of that convention which framed the constitution among the were many eminent mem-. bers of that body. To name no other.

Mr. Madison was one. These men, in passing the act of 1793, recognized in the provision of that clause of the constitution this duty was imposed upon the government of the United States and they passed an act foun ded upon that supposition, and defensible upon no other. But, whatever might have been the difficulty, if there bad been any doubtf or pause, or hesitation as to whether the clause depended for its execution upon this government, the decision of the Supreme jpourt pnhe'Unrted States in the case of Fngg W. Pnnnsylvania has set that point at jeat forever.

And now I will give way to sear what my mend from South Carolina to say. Mr. Butler. My friend reminds me of the remark of a distinguished and expenen red belle, who said she always blushed to hear her own praises, and was, there afraid to hear anything-said to herself. Jts the question which I was about to pro pound may hare involved in it a comph jnent, it may have-had the effect to pro- dace a blush and disconcert a Toong rhetorician like my friend.

I was about to speak to him as a distinguished lawyer, and I was rnxious to see how far he would qualify the remark be was making, before I interrupted sum. i naa no purpose ot interrupting mm, but really to obtain his precise ana consider ed opinion because I suppose be has examined the case of Prig? and Pennsylvania, and has formed, a definite judgment. He has made the broad assertion that he approves entirely of the. decision in the case of Prigg and Pennsylvania, which goes to show tbt Congress-exclusively shall pass such laws as are designed to remedy the evil aimed at. The question which I wat about to propound wM this; -would he hold that it is "scoiisUtutiooal oo the part of a State to as would enable the owner to have his slave delivered up to him in the iV ll 0Wfted- he approve that 'haveith.

the tiele of the eontftutSon Ihaye nev justices of the peace, and a commitment for tKm fnr nflFVnrf arainst the laws of the United States Surely they do but no one ever inferred that there was a concurrent obligation upon the officers of the United States andof the Slate. the laws or tne United States. In fact, a little attention to what took place soon after the organization nf the government will explain the seeming inconsistency. There seems to have been in the mind of General Washington, then President of the United States, an extreme desire to guard the people of the States against any feeling of repugnance towards the new government a government which had been strongly opposed to familiarize them to its operation, and to take from it, as far as possible, the appearance of a foreign authority, executed by officers to whom they had not been accustomed. Hence it was that he, during his administration, sometimes called upon the governors of States to execute duties arising out of, and imposed by, the constitution upon the general government and for this purpose the act of 1793, and other laws, required the magistrates of the States to aid in their execution.

Afterwards, the State judges held that no such duties could be imposed upon them by an act of Congress. They declined to execute the duties so imposed upon them, and in some cases the States stepped in and autnonzea the execution of the laws by their officers. The whole effect, therefore, of the law of 1793 was to make the State officers there mentioned, quoad hoc, officers of the United States. Whelher Congress had the power to confer this authority, and impose this duty upon them, is a matter in no way connected with the inquiry I am now making. The case of Prigg and Pennsylvania has established the principle that upon the Jnited States rests the obligation to see that this provision of the constitution is carried into effect, and that that obligation rests upon the United States alone.

There is another question to which the senator from South Carolina has referred, and upon which I do not now choose to enter, because it is not germane to the subject now before the Senate, and it is not connected with the argument which I propose to submit. That question is, how far the Slates may voluntarily aid by the law the legislation of the United States lor enforcing the surrender of fugitive slaves The decision of that question can in no way affect my argument. My proposition is this That, according to the decision of the court in the case of Prigg and Pennsylvania, the obligation to enforce this clause of ihe constitution rests upon the United States, and upon the United States alone. Then, what is that obligation The senator from New Jersey thinks that it only requires that Congress shall pass appropriate laws. The constitution does not say so.

The constitution says nothing about Congress passing appropriate laws. The clause of the constitution declares that fugitives from service or labor shall be delivered up, and the duty, according to the decision in the cae of Prigg and Pennsylvania, of seeing that clause of the constitution executed, is upon the United States. True, the United States must, in the execution of that duty, have recourse to laws but the 5 ff uii iltw port of the United States will not be a discharge of that duty, unless they succeed in effecting what the constitution requires, and that is the delivering up of the fugitive. If the delivery of the fugitive is enforced, the duty is discharged if it be not enforced, then, I care not what laws Congress may have passed, the duty is not discharged. The laws are but a means for the accomplishment of a certain end.

The laws themselves are insignificant and worthless they are but written parchments, of no more value or significance than an old almanac, except as they produce the result which the constitution requires this government to bring about. The government of the United States, then, being bound to see that the fugitive is redelivered to him to whom his labor is due, if it fails to do it, and the owner complains, what answer is it to him to say, "Go to the Department of State, and you will find well engrossed upon parchment a law that we passed The prompt answer would be, "I want not your parchment my complaint is, that the fugitive is not delivered up, and you are bound to see that delivery The only difference between the passage of a law and the passage of no law is this If Congress passes what is deemed to be an effectual and good law for the purpose, then the good faith ot the nation is saved there is no voluntary abandonment of the high duty imposed by the constitution and no wilful neglect of it, but an acknowledgement of the duty, with an honest effort to perform it. But, I pray you, is the effort to perform a duty the performance of it Is a lair attempt to do a thing the actual doing of it The mere statement of such a proposition shows its fallacy. Then how stands the case My slave is lost by becoming a fugitive into another State 1 use the means which Congress has given me by laws passed upon the subject to recover him but my slave is not delivered up. Is the doty of the United States performed The constitution is imperative the slave shall be delivered up.

Whose duty is it to see. that he is delivered up According to the constant course of this government and the unanimous decision of the highest court of the country, it is the duty of the United States. Therefore, it is as clear to my understanding as any proposition in logic no deduction regularly drawn from acknowledged premises can be plainer than that, if the slave is not delivered up, the duty of this government is not performed because that is not done which the constitution, as interpreted by the court of the last resort, has declared it is the duty of this government to see performed. Then I pray you, sir, when I say this is the duty of the government, and when I call on you to indemnify me for the loss of my slave, in consequence of the nonperformance of this duty, in what sense can tt be said that this government is made the grand endorser for anybody for any State, or for any political community or individual? It signifies nothing to the owner who has lost his slave through whose instrumentality he hag lost him whether by the action of State laws, or the unauthorized, unprovoked, wicked, and malicious concert, in force or fraud, of the inhabitants of a free State. It is enough for him to say, "You are bound to see that the titation is carried ooVand to tee that jmpediinenU to the recovery of my property are removed, and if they cannot be, you are bound to Indemnify me for the lots which hat occurred in consequence." If the United States is not to pay an indemnity this Smith-abolitionism is of much deeper, and more dangerous type than either.

This person, Gerrit Smith, is represented as in possession of a large fortune, and as being like Falstaff, of goodly proportions, and showing that he "is well to do in the world He is beset by a morbid passion for and having means, be has leisure to give himself up entirely to thetuggestionsof His Satanic Majesty. He has the vanity of Robespierre and Clootz This morbid vanity and hate would fatten on the blood of every Southern slave-holder in the name of liberty, just as Robespierre and his compeers would have fattened, aye. did fattten, on the blood of whom they hated, and whom they were pleased to call aristocrats. Robespierre was called the "incorruptible." Clootz was "the orator of the human race." Liberty," exclaimed Madame Roland, as she ascended the guillotine, "how many atrocities have been committed in thy name;" and if the solemnities of the death scene of her murder would have permitted her to add, "and how many beastlj' follies would have covered the whole ground. The Convention called by Mr.

Smith in his liberty, equality and fraternity proclama tion, met, as we learn from the telegraphic despatch in the New York Tribune, in Ca- zenoria, New York, on 21, in the Free Church in that village. It was called to order by J. C. Jackson, and the ReV. Samuel T.

May wafappointed chairman, pro-tem. We copy from the pro ceedings such items as strike us So.rg by the Elmore Sisters, who are fugitive slaves. A comniitieeof five was appointed to report re solutions on the imprisonment ol Yv Li. Chaplin for his recent attempt to abduct slaves from the district of Columbia, as follows: J. Haraway, W.

B. Smith, Elmore Seymour, E. Smith and J. C. Jackson.

A Committee was appointed to raise a subscription io 10 cent donations to purchase a silver pitcher and two silver goblets to be presented to W. L. Chaplin, for his eminent services in the cause of Humanity. The following ladies were such Committee JJeebe Hathaway, Miss Kur- well, Mrs. F.

Rice. The Committee to nominate permanent officers reported the following President Frederick Douglass, (colored.) Vice Presidents J. C. Hatha wayv Samuel Ward, (col'd,) Miss or Mrs. Frances Hawley, Charles W.

heaton. Secretaries Charles D. Miller, Miss Anna P. Adams. Frederick Doughss on taking theChair, made a few appropriate remarks." But tor the diabolical purposes of these men and women, can there be anything more ridiculous io Pittsburgh, the other day, the members of a colored congregation refused to let this negro Douglass hare their church to hold forth in, because he was an infidel," but these colored and white gentlemen and ladies of the Cazenoria Convention are of wider sympathies and would, no doubt, hare been edified by a stump speech from Clootz, the orator of the human race." Alas, and how false they are to their friends! Do they not know that their vote of "a silver pitcher and two silver goblets to W.

L. Chaplin, lor his eminent services in the cause of humanity," will beany thing but "humanity 'towards him That it will make his incarceration cer tain, if he be guilty, and bis hope of pardon weyouu a prooaouny. is "saver pitcner can contain no gladness for his sublets, where with to drink their health and seccess to their cause, and lighten his long years of confinement, ior crimes perpetrated in the very shadow ot the Capitol. These are sorry friends. The goblets will become old fashioned before ever Chaplin uses them they had better keep them among themselves, to celebrate tne bloody rites of servile war which they would invoke.

And ladies were i ii at mi vatcuuua vuuveuiton cu asu ington Irving says CufTy danced well when you were at the windward of him. how woman falls when she forsakes her high vocation Lady secretaries at such a meeting aud revolutionary France had her ladies, too. at the Goddess of Reason's celebration But we forbear. There's a divinity doth hedge a king," the poet says. vciiaiui; a uiviuny uoin neuge a woman, in tne homage which we feel Ior the sex.

Among other matters it was moved, "that the fugitive slaves present, of whom there are some thirty, De requested to si; together, where they may be seen by delegates." And they sat to gether in mass accordingly, and presented, doubt Jess, the dark picture of slavery, on the oueside, and on the other the glories ot aboliuon. The Convention adjourned after this wise: The Church being refused for the sitting of the Convention, Mr. Smith moved to go to Pitts- Durg, which was lost. A grove was procured. Bait.

Patriot. University of 'THE NEXT SESSION will begin on MON A DAY, the 14th day of October, I860, and close 1st March, 1151. Nathan R. Smith, M. Surgerj.

Win. A. Aiken, M. Chemistry and Pharmacy. Samuel Chew, M.

Thoapeutic, Materia Medics and Hygiene. Joseph hoby, M. Anatomy and Physiology. Wm. Power, M.

Theory and Practice of Medicine. Richard H. Thomas, M. Midwifery aud Diseases of Women and Children. George M.

WHtenberger, M. Pathological Auatomy. The most ample opportunities for the prosecution of Practical Anatomy at a moderate expeuse. Chemical Lectures five times a week, by Professors Smith and Power, in the Baltimore Infirmary with the privilege of daily visits to its wards, without charge to the student for the ticket. Fees for the Lectures $9U to 93; Practical Anatomy 910 Matriculation Graduation $20.

WILLIAM E. A. AIKEN, Dean. Baltimore. August 7th, 1850, ,,64 7t THE undersigned having at Aogost session, 1850, of Wake County Court, qualified as adminwtiator upon the estate of Robert N.

Jeffreys, deceased. Notice is hereby given to ail persons indebted to the said Estate to call and pay what may be due from them. And tkossr te whom the same is indebted are notified to present their claims, properly authenticated for payment, io proper Urns, of this will be pleaded tu bar of their recovery. JEFFREY'S. AaWr.

August, S2d, 1850. w3w 63 Standard copy, and pretest, account to J. O. Jef- frsys. I am bound to go against the proposition of the Senator from Maryland, in his amendment, because the proposition itself goes so far as to call for the action of the federal government alone.

The reasoning of the Senator from North Carolina is very well adap ted to maintain a proposition of the kind, if the proposition itself was maintainable. But it seems to me that the proposition is fallacious, and not to be sustained by any effort to throw the duty upon the federal government exclusively, and to exonerate the States from any action in carrying out this provision of the Constitution. I cannot therefore, sustain that proposition. I am willing to assent that there are concurrent duties but to say that it is exclusively the duty of the United States, is against the constitution, and against the statute commentaries in the different States upon the constitution. It is- implied by the acts of the States themselves that it is as much or more the duty of the States to carry out this provision than it is the duty of the federal government It is notorious that, as the statute commentaries immediately after the adoption of the constitution show, there was scarcely a State which did not pass acts for the delivery of fugitives escaping from their owners.

It is but recently that they have passed acts interfering with the right of the owner to recover his property. It was in a case of this kind that the ease of Prigg and Pennsylvania arose and Judge Story and other judges went so far as to say that the State government had nothing to do with the subject, but that it belonged exclusively to the United States, and that, too, as I think, againt the main aim of their judgement, a-gainst the act of 1793, and against the known statutory commentanes upon the constitu tion. Now, no court can impose upon me any obligation to regard its decisions in violation of my views of the constitution. I mmy mmj tlm9 jSmsm was IK itl OTT fore given till the recent feeling in regard to this subject betrayed the court into a judgment never understood before. I regard the judgment good only on the question before tne covin; ana vniei justice laney nas put down his solemn reasoning upon it, to guard the provision, and 1 give my assent to his conclusion, and shall take advantage of his reservation, and not to the conclusion of Judge Story, except so far as he has shown that the act of Pennsylvania was unconstitutional, which imposed a penalty upon the owner in certain cases.

To that extent I a-gree, and no turther for the judgment could go no further properly. I cannot vote for the amendment of the Senator from Maryland in any point of view that I can take of it. Mr. Badger. I gave way for the senator to make an inquiry, and it seems he is going on to make a The President.

The Chair will state that he cannot allow a speech thus to be made within a speech. It is only allowable to interrupt a senator for the purpose of a personal explanation. Mr. Butler. Before I take any portion of the rebake, I beg to say that I thought the senator bad terminated his speech.

I am the last one woulJ interfere to prevent any one from concluding what be had to say. Mr, Badger. He roust suppose that I ruse to say but very little, and that nothing that I did sa would lead to anv conclusion. Mr. Butler.

Allow me, then, to beg the gentleman's pardon, for I thought he was through be says so much in a short time, his speeches are such a muLum in parvo, that I really thought he was through. Mr. Badger. I really could not but be struck, on hearing the senator's remarks, with the singular inconsistency that belongs to man. There is not, certainly, a gentleman on this floor who is more strenuously in favor of non-intervention than the Senator from South Carolina yet he has intervened when I had just begun my speech, and made a speech in the middle of mine.

He said when he roser that ire didrsirfor the yui puse of get-ting some views from me, ana really seemed desirous of obtaining them upon the ground, as he said in complimentary terms, that I was a good lawyer and I considered myself bound to yield the floor to hear his suggestions. But he has gone over the whole subject in answer to me before I had concluded and as he has spoken his opinions with the utmost decision and undoubting confidence, I must consider myself discharged from all obligation to give my views upon his suggestions. It is only when the mind pauses in approaching a conclusion when an opinion is given with some hesitation that we can hone to oppose it successfully by argument When a man has settled his judgment, it would be an act little short of madness to undertake to unsettle it, particularly in the case of such a man as the senator from South Carolina. I was spe aking-of the decision in the case of Prigor and Pennsylvania that decision in which the whole court concurred a decision which leaves it no longer to be doubted that the constitution imposes an obligation upon the government of the United States, and upon that government only, to execute this clause of the constitution. The court have so decided, ans! the Trainers of the act of 1793 so thought and I apprehend that, until a very recent period, there was no question or difficulty io the mind of anybody that this obligation vu one resting upon the United States, nd thai the government of the United Slates was bound to see it discharged.

It is true that by the act of 1793 certain J.I I.