pliance with the requisitions of congress by different States, the dangers that might arise from insurrections of the slaves, the rapacity of foreign governments, and the ambition that might actuate individuals, were brought forward as evidences.

The government would not permit a general insurrection, either of slaves or any other people, when they had provided for securing the rights of every individual by civil processes. But if these civil processes should ever become so corrupt that the people could not obtain their rights, or if they should ever be so perverted as to give unjust judgments, their own practices and their Declaration of Independence acknowledged the right of revolution.

Here, then, we think, is the true theory of our government. It was "established and ordained by the people" for good and beneficial purposes, not for evil or ambitious ones; to defend themselves from the evil designs of foreign governments, from the pretensions of any one or more of the States, or any individual of any of the States, and to quell any popular insurrection the State governments could not quell, or asked assistance to quell; but, in order to effect these purposes, they could not interfere at all with certain rights, and no natural right, but by due course of law; so that every individual of the land has the power to call on the civil government in the first place to protect him in his lawful undertakings, and he may exercise the liberty of speech and of the press to main

tain himself in these rights; and, if the courts of the civil government cannot protect him, then he may, through the courts, call upon all the physical power of the country so to do, whether that individual be white or black, bond or free. And we suspect much of the excitement we have of late heard about State rights arises from the idea whether each individual shall, in the last resort, or ultimately, look to the State in which he resides, or to the general government, for protection.

The Southern States, or rather individuals of the Southern States, not wishing that the liberty of every individual should be secured, and wanting to found their governments on rapine, and not for the good or the whole, have been anxious for State rights, that a certain class might act as they pleased, independently of the rights of certain others. That is, they wish to hold slaves by law, and they now know no law can support them in it; for we find neither a Hayne, nor a McDuffie, nor a Preston, nor a Calhoun, nor a Clay, have ever dared to enter on a discussion of the right of the southern people, under the Constitution, to hold slaves, or the constitutionality of the thing. They never have presumed to state wherein any compact lies, or to enter into an argument on the subject; they have left this for clergymen to do; but, when they are pressed, they apply the gag; "hanging without benefit of clergy" are the premises, and the conclusion of all their reasoning, if reasoning they have ever given. Is it not so?

If the purposes of the Constitution, as expressed

in the preamble, can be faithfully carried out, we would go for it, as it is. for it, as it is. So far as human governments are concerned, we know of none established on better principles. We are not anxious for a change, saving where any doubt exists, as to the intent and meaning of the phraseology of the Constitution that phraseology might be altered, if it would have any tendency better to secure the rights of the individual.

But after all we have said, it may be argued that the Magna Charta of England, although it says "to no man will we [the government] sell, deny, or delay justice and right," "yet it never freed a slave ;" and they would argue from this our Constitution would or should not. But it may be asked, did ever a slave, as a slave, ask of the governments, through the courts, to relieve him from his bonds? we suspect not often. Those who have administered the law have been very careful never to let a slave's voice be heard in a court of justice; or, if it has been heard, as in Massachusetts, and in the case of Sommersett in England, freedom has been given. The magistrates, in some of our States, who have delivered up runaway slaves, have, we suspect, done it without due regard to the inherent right of him who has been claimed, and without inquiring, as in the words of the Constitution, whether the service or labor was due.

But, if a slave should go into a lawyer's office in any of our Southern States, and make the inquiry whether his master, under our Constitution, held any constitutional right over him, would the

lawyer venture to give him any legal advice? or would he not rather direct him to the door, and let the poor fellow ascertain his rights as best he could? Without doubt, the latter service would be rendered much oftener than the former.

If, then, our conceptions are right of the nature of our Constitution, we would ask, with all due seriousness, are we going to change it? Are we going to precipitate our country into a worse than a savage state? Is it wanted to bring upon this land the darkness of heathenism to produce a state of society as degraded as that of the most benighted nation on earth; and, as a consequence, prevent the anticipations of the great and good men, who desired to restore man to his long lost rights, from being ever realized? Must the blood and treasure that has been so profusely expended have gone for naught? Is there no way to prevent such a catastrophe ? Must it be this continent is to be turned into a great piggery, a great sty, for the purpose of raising man, immortal man, to be sold as the brute, to be yoked and fettered, and driven about like the ox or the swine? and though not yet consumed like them, yet is there any certainty we shall not so find it? If we can already suppose he can take the place of the lower animals in so many ways, may he not in all? There are cannibals in the world; and is there any surety, if we depart from the principle of the immortality of man, and herd him with the brute, we shall consider him any thing more than a brute, and treat him as such? Is it, we say, for such

purposes this continent was given to the AngloSaxon race, that the wild man of the woods. driven out before him, that he might take his place to exercise such a foul dominion? Can it be God designed such a consummation? Can it be he permitted those who worshipped him, though ignorantly, and much superstition and barbarism were mingled with their devotions, but who roamed with freedom throughout this panorama of beauty, and sent forth their orisons in praise of him who created it, to be driven out to give place to a race who would treat his image with contempt, and cause all knowledge of himself and his government to be lost, that man's brutish passions might be pampered, and that distress, and pain, and anguish, and heart burnings, and tears, and blood, should take the place of such devotions? God forbid it cannot be. No! The system of slavery must be broken up! Our southern friends cannot look upon such a picture, and such a true picture, without quailing; they must shrink back from contemplating the horrid results of their course of action! they cannot continue to support a system which they must see is leading to inevitable destruction, so unworthy of men, so derogatory to right, so opposed to Christianity, to humanity, and the laws of God!

Under cover of all their opposition, we cannot but think there lurks a consciousness they are committing a wrong; and, if they have this consciousness, they will, sooner or later, exercise it. They will not be guilty of so outraging the pur