plan similar to that which is now presented to our readers." The pamphlet reprinted in the present leaflet, first published in Boston in 1829, is the earliest pamphlet concerning the movement, which it shows to have been already well under way at that time. A similar pamphlet was published in Boston in 1831, much fuller than that of 1829, giving a history of the work up to date, and an account of a recent convention in New York to federate the various Lyceums of the country in a "National Lyceum." The passage in the English article, printed above, draws largely upon this pamphlet report of 1831. The American Lyceum affected very greatly the development of the Mechanics' Institutes in England. It will be remembered that it was to lecture before various of these Mechanics' Institutes that Emerson went to England in 1847. See Alexander Ireland's Recollections of Emerson, in Old South Leaflet No. 138. See lecture on "Lyceums and Societies for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge," by Nehemiah Cleaveland, before the American Institute of Instruction, Boston, 1830, published in the Institute's annual volume; also lecture "On the Usefulness of Lyceums," by S. C. Phillips, before the same, 1831. The importance of the Lyceum in the improvement and development of popular education in New England can hardly be overestimated. The Massachusetts State Board of Education was created in 1837; but the panphlet of 1829, reprinted in the present leaflet, shows that the promoters of the Lyceum movement from the first looked to the development of State Boards of Education from their movement. The movement was coincident with the great educational work in Massachu setts of James Gordon Carter and Horace Mann. See Carter's Account of the Schools of Massachusetts in 1824, in Old South Leaflet No. 135.

A REPRINT OF SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 4, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1845.

MESSAGE.

To the House of Representatives.

In March, 1843, the Legislature of this Commonwealth passed resolves authorizing the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, to appoint agents in the city of Charleston, in the State of South Carolina, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, to collect and transmit accurate information as to the number and names of citizens of Massachusetts who may have been imprisoned in either of those cities without the allegation of any crime; and those resolutions authorized the agent to bring one or more suits in behalf of persons thus imprisoned, at the expense of the Commonwealth.

Under those Resolves, my predecessor appointed two persons successively in the city of New Orleans, and one in the city of Charleston, all of whom declined serving as agents under their appointments.

In March, 1844, an additional resolve was passed, authorizing the appointment of agents to reside in the cities above named for the purpose of carrying out the object of the first named Resolves. After the adjournment of the Legislature, an agent living in each of those cities was appointed, and commissions were sent them. They both declined the trust. In compliance with what was deemed to be the intention and direction of the Legislature, that agents should be appointed, I

nominated the Hon. Samuel Hoar, of Concord, to the agency in South Carolina, and the Hon. Henry Hubbard, of Pittsfield, to the agency in Louisiana. Their nominations having been confirmed by the Council, they were appointed and commissioned accordingly.

In November Mr. Hoar left the Commonwealth and proceeded to Charleston in the discharge of the duties of his agency. On reaching Charleston he addressed a note to the Governor of the State, in respectful terms informing him of his appointment, and the nature of the duties he had to perform.

How this agent of the Commonwealth was regarded and treated by the authorities of South Carolina will be shown by the official proceedings of her Legislature, embodied in a report and a series of Resolutions, which I have since received from the Governor of the State, and which I herewith transmit to you. I also communicate to you a report from Mr. Hoar. giving an account of his attempt to execute the trust committed to him, and of his treatment by the citizens of Charleston.

In the second section of an act of the Legislature of South Carolina, passed on the 29th day of December, 1835, it is enacted" That it shall not be lawful for any free negro, or person of color, to come into this State, on board any vessel, as a cook, steward or mariner, or in any other employment, on board such vessel; and in case any vessel shall arrive in any port or harbor of this State, from any other State or foreign port, having on board any free negro or person of color, employed on board such vessel as a cook, steward or mariner, or in any other employment, it shall be the duty of the sheriff of the district, in which such port or harbor is situated, immediately on the arrival of such vessel to apprehend such free negro or person of color, so arriving contrary to this act, and to confine him or her closely in jail, until such vessel shall be hauled off from the wharf, and ready to proceed to sea. And that when said vessel is ready to sail, the captain of the said vessel shall be bound to carry away the said free negro, or person of color, and to pay the expenses of his or her commitment."

Under this extraordinary law many of our colored citizens, who have entered the port of Charleston, on board our vessels, in the pursuit of a lawful commerce, and complying with all the provisions of the laws of the United States, regulating

commerce among the States, have been from time to time seized by the officers of that State, taken from their ships and confined in the public prisons until their vessels were ready to depart, when they were compelled to pay the expense of their detention. The color of their skin was the only offence which subjected those citizens to a felon's treatment.

The Legislature and people of Massachusetts believe that law of South Carolina to be in direct and palpable violation of that clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, " and also of that part of the Constitution which confers upon Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." With a view to prevent the repetition of these wrongs upon her own citizens, under what she considered the harsh and unconstitutional law of a sister State, Massachusetts wished, in the manner pointed out in the Resolves of her Legislature, and which she considered perfectly respectful to that sister State, to bring the question of the constitutionality of that law before the Supreme Court of the United States, the appointed tribunal of this Union to settle questions of this kind.

The late William Wirt, when he was Attorney General of the United States, was called upon by the Secretary of State for his opinion of a law of the State of South Carolina, which in principle and in its essential features was the same as the present law. In that opinion he said, "it seems very clear to me that this section of the law of South Carolina is incompatible with the national Constitution, and the laws passed under it, and is therefore void."

A subject of the British government was imprisoned in Charleston, under this law of South Carolina, and his case was brought before the late learned and distinguished William Johnson, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, for his adjudication and decision. Judge Johnson was then a citizen of South Carolina, and a resident of Charleston. He was familiar with this remarkable law, the circumstances under which it was passed, and the reason urged in its favor by its supporters. No one could charge him, any more than they could Mr. Wirt, with hostility to the domestic institutions of the State.

In a very able and elaborate opinion pronounced in that

case, he said, "but it is not necessary to give this candid exposé of the grounds which this law assumes; for it is a subject of positive proof that it is altogether irreconcilable with the powers of the general government; that it necessarily compromits the public peace, and tends to embroil us with, if not separate us from, our sister States; in short that it leads to a dissolution of the Union, and implies a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States." And farther he says, "Upon the whole I am decidedly of opinion that the third section of the State Act, now under consideration, is unconstitutional and void, and that every arrest made under it subjects the parties making it to an action of trespass."

Under a law thus characterized by these eminent jurists the citizens of Massachusetts have been imprisoned in the jails of South Carolina. To prevent a continuance of this injustice to her unoffending and peaceful citizens, she sought by the means pointed out in the Resolves above referred to, to aid them to bring their case before the common judicial tribunal of the Union for its decision. For pursuing this course, every step of which has been friendly, constitutional, and respectful to the State of South Carolina and her authorities, the Legislature of that State has seen fit to denounce her in no measured terms, and to ascribe to her motives entirely foreign from the real and avowed ones under which she acted, and to say that “our agent came there, not as a citizen of the United States, but as the emissary of a foreign government, hostile to their domestic institutions, and with the sole purpose of subverting their internal police," and then proceed to pass resolutions expelling that agent from their State. There is nothing in any part of the proceedings of Massachusetts that can be tortured into the evidence of any such purpose as is unjustly ascribed to them, and the conduct, the private and public character of that agent, who was compelled to leave the State by the demonstration of popular violence in the city of Charleston, was a pledge that he was incapable of interfering with the domestic institutions of another State. The conduct of Mr. Hoar under the circumstances seems to me to have been marked by that prudence, firmness, and wisdom which have distinguished his character through his life. Who can fail to perceive that this course of South Carolina to sustain and enforce such a law, directly leads to what her own eminent jurist, with judicial and prophetic wisdom, declared would be its consequences?