"And may it be our office to-day to light a fresh beacon-fire on the venerable walls of Harvard, sacred to Truth, to Christ, and the Church,* -to Truth Immortal, to Christ, the Comforter, to the Holy Church Universal. Let the flame spread from steeple to steeple, from hill to hill, from island to island, from continent to continent, till the long lineage of fires shall illumine all the nations of the earth; animating them to the holy contests of knowledge, justice, beauty, love."

The beautiful sentiment of John Quincy Adams, proposed at a festival after the delivery of this oration, will, perhaps, occur to the mind of the reader:-"The memory of the scholar, the jurist, the artist, and the philanthropist; and not the memory, but the long life of the kindred spirit who has this day embalmed them all." A very appropriate sentiment for so splendid an effort.

On the 23d of September, 1846, Mr. Sumner delivered a speech of thrilling power and eloquence, before the Whig State Convention, at Faneuil Hall, in Boston, on the Anti-Slavery duties of the Whig Party. In this speech he boldly

says:

"The time, I believe, has gone by, when the question is asked, What has the North to do with

*The legend on the early seal of Harvard University was Veritas. The present legend is Christo et Ecclesiæ.

Slavery? It might almost be answered, that, politically, it had little to do with any thing else, so are all the acts of our government connected, directly or indirectly, with this institution. Slavery is everywhere. It constitutionally enters the halls of Congress, in the disproportionate representation of the slave States. It shows its disgusting front in the District of Columbia, in the shadow of the capitol, under the legislative jurisdiction of the nation; of the north as well as the south. It sends its miserable victims on the high seas, from the ports of Virginia to the ports of Louisiana, beneath the protecting flag of the Republic. It follows into the free States, in pursuance of a provision of the Constitution, those fugitives, who, under the inspiration of freedom, seek our altars for safety; nay, more, with profane hands it seizes those who have never known the name of slave, colored freemen of the north, and dooms them to irremediable bondage. It insults and exiles from its jurisdiction the honored representatives of Massachusetts, who seek, as messengers of the Commonwealth, to secure for her colored citizens the peaceful safeguard of the laws of the Union. It not only uses the Constitution for its purposes, but abuses it also. It violates the Constitution at pleasure, to build up new slaveholding States. It seeks perpetually to widen its arena, while professing to extend the

arena of freedom. By the spirit of union among its supporters, it controls the affairs of government; interferes with the cherished interests of the north, enforcing and then refusing protection to her manufactures; makes and unmakes presidents; usurps to itself the larger portion of all offices of honor and profit, both in the army and navy, and also in the civil department; and stamps upon our whole country, the character, before the world, of that monstrous anomaly and mockery, a slaveholding republic, with the living truths of freedom on its lips, and the dark mark of slavery printed on its brow." * * * "It will not be questioned by any competent authority, that Congress may, by express legislation, abolish slavery, 1st, in the District of Columbia; 2d, in the territories, if there should be any; 3d, that it may abolish the slavetrade on the high seas between the States; 4th, that it may refuse to admit any new State, with a constitution sanctioning slavery. Nor can it be questioned that the people of the United States may, in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, proceed to its amendment. It is, then, by constitutional legislation, and even by an amendment of the Constitution, that slavery may be reached.

"And here the question arises, are there any compromises in the Constitution of such a charac

ter as to prevent action on this subject? The word compromises is invoked by many honest minds as the excuse for not joining in this cause. Let me meet this question frankly and fairly. It is said that the Constitution of the United States was the result of a compromise between the free and the slave States, which it would be contrary to good faith to break. To this it might be replied, that the slave States, by their many violations of the Constitution, have already overturned all the original compromises, if there were any of a perpetual character. But I do not content myself with this answer. I wish to say, distinctly, that there is no compromise on the subject of slavery, of a character not to be reached legally and constitutionally, which is the only way in which I propose to reach it. Wherever power and jurisdiction are secured to Congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. And even in matters beyond existing powers and jurisdiction, there is a constitutional method of action. The Constitution contains an article pointing out how, at any time, amendments may be made thereto. This is an important element, giving to the Constitution a progressive character; and allowing it to be moulded to suit new exigencies and new conditions of feeling. The wise framers of this instrument did not treat the

country as a Chinese foot-never to grow after its infancy-but anticipated the changes incident to its growth. Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the 1st and 4th clauses, in the 9th section of the 1st article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' These are the words of the Constitution. They expressly designate what shall be sacred from amendment, what compromises shall be perpetual; and in doing so, according to a familiar rule of law and of natural logic, virtually declare that the remainder of the Constitution may be amended. Already, since its adoption, twelve amendments have been made, and every year produces new projects. It has been pressed on the floor of Congress to abrogate the power of the veto, and also to limit the tenure of office of the President. Let it be distinctly understood, then, and this is my answer to the suggestion of binding compromises, that, in conferring upon Congress certain specified powers and jurisdiction, and also in providing for the amendment of the Constitution, its framers expressly established the means for setting aside what are vaguely called the compromises of the Constitution. They openly declare, Legislate, as you please, in conformity with the Constitution; and even make amendments in this instrument, ren

6