we could scarcely see how he could avoid recognizing its existence, and uttering at least a syllable of his eloquent breath in deploring it. We at least hoped that he would not give the despotism which condemns a sixth part of the inhabitants of America to a hopeless servitude and a helpless ignorance, compared to which the worst of European serfdom is perfect liberty and the fullness of light, the encouragement of his emphatic silence. In these hopes, however, we were doomed to disappointment. Nothing has shown more clearly the exactness of his information and the instinctive nicety of his tact, than the manner in which he has treated this "delicate question," since he stepped upon our shores. In his very first speech at Staten Island he plainly intimated that he did not intend to intermeddle with our domestic affairs. In his Reply to the Address of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, (that alias of Mr. LEWIS TAPPAN!) which he insisted upon making, notwithstanding their deprecatory epistle accompanying it, entreating that he would not, he more distinctly affirmed the same intention. In this Reply, and in that to the Colored People, (the exiled Hungarians of our Austria,) he never so much as hinted at the existence of such a class of persons as American Slaves. Soon afterwards he put forth a formal statement that he had no intention of interfering with our Domestic Affairs and Party Questions. And, finally, his disavowal of the new German newspaper at New York, edited by M. GUYURMAN, one of his own companions, which had taken open ground against the Fugitive Slave Bill, puts the animus of his policy beyond controversy. He officially, by his Secretary, disavows M. GUYURMAN and censures him for "occupying himself with a question of domestic American policy, injurious to the interest of his own country, and in diametrie opposition to Gov. Kossuтn's decidedly expressed opinion as to THE DUTY AND POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN SUCH QUESTIONS! That is to say, while he is appealing to the people of the United States for their intervention between his countrymen and their tyrants, he is careful to let them know that he has no intention of intervening between them and the victims of their own tyranny. He invokes the moral power of the Nation, with significant intimations that it will be of no great avail unless physical power stand behind it, to comfort the heart and to strengthen the hands of Hungary in the conflict which he sees to be impending. And to purchase this moral, perhaps physical, interference, he is willing to say nothing of the moral weakness of the Nation which neutralizes all its moral power. He proclaims that as far as Slavery is concerned, his Mission, like that of Unitarianism, as ex

pounded by one of its chief Rabbis, is " SILENCE." He would have us feel for the robbed, peeled, hunted Magyar, and express our loathing of the tyrant and his tools, while he has no word of sympathy for the wretched Fugitive Slave, and none of scorn and execration for the villain from whom he has fled, or for the WOODS and COLLINSES and Union Safety Committee men who "intervene " to send him back in chains.

In addition to these overt acts, M. KOSSUTH has made the air fulsome with his flattery to our National vanity. No Fourth of July Orator ever approached the affluence of his adulation. According to him this is a land of impartial liberty and of universal happiness the true Model of Governments. There is no blot on our escutcheon, no black drop in the sparkling cup of our felicity. He sits at meat with GEORGE WOOD in New York, and with Judge KANE at Philadelphia. He is entertained by Members of Congress, with Mr. KING, of Alabama, the most unscrupulous of the propagandists of Slavery, in the Chair, and he embraces HENRY CLAY with tears in his eyes, as one of the great luminaries of liberty. Never did sycophant of Nicholas or Francis Joseph torture his vocabulary for variety of flatteries, as has this Hungarian Republican for the delectation of Slaveholders and Slavecatchers. Nothing but the American appetite and digestion could endure the sickening mess. And all for what? For the vain hope of effective help to Hungary! stalk to the accomplishment of his three million slaves? With what face does he ask us to listen to the cry of trampled Hungary, while he shuts his ears to the wail of the American Plantation and Slave Market? How can he invoke our moral influence, if he cannot obtain our physical interposition, in behalf of crushed Freedom in Hungary, while he is giving the whole weight of his astonishing eloquence and unequalled influence to a tyranny compared with which Russian and Austrian despotism is liberty and love?

What right has M. KOSSUTH to hopes over the prostrate bodies of

M. KOSSUTH is destined to bitter disappointment, if he yet retain any hope of effective help to Hungary from this country. The sympathies of the governing influences, at the North as well as at the South, are not with him, but with his enemies. The show of enthusiasm, among those who have the direction of events, is but the cover of political intrigue or the occasion of personal indulgence. He has learnt that he can hope nothing from the General Government and he is fast learning how little he can obtain from the people. As long as he

will pander to our vanity and our vices, he may be sure of cheers and speeches and banquets. But we will venture to predict that the gross amount of the sinews of war that he will receive, will not suffice for the support of a regiment for a month. To be sure, he could not have had even thus much without bowing the knee to our National Baal. But is it worth the sacrifice? Would he not have stood in a better attitude for gathering up the sympathies of the lovers of Liberty everywhere, had he uttered a sincere word on the threshold of the country, which would have forbidden him to pass it? We verily believe it, and we believe that he will yet know it himself. His visit to this country was a mistake; he has made it a crime. He came in the name of Liberty, and has strengthened the hands and comforted the hearts of her deadliest enemies. He came hoping impossibilities, and to achieve them he sacrificed his integrity. Such acts go not unpunished even in this world. Nemesis is upon his track, if she have not already laid her hand upon him. He has lost his birthright of consistent love of impartial liberty, and has not obtained the pottage for which he thought to barter it away. We grieve over his fall; but we see in it the proof that he is not the man ordained for the deliverance of his country. He has failed to stand a test which would have shown him to be fit for such a work. The tyrannies of the Old World, any more than those of the New, cannot endure forever. But they who are destined to overturn them must be men whose largeness of heart, whose grasp of mind, and whose singleness of purpose will far outweigh the wordy miracles and forensic tact of LOUIS KOSSUTH.

OUR POLITICS.

If there be a proposition which seems axiomatic to almost every American, it is, that Voting is the Universal Medicine, the Grand Arcanum, which is to cure all political and moral evils. When, therefore, a set of men is found who refuse to exercise this heaven-born privilege of suffrage, it is a hard saying and few there be that can hear it. And yet it does not seem as if this proposition were very difficult of comprehension. It seems to be as plain as any ethical proposition that can be stated, and as capable of complete substantiation as any historical fact or political theory resting upon historical facts.

Why do not the Abolitionists of the type of the American AntiSlavery Society accept office and vote at the polls? Simply because

we have a "prejudice " which we have not yet "conquered," against making promises which we do not mean to keep. We are quite

aware that this is a very "unstatesmanlike" infirmity, but it is one to which we confess. We cannot hold an office which can be held only under an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, (which includes nearly every office, high and low,) simply because we do not mean to support it, and therefore have a scruple against swearing to do so. We hold that the clause providing for the restoration of persons held to service or labor to the party to whom such service or labor may be due, means the restitution of fugitive Slaves to their masters. And as this happens to be one of the things which we are resolute never to do, but, contrariwise, to impede, hinder and prevent to the best of our ability, we do not feel free to swear to do it. Now, we know that there are persons of great respectability and excellence who hold that this clause need not be construed to mean Slaves, and who prove, by verbal niceties and logical distinctions, that there is no comfort or aid intended to be given to Slavery by the Constitution. And some go so far as to say that it can be abolished by Act of Congress, under the Constitution. Without entering into any consideration of this argument at this time, we can only say that we have not been convinced by it; but that we think that the whole contemporary evidence of the intention of the framers, confirmed by the unanimous decisions of all the Courts and the uniform practice and consent of the government and country from the first, shows it was the rendition of fugitive Slaves that that clause was contrived to secure. We have, at any rate, the rare luxury of being in the majority, for once; and wrong as we think that majority for being willing to maintain such a Constitution, we think that they are quite right in their construction of it. And so thinking of its meaning, and so intending as to its execution, we do not think it right to swear to do what we mean never to do.

So with respect to the clause for the suppression of Domestic Insurrection, it is certainly meant to include, if it were not framed exclusively to cover, the only Domestic Insurrections which can call for the interposition of the National arm - the Insurrections of Slaves. Now, we hold that, in the presence of the American nation and in the light of its history, Insurrection is at all times a rightful remedy of the Slaves, whenever they think that the time has come, in the course of human events, to dissolve the servile bands that connect them with their masters.

Therefore, we certainly do not mean, in case of such an incipient

Revolution, to help to put it down in order that the despots may be re-established in their oppression. We can conceive, scarcely, of any crime more mean and cowardly than such a coöperation with the trembling tyrants to weld again the chains which their victims had broken, by the interposition of our physical force. Not intending, therefore, to obey the call of the Executive, should the exigencies of the nation ever make one necessary, to assist in a crusade for Slavery against Liberty struggling into being, we do not intend to promise to do so. The Clause, too, protecting the African Slave Trade for twenty years, and under which that ancient branch of commerce may be legalized again at any moment by Act of Congress, we think brands the Constitution with a mark of infamy, sufficiently indicative of its Pro-Slavery character, and which certainly does not make us swift to acknowledge allegiance to it. And the three-fifths clause, whereby an aristocracy resting on ownership in human beings is established, a power which has ever been, by force or by guile, the governing element in the nation, does not inflame our zeal in the behalf of a Constitution of Government which begins by putting the foot of our natural enemies, of the meanest and most execrable race of tyrants that God suffers to exist, upon our necks in the outset.

But the two first objections are quite enough. If there be certain things specially laid down in Articles of Partnership which we are invited to subscribe, and we find that there are some of those certain things which we do not mean, in any event, to do; it seems to us the fairest, indeed the only honest, way of proceeding to refuse to sign the Articles, and to forego the advantages promised by them. We think that there is good faith due to the other parties to the contract, however bad, and that if we take the consideration, they would have good ground to complain of us, if we do not perform the conditions. If we are asked to partake in a lucrative business, in the benefits of which we can have no part unless we sign the papers creating the partnership, and we find on examination the African Slave trade, or the Domestic Slave trade, or any other less recognized, form of piracy, among the branches of the contemplated business, we could not enter into the agreement, because it would be false to ourselves to carry it out and unfair to our partners to refuse to do so, if we had made the bargain with them. And by a parity of reasoning we decline appointing others to do these things for us by our suffrages, which we will not do ourselves.

But then, it is said, this impracticability of yours stands directly