and both of those are already given up to Slavery. Thus, as a matter of practical bearing, the whole question is perfectly idle. The North has surrendered the whole of the South to Slavery, and also the whole of the territories into which it can be carried. They object to its extension where it cannot be extended. As a theme of party declamation this is intelligible enough, but it seems strange that any can be found without sufficient penetration to discern its merits as a moral ques

tion.

That the small number of the Northern people who are really earnest should desire to stay the expansion of Slavery, repugnant as it is to the civilization of the present day, is very natural ; and in the principles they profess we sympathize. But it does not follow that their views are permitted by the law, or in accordance with the Constitution. On the contrary, the territories are possessed for the common good of the whole of the States. Because one section of the country entertains now a sincere but novel belief, this confers no right to force it upon the other. By the Constitution, Slavery is not only protected, but, amongst other means, by that of all conceivable, the most offensive to freemen. The owner of a slave can pursue him into a Free State, where Slavery is prohibited by law, and take him back thence into bondage. In the face of this, can it be asserted that he may not take him into a territory where no such prohibition exists, which is not a Free State, and which of right belongs to him or

his State, as much as to any other? The avowed object of the North is to preserve the Constitution-yet it departs altogether from its spirit. And this is not mere opinion. It has been decided by the Supreme Court-the great tribunal of the country, whose decision is above the law, for it can annul it-and final, for it is without appeal. In the Dred Scott case, a negro demanded his freedom on the ground of legal residence, beyond the latitude of 36° 30′ North. This was a strong case, inasmuch as Slavery had been prohibited by Congress beyond that line. The Supreme Court pronounced that Congress had no power to make that law; that it was therefore null and void; and declared "that the Constitution recognizes the right of property in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen ;” and further, that every citizen had the clear right to go into any territory, and take with him that which the Constitution recognized as his property.

Thus the doctrine upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected has been declared illegal by the supreme authority of the country. And how could any other decision be given? A great court of justice cannot alter the terms, or pervert the meaning of a bond, in order to meet the wishes of a client. It must take the instrument as it stands. Let any one, who has no interest to sway him, take the Constitution of the United States, and try if it be possible for him, upon the obvious spirit of that instrument, to arrive at any other conclu on athan

that of the Supreme Court. And the Northern party-those who are now fighting to maintain the Constitution-how do they deal with this decision? They denounce it in their manifesto, or declaration of political principles-the Chicago platform—as a "dangerous political heresy." The avowed object of the party is to act in opposition to this solemn decision of their own Federal and supreme tribunal.

It arises from this, inevitably, that the Southerner foresees, in the accession of the North to power, not only the reversal of the former political condition, but also, that when the decision of the highest Court of Equity may be in favour of his Constitutional rights, such decision will be denounced, and, as soon as readily practicable, will be set aside. What protection is there for him in the future? He has none in power, for the superior political strength of the North is beyond dispute. He has none in public opinion, for he well knows that in America opinion is but the slave of the majority. He has none in courts of justice, for he sees the decision of its highest Court denounced. That shelter is broken, and he knows that it will soon be removed. The appointments to the bench of the Supreme Court are political. He knows that judges will soon be selected for the express purpose of reversing former decisions. He knows that just as the sovereignty of the people in America is a despotic power, so the government of the majority there is a despotic

I

rule. With all these facts before him, what is he to do? Mr. Seward, the leader of the Northern party, had already announced that the conflict is irrepressible." And so it is. Is he then to wait until all the preparations of the opposing power in this inevitable conflict be completed? or will common judgment direct him, if a conflict there is to be, to accept it boldly and at once?

It is

There is, indeed, one means of escape. possible for the Southerner to surrender all power to the North, to abandon all defence of what he holds to be his rights, to emancipate his slaves, not at the instigation of his own conscience, but in obedience to the conscience of other men. If that emancipation be gradual, he may place himself under the direction of Northern men, who will regulate his affairs; if sudden, he can risk his life, and those of his children; and should his property be destroyed he may emigrate. All this he can do. But it hardly seems that this can be expected from a people numbering eight millions, the sons of those who thought it right to revolt against this country, because tea was subjected to a duty of threepence per pound. True, that was the pretext only, there was an abstract principle, and the real object was independence. But if the Virginians of that day had so irrepressible a desire to obtain their independence, they may have an equally strong desire to retain it. Subjection is still subjection, whether it be to one body or to another-the bitterness lies in the thing itself;

and the repugnance to it may be as great when it has to be endured at the hands of brothers, as when it was rejected at the hands of a parent.

It has been observed that the North had a clear right to act unanimously, and to win the election if it could. But there was more than this. They selected as a candidate one whose well-known opinions were those, not of one impartial, as between North and South, and prepared to rule with even hand both great divisions of the country, --but of an earnest and zealous partizan, a believer in opinions which, whether right or wrong, were held by one-half the country to imperil its existence. It is plain that no one can be qualified to act as President of the whole Union who is identified with opinions attacking the framework of half of it. A ruler is assumed to be above party, -it is essential to his functions to belong to no section. To elect one, unknown as a statesman, but known as a partizan, was to declare war against the other side We are not now considering this election in the aspect of the Slavery question that wil: follow-but as evidence of the determination of the North to assume the power afforded by its numbers. Why not? The South had held it long enough, why not now the North? There is this difference. Power in the hands of the South threatens nothing in the North, seeks nothing from it, desires to disturb nothing in it. It is to the other side simply a negation, an absence from office. But power in