E

If our government still continues to place the annexation on the ground of counteracting the designs of Great Britain to abolish slavery in Texas, it is to counteract "the desires""the counsels" of Great Britain and nothing more. There is no secret plot-there is no management with Mexico to get her to acknowledge the independence of Texas on the condition of abolishing slavery there is nothing but desires, advice, persuasion, argument. Our government is under no necessity to place the annexation on the ground of slavery at all. Texas is a fine country and the people wish to live under our government, and that might be a sufficient ground, if we should accede to it. But it does not do this. It

takes the ground of counteracting the moral influence of Great Britain. Great Britain "desires and is constantly exerting herself to procure the general abolition of slavery throughout the world." Our government desires the perpetual existence of slavery and is exerting itself to annex Texas to this country to accomplish it. Great Britain wishes to see slavery abolished in Texas. Our government wishes to see it perpetr uated there. Great Britain counsels Texas to do away with slavery; we urge her to keep it. Great Britain brings her mighty moral power to bear in all proper and peaceful ways against slavery. Our government uses the irresistible energy of this people to maintain it.

Mr. Calhoun in reply to Lord Aberdeen, says, that the President regards with deep concern the avowal, for the first time made to this government, that Great Britain desires and is constantly exerting herself to procure the general abolition of slavery throughout the world.'" But there is not a philanthropist out of the regions of slavery, that does not rejoice at it. All civilized governments but our own, rejoice at it. whole church rejoices at it. And, we believe, that the Sovereign of the Universe, who holds the nations in

The

the hollow of his hands, looks down upon it from his throne of justice, and mercy and love, with approbation.

We quote another paragraph:

"It is with still deeper concern the President regards the avowal of Lord Aberdeen, of the desire of Great Britain to see slavery abolished in Texas; and, as he infers, is endeavoring, through her diplomacy, to accomplish it, by making tions on which Mexico should acknowlthe abolition of slavery one of the condiedge her independence. It has confirmed his previous impressions as to the policy of Great Britain in reference to Texas, and made it his duty to examine with much care and solicitude what would be its effects on the prosperity and safety of the United States, should she succeed in her endeavors."

The result of that careful examination was, that Texas might yield to tion was, that Texas might yield to the counsels of Great Britain, and abolish slavery, and that that "would place in the power of Great Britain the most efficient means of affecting in the neighboring States of this Union what she avows to be her desire to do in all countries where

slavery exists." That is to say, Great Britain might thereby be better able to argue the question of slavery with the neighboring States and persuade them by her advice to abolish slavery. For counsel, advice and argument, is all she avows a desire to use. And how does the government answer the arguments and We dare persuasions of England? not use our own language lest we should not be believed. We quote again :

"To hazard consequences which would be so dangerous to the prosperity and safety of the Union, [that is, the danger of slaveholders being persuaded by the advice and arguments of Great Britain to abolish slavery,] without resorting to the most effective measures to prevent them, would be, on the part of the Federal Government, an abandonment of the most solemn obligation imposed by the guarantee which the States, in adopting the Constitution, entered into to protect each other against whatever might endanger their safety, whether from without or within. Acting in obedience to this obligation, on which our federal system of

few, soon to stop, but of the great body of all free and civilized communities that, instead of diminishing, conscientious hostility to slavery is becoming fixed deeper and deeper in the hearts of Christians throughout the church-that the current of the literature of the world is setting stronger and stronger against it, and that the governments of the earth have been found to take their stand against it. They are not blind to this fact, and they know where the danger lies. They know that the danger is not that slavery will be overthrown by violence-not that it will be abolished by legislative enactments in Congress-not that it will be undermined by foreign intrigue, but it is, that the consciences of slaveholders themselves may be reached and conquered; it is, that they them selves can not always resist the earnest appeals of the Christian church and the convictions of the best portions of mankind formed after long deliberation, of the wrongfulness of slavery, and the public opinion of the world, manifested in literature, and in social and public life.

Hence, with broad forecast the leading statesmen and scholars of the south have for some time past striven to unite the southern people in the common sentiment that slavery is a real blessing, or at any rate can never be abolished; and, when of late the opportunity was most unexpectedly placed within their reach, they eagerly seized upon it to bring the example and the whole authority of this nation on the side of the perpetuity of slavery, in order to meet and counteract the influence of other nations and the public opinion of the world. This is what Texas is wanted for. Mr. Tyler may be influenced by a ridiculous ambition; others may have still less worthy motives, but the really great statesmen of the south have taken a far wider view. They desire Texas for no personal motives-they do not desire it as so

much territory-they desire it, to destroy the possibility of abolishing slavery there-they desire it, above all, because they want the example and authority of the government on the side of perpetual slavery. It was no hasty and inconsiderate declaration of Mr. Calhoun, that the people of the United States are bound by the Constitution, not merely not to interfere with slavery for its overthrow, but to do for it what each State as an independent sovereignty would have done for its safety against damage from without or within. He would have the broad shield of the Constitution and of the nation cast around the system of slavery as a perpetual institution against the public opinion of the world.

The question, then, is not changed by the rejection of the treaty. The ground exists now as before, and the same men are engaged in it. Indeed, we are not sure but that the rejection will be an advantage to them. For, having with wonderful skill and sagacity joined the question of the perpetuity of slavery with the ascendency of democratic principles, if they succeed, they will have committed not merely the government but the nation to the cause of perpetual slavery. This question, and this particular aspect of it, has been forced upon the country. The subject which both the great parties have agreed in keeping apart from the contests of politics, is now brought to the ballot-box. Let it be remembered, then, that the true question is, not whether Texas shall be united to us in spite of its slavery, but whether it shall be united to us on purpose to perpetuate slavery there and everywhere else. Let it be remembered that the true question is, whether the people of this nation shall by a direct vote proclaim themselves the supporters of perpetual slavery against the civilized and Christian world?

THE city and county of Philadel. phia have gained an unenviable distinction of late years, as the theatre of popular tumults. In fact it would seem that if any great ecclesiastical strife, like that of the Presbyterians, or the Friends, is to agitate the community, or any moral or political question, like that of Abolition, or Naturalization, is to excite rancorous discussions and lead to violence and bloodshed, the city of "brotherly love" is chosen as the scene of action, as a burlesque upon the name. Though almost every city of the Union has been disgraced by riots, though even the sober capital of New England has in its environs the blackened ruins of a convent as a monument of the fury of a mob, Philadelphia is most conspicuous for scenes of disorder and outrage. Who has not heard of the burning of Pennsylvania Hall?—of the destruction of the dwellings and even the lives of the blacks, and the driving of many of their wives and children to the opposite Jersey shore, to remain for days in terror without food or shelter, to punish them for receiving the attention of certain white ladies and gentlemen whose tastes led them that way, or to teach them to discriminate between the inside and outside of the walk? Who has not heard of the railroad riots, in which the track of the Philadelphia and Trenton railroad was torn up by the inhabitants of the Kensington district, (through some misunderstanding with the company,) and the men employed to re-lay it were driven from their work with clubs and stones and even with fire arms? Who has not heard of the "strikes" among the weavers and other classes of laboring men, and of their riotous proceedings against the property and persons of their employers, or of those of their

own class who refused to unite with them? Who has not heard of the weekly desecration of the Sabbath by the collisions of rival fire companies, resulting often in bloodshed and death? Who has not heard -but we will not continue the painful enumeration.

Of late, however, Philadelphia has outdone herself in scenes of popular violence; and the 6th, 7th, and 8th of May, will hereafter be remembered as her trois jours, though of a different stamp from those of Paris.

In offering a few reflections upon the events of those days it will be necessary for us to exhibit the more important of them in the form of a consecutive narrative. We shall first attempt to give our readers a definite idea of the locality of the these riots. It is difficult for one not familiar with the manner in which Philadelphia is districted, to understand how a mob can so easily gain the ascendency there; and much gratuitous reproach is heaped upon the authorities of the city for not regulating that which in reality lies beyond their control.

Philadelphia lies between the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, a few miles above their junction. These rivers, two miles apart, constitute its eastern and western boundaries. The streets parallel with the river, (i. e. running north and south,) are regularly numbered from each river to a street near the centre of the city called Broad street. These streets are intersected at right an gles by others running east and west from river to river. That which is commonly called Philadelphia extends in its greatest length about four miles from north to south; but the city proper extends only one mile in that direction. Adjacent to the city, and separated from it and from each

The city proper covers only the space lying between Vine and South streets, and the two rivers; (about two square miles,) indicated by the letter C. It is inferior both in population and territorial extent to the districts which surround it. Direct ly north of the city, and separated from it only by the imaginary boundary represented by the dotted line in the centre of Vine street, is the district of Northern Liberties, (N. L.) extending from Vine to Poplar streets, and from Sixth street to the Delaware. This district is compactly built and is under the jurisdiction of its own Mayor and Aldermen. Adjacent to this district is that of Spring Garden, (S. G.) extending from Vine to Poplar streets, and from Sixth street to the Schuyl kill. The importance of this district and its entire independence, may be inferred from the fact that permission has been granted to its inhabitants by the legislature of the State, to construct a new dam across the Schuylkill and supply themVol. II.

60

selves with water, because the city councils have refused to furnish it to them at the same rate at which it is furnished to the residents of the city proper. Further north are the districts of Kensington, (K.) and Penn Township, (P. T.); south of the city are those of Southwark, Moyamensing and Passyunk, (S. M. and P.)

The recent riots originated in the district of Kensington; more than a mile north of the city limits. The Mayor of the city, therefore, had no authority whatever to suppress them. He becomes a private citi zen of Philadelphia County the mo⚫ ment he crosses Vine street. Nor could the Mayor of the Northern Liberties exert his official power to quell the disturbance, for that power is limited by Poplar street. The Sheriff of the County, whose authority extends alike over the city and districts, and the Aldermen of Kensington, were alone empowered to disperse the mob.

We believe that the plan of gov.