no one will deny, until the obligations, similar in character, which are due from a child to his parent, from an apprentice to his master, and from the hireling to his employer, shall have been denied. It was not the man, therefore, which was legally the "chattle," but his "services" it was not the person of the slave-his manhood, his taxable, constituent character in the State-but the productive qualities and capabilities of his head and his hands-what, in short, are termed in the Federal Constitution, his "services due ;"and therein, we conceive, Professor Dabney has failed, in a formal defence of Virginia and the South, to render exact justice, either to the States which he represents or to himself. Professor Dabney also recognizes (pages 62-63,) "the exclusion of Slavery from any State," by the State itself, as legal, because of the validity of lex loci and "the recognized sovereignty of "the States over their own local affairs;" yet he not only fails to show just why the same lex loci and State sovereignty might not have forbidden the introduction of a slave into New York by a Virginian, as legally and justly as it had forbidden a similar introduction by one of its own subjects-indeed, with singular weakness, if we understand it correctly, he has admitted, on page 62, the general right of a State, as a sovereign, to do, what on page 61 he had condemned as an infraction of the rights of any foreign slaveholder who might see fit to thrust himself and his slave into her territory; and thus, as we hope, without intent to do so, as has been done too often and too disastrously by other Virginians, he has elevated the right of one Virginian to the "services" of another Virginian, under the local laws of Virginia, above both the local law of New York and her sovereignty within her own territory, and assumed an importance for the former, even as a stranger, which he must never expect to realize. Professor Dabney professes to find, also, in the Treaties of 1783, 1788, and 1815, a recognition of American Slavery by "international law;" yet he fails to show that the mere recognition, by the parties to those Treaties, of slavery in America, afforded either a legal or a moral justification of that Slavery, as it was then understood, or a limitation of the paramount right of either of the States to "exclude" it from its territory, or a warrant to any other State to thrust it upon a sister State after the latter had thus "excluded" it. These Treaties, it is true, contained provisions for the protection of those, in the United States, to whom "services" were "due" under the provisions of lex loci, just as the Treaties with Tunis and Tripoli provided for the protection of our commerce against the corsairs of those pirates; but we should be as sorry to consider that, by making those provisions, the United States, as such, in either case, became a party either to the Slavery which Virginia had not condemned or the piracy which Tripolitan lex loci had not only not "excluded," but made honorable. The Professor claims, also, that as the thirteen Colonies were the legal successors of the Mother Country, within their respective territories, they severally "inherited the legal condition of their "mother, in this particular;" and he claims, for that reason, that Slavery was legally established where it had not, by local legislation, been subsequently "excluded." He forgets, however, that it existed in the Colonies only by the sovereign will of the Mother Country; that the sovereignty which each Colony "inherited" was limited in its authority by the boundaries of that Colony; and that Virginia ceased to be sovereign when she crossed the lines into North Carolina, Maryland, or Pennsylvania. When Pennsylvania, the peer of Virginia and as much a sovereign within her own territory as Virginia was in her territory, was pleased to exercise her prerogative and "exclude" Slavery from her territory, she was not accountable to any earthly power for that act,-her action was the act of a sovereign; and Virginia was bound, even by International Law, to honor and respect it. When New York and Virginia ceded their Western territories to the Confederacy, the sovereignty of those territories was transferred to the several States of which that Confederacy was composed, with the limitations imposed by the Articles of Confederation. What that Confederacy, acting through the Congress, did in the premises, need not be told to Professor Dabney, although his readers have learned nothing from him of the Ordinnance of 1787, which formally and legally "excluded" Slavery from all those Territories-a fact which was recognized as lately as 1802, when what is now Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, formally petitioned the Congress to suspend the operation of that Ordinance, within that portion of the Territory, during the succeeding ten years;and if the Professor can find any comfort or support, either in the transfer of sovereignty, by New York and Virginia, to “the thirteen United "States," or in the subsequent exercise of that sovereignty by the thirteen, through their several Delegates, in their "exclusion" of Slavery from the Northwestern Territories, we certainly do not envy him. The Professor refers, also, to the Treaty with Napoleon, in which the right of the inhabitants of Louisiana to the “services” of their bondmen was recognized; but who has ever denied the existence of that right? That Treaty was supreme: the transferred Colonists were protected by it in the enjoyment of their rights: and they were not disturbed. But Professor Dabney begs the question when he tells us, that because the State Courts of Louisiana, after the organization of that State, in the exercise of their legal authority, have determined that all emigrants into that State may carry their slaves with them and hold them there, similar emigrants into the yet unorganized Territory of the United States may do the same, and that the Sovereign power-the States assembled constitutionally in Congress-might not legally forbid it. The very fact that by the sovereign authority of France, Slavery was legalized among its subjects in that vast territory, and protected therein by Treaty, shows that the sole control of the subject, with the limitation contained in that Treaty, was transferred with the territory; and Doctor Dabney's argument would have carried more weight had he squarely recognized that stubborn fact and its necessary consequences, among which were the right to forbid emigrants from carrying any slaves thither, the right of transferring any slaves who were there when the Treaty was signed, etc., while the inhabitants remained mere subjects of the Confederacy and not organized as States. He would have reflected more honor on his subject, also, had he told his readers that that authority over Slavery, thus transferred, was recognized by the United States, in the several Enabling Acts which expressly permitted the formation of States within the bounds of the transferred Territory, in each of which Slavery should be permitted; and the impartiality of the Professor would have been admirably displayed in an exposition of the exact reason for denying to the sovereign power the legal authority to "exclude" slavery from a State as a conditian precedent to its admission as a member of the Confederacy, while Louisiana itself held slaves only because she had received permission to do so in the Enabling Act. Professor Dabney also alludes to the protection of "property in slaves" by the Federal Constitution, as a support to his theory; but the Professor, as we have already stated, has, in this instance, confounded the man with the service, and transformed a recognized constituent of Virginia's Delegation in Congress into property, a mere chattle to be placed on the list of soap-kettles, and ox-yokes, and pig-troughs. Finally, Professor Dabney appeals to the Dred Scott decision-the decision, reader, not the extrajudicial biter dictum of one of the Justicesand to Mr. Madison's private letter to Robert Walsh. We will not insult our readers by discussing these nor by exposing the worthlessness, as authorities, for the Professor's purpose, of these. He next denies that the term, "all men," as used in the Declaration of Independence, can be used as an authority, in law, to establish universal freedom and release all who owe services from their obligations, in which we entirely agree with him, else every child had been released from its obligation to his parent, every wife separated from her husband, every apprentice from his master, every soldier from his colors, etc. He then denies the present validity of that part of the Ordinance of 1787, which "excluded" Slavery from the Northwest; on the ground that "the Confederation was superseded by the gen"eral Government organized under the new Con"stitution of 1787;" that the Congress had no authority, originally, to pass the Ordinance, and still less to re-enact it in 1789; and that only by the act of Virginia herself, in her confirmation of the Ordinance, is there any force in the prohibition. This is all very nicely written, yet Virginia, as the sovereign of the territory, possessed the unquestionable right to transfer that territory; and she did transfer it, legally. The thirteen States to whom, jointly, it was thus transferred, were each sovereign and unquestionably capable of taking title to the territory thus transferred, either individually or jointly; and they did so take it, each for itself, as joint proprietors and joint sovereigns. As joint sovereigns, some time after they came into possession, they jointly ordained that Slavery should not exist therein; and no one had any right to forbid that " exclusion" of Slavery, and no one did forbid it-Virginia, whose champion the Professor is, particularly estopped herself and him, by formally ratifying that "exclusion," by particular statute. These thirteen joint sovereigns continued to own and to govern that Territory, through their Delegates assembled in a "Congress," until from time to time, with their joint consent, States were formed within that Territory, when the sovereignty of those portions, respectively, was transferred to the Commonwealths, or Peoples, or States-by whatever name or names, each an equivalent of the others, they were known-and the new sovereigns admitted into the Union, as the peers of the original thirteen. 66 The Virginia for which Professor Dabney pleads in this volume, is the same, in law, as that which transferred this mighty Empire: the New York which, to-day, denies that Virginia is her superior in the Confederation, is that which received, as a joint sovereign, the transfer of that Empire. It follows, therefore-whether Virginia, and New York, and the United States have been or are controlled by Articles of Confederation or a Constitution, it matters not-they are exactly the same, individually, in 1867, as they were in 1781 and 1784; and they have known no change, as a Confederacy, except that, "with their con"sent," the Constitution of the Confederacy has been amended and other Governmental Agents than in this work, "the Greatness and Misery of the the Federal Congress and the several State Legis-"old Roman world "-subjects which are worthy latures have been Constitutionally called into of the pen of a more accomplished Master. being, and other modifications of the Compact have been adopted. The treatment to which "the old Roman "world" has been subjected by Doctor Lord is not, therefore, very severe; and is volume will undoubtedly find a ready sale among the ladies, old and young, who have been so often delighted with his lectures on the same topic, in different 17.-Bible Teachings in Nature. By Rev. Hugh McMillan New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867. Duodecimo, pp. xx 344. In this work, the Author has endeavored to show that the teaching of Nature and the teaching of the Bible are directed to the same great end; that the Bible contains the spiritual truths which are necessary to make us wise unto salvation, and that the objects and scenes of Nature are the pictures by which these truths are illus Tell us not, then, that the cession of the Northwest, by Virginia, eighty years ago, is not now binding on her; that the "exclusion" of Slavery therefrom, by the sovereign power, in 1787, is no longer in force, legally; that a condition pre-parts of the Country. cedent to admission into the Union is not now an obligation resting on the several parties thereto with all the weight of a Treaty stipulation; that a mere amendment of the Article of Confederation worked a dissolution of the old Union and the formation of a new one; and that "The "United States of America" of 1786-87 are not "The United States of America," of 1787-1867. We have thus followed the Professor, very briefly, through a small portion of his work; and our readers may judge from our remarks how much we think his volume is either true, or just,trated. or discreet. As a defence of Slavery, naked and unadorned, it seems to be useless, since Slavery is not; as an indictment against the non-slaveholding States, it is not discreet, because it is eminently unjust in many of its parts, and not unfrequently untrue in its statements; as a Defence of Virginia and of the South, it is injudicious because it is, very often, incorrect in its method of stating its case, and more frequently combats its own shadow than a living opponent. 15.-Father Tom and the Pope, or a Night at the Vatican, New York: A Simpson & Co., 1867. Octavo, pp. i-xvi, 9—61. This clever satire which appeared in Blackwood, some twenty or thirty years since, has been re-produced with all the elegance of tinted, laid paper, rubricated title-page and initials, and an elaborate Preface, the latter from the pen of one of the most cheerful writers of the day. In this effort, Pleiades and Orion, Icicles, Grass, Trecs, Corn, Blasting, and Mildew, a Leaf, the Earth, etc., are made the texts of separate chapters, in which the Author labors, not always without the appearance of effort and a strain, to carry out his purpose; and a very acceptable volume he has made for those who delight in religious literature. 18-Kathrina: her life and mine, in a poem. By J. G. Holland. New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1987. Duodecimo, pp. 287. Price $1.50. In this volume, which has proved to be one of the most popular of "Timothy Titcomb's" works, we have, it is said, a narrative of his own career, and it is therefore the more interesting. It is marked by the same leading characteristics which made Bitter Sweet, not only the most popular of the productions of this favorite author, but the most widely read poem ever issued in It was founded, as our readers will remember, America. Its aim is to illustrate the power of a on a discussion on the tenets and practices of the true woman to ennoble and to elevate man; to Roman Catholic Church, which was carried on in reveal to him the true end of life, and to lead Dublin, between two Priests of the Roman and the him to press after it with the same earnestness English Churches, in 1827; and although sup- and determination which have marked his strug posed to have been written by Maginn, it is some-gles to realize his dreams of ambition. The plot, what severe on the Church of which that gentleman was a member. The edition was a very limited one; and the beauty of the dress in which it appears adds very much to the limited interest which is found in the original work, 16.-The Old Roman World: The Grandure and Failure of its Civilization. By John Lord, LL.D. N. Y.: C. Scribner & Co., 1867. Crown cctavo, pp. 605. Price $3. The author of this volume is widely known as a popular, but by no means a profound, lecturer on Historical subjects; and he professes to detail, which is simple and natural, is laid in the Valley of the Connecticut, where the author was born, and where he has spent his life, and the scenery there is described with an affectionate fidelity which make the pictures drawn most graphic and life-like. Although mainly narrative in form, parts of the work are dramatical and lyrical, and, scattered through the poem, are passages unsurpassed for their exquisite and pathetic tenderness. The poem is, in brief, the ripest work of its author, and its merits are sure to secure it the same cordial reception and extraordinary popularity enjoyed by its predecessor, Bitter Sweet. THE HISTORICAL MAGAZINE. Vol. III. SECOND SERIES.] FEBRUARY, 1868. [No. 2 thorities to procure hounds for the use and at the expense of the towns. The object was to improve all means for the destruction of wolves; and no dog could be kept without the approbation of the Selectmen, who were also authorized to quarter the town dogs on any of the inhabitants they should choose, excepting Magistrates, who could keep dogs of their own or decline to board the public dogs, at their pleasure. From the character of the proposition of "Mr. "hollihock," it is apparent that the use of their hounds against Indians, was a novelty in 1656— at any rate was not a general custom, however successful it might have been previously in private practice. There is no room for doubt, however, that the suggestion was "improved," or that these four-footed auxiliaries played an important part in the long Indian Wars which fill so much of the Colonial and Provincial history of the Country. The business was reduced to a system, and an organization is indicated, in subsequent legislation, which employed officers whose jurisdiction appears to have been general in the Frontiers, or at any rate not restricted to the particular towns. Whether the "Hunt Serjeant" was the highest in command, when the "hunt was up," is a question which we are unable to solve, and must refer to those who have access to the original documents in the Archives of the State. We have heard Mr. Bancroft speak of having met with accounts of parties going out against the Indians, 'doubledogged." 66 66 WHERA HERAS it was p'sented to the Co"missioners by Mr hollihock of "Sprinkfield that Mastiffe Doggs might "bee of good vse against the Indians in "case of any desturbance from them which "they Reddily apprehending thought meet We have met with a Law of the Province "con"to comend the same to the seuerall "cerning dogs," which is interesting and perhaps "Generall Courts to take care and make unique in the history of American Legislation— although it may have its parallel in later provis'prouision thereof accordingly."-Ply-ions of Southern Codes for improvement of the mouth Colony Records, x., 168; Hazard, ii., means of hunting for fugitive slaves. It was 359. passed at the October Session of the Great and General Court, 1706; and appears among the printed Laws of that period. The first Act of the Session was "An Act for A marginal note in the Plymouth Colony Records is “this to be propounded to our Court.” Doubtless the "severall Generall Courts" did act"Maintaining and Propagating of Religion.' with due promptness and discretion in the prem- It re-inforced, by suitable enactments, the previous ises, but we find no traces in the published laws for securing to all the towns in the Province, records of any separate action at that time. It an "able, learned and orthodox" ministry, with had been the practice previously for the town au- a view to rendering the said Laws more effectual, HIST. MAG. VOL. III. 5 and "to prevent the growth of Atheism, Irrelig- | II.-GENERAL BUTLER AND THE SEV"ion and Prophaneness." On the next page-barely separated from the foregoing by a brief Act to revive a former Statute to protect her Majesty's soldiers and seamen from Arrest for debt, etc-is the following: An Act for the Raising & Increase of Dogs, for the better Security of the Frontiers. WHEREAS upon Tryal lately made of Rangeing and Scouring the Woods on the Frontiers, with Hounds and other Dogs used to Hunting, It has proved of great Service to discourage and keep off the Indians, For Encouragement therefore to Raise and Train up a greater number of Dogs, to be improved. Be it Enacted by His Excellency the Governour, Council and Kep resentatives, in General Gourt Assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That such Person and Persons living in any of the Frontiers within this Province, who shall take, keep and raise up any Whelp of the breed of the Hounds, and have them at all times in readiness to attend the Hunt Serjeant, or others improved in that Service, when they shall Come to such Town, and require the same, shall be allowed and paid out of the Publick Treasury the Sum of Five Shillings Per Annum, in consideration of their care and charge, for the raising and keeping of every such Dog. A Certificate thereof from year to year to be transmitted to the Commissary General, under the hands of the Commission Military Officers, and the Town Clerk of such Town. Provided, This Act shall continue in force for the space of three years next coming, if the War with the Indians last long, and not afterwards. ENTH NEW YORK MILITIA. EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM "A SEVENTH REG"IMENT MAN" TO A FORMER MEMBER, RESIDING 66 OUT WEST," IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY ABOUT THE ASPERSIONS BUTLER HAD CAST AT THE REGIMENT. And now commence the circumstances that excited so much of your interest and ire. Butler, a Boston Lawyer, was a General, or Colonel, or 66 something else, from Massachusetts; and had arrived in Philadelphia on the afternoon of the preceding day, on his way, in headlong haste, for Washington, with a Regiment of Massachusetts men; and, his men being fatigued," (please see Page 70 of that famous "Book of Butler,") he, notwithstanding his eager haste, as he pretended, to get forward on his journey, concluded to hang up with his command, at one of the Hotels, and wait and see; and passed away the afternoon and evening "in buying pickaxes, "shovels, and tin ware." After a "bountiful entertainment," learning that our Regiment was coming, he concluded that in the morning he would, uninvited, take the charge and direction of us. (P. 71,) "I propose to take the fifteen "hundred men," etc,, etc., i. e., to "gobble us up." without the formality of even a "by 66 your leave." 66 This determination, as you will note, was on the night before we arrived, and what he apparently was laying back for, wasting some twenty hours of his precious time, dilly-dallying, in Philadelphia. Butler, as I said, was a Massachusetts General, of some two or three days appointment, and seemed to swell out with the idea that the whole boundless Conthat he had not yet been mustered into service, "tinent" was at his beck; not seeming to know and was really, out of Massachusetts, just no officer at all. Colonel Lefferts had matured his own plan of and he was busied in hurrying forward his preparaproceeding and reported it to Head Quarters; tions, when he was beset, during the forenoon, by Butler, and coolly asked to "come into Chan"cery," with his neck under Butler's arm; but, somehow, he "didn't see it," as the boys say; he did not comprehend the necessity of his having any thing to do with Butler, at all; nor did he see the feasibility of the plan which was urged North side of the Susquehanna, opposite Havre de upon him, of rushing on to Perryville, on the Grace, and taking the chances for finding a ferryboat there, or any other means of crossing the river. Indeed, he rather apprehended that Johnny Secesh would be smart enough to keep all the boats on his own side, with the broad |