may do, whenever they shall deem it necessary,—namely, MUZZLE THE PRESS, and destroy its liberty! Nay, one State has not only a right, for instance, to prohibit the circulation of anti-slavery publications within its limits, but it is the duty of every other State to make the printing of such publications within its own limits a criminal offence, to be visited with pains and penalties!

We place the arguments in juxta-position, that they may be seen at a glance :

The

Congress has not the power to pass 'It belongs to the States, and not to such a law: it would be a violation of Congress, to determine what is, or is not, one of the most sacred provisions of the calculated to disturb their peace and seConstitution. The jealous spirit of lib-curity; and of course, in the case under erty which characterized our ancestors at consideration, it belongs to the slaveholdthe period when the Constitution was ing States to determine what is incendiary adopted, forever closed the door by which and intended to incite to insurrection, and the right might be implied from any of the to adopt such defensive measures as may granted powers, or any other source, if be necessary for their security, with unthere be any other.'-The amended ar- limited means of carrying them into effect, ticle of the Constitution, among other except such as may be expressly inhibited things, provides that Congress shall pass to the States by the Constitution. no law which shall abridge the liberty of right of a State to defend itself against the press-a provision which interposes internal dangers is a part of the great, prian insuperable objection to the measure mary, and inherent right of self-defence, recommended by the President.'-Among which, by the laws of nature, belongs to the many objections to the adoption of the all communities.' Rights and duties are Constitution, none were more successfully reciprocal--the existence of a right alurged than the absence in the instrument ways implying a corresponding duty. If, of those general provisions which experi- consequently, the right to protect her inence has shown to be necessary to guard ternal peace and security belongs to a the outworks of liberty; ach as the State, the General Government is bound freedom of the press and of speech, the to respect the measures [abridging the rights of conscience, of trial by jury, freedoin of speech and of the press!!] and others. It was the belief of those adopted by her for that purpose, and to jealous and watchful guardians of liberty, co-operate in their execution, as far as its who viewed the adoption of the Constitu- delegated powers may admit, or the meastion with so much apprehension, hat all ure may require. Thus, in the present those sacred barriers, without some posi- case, the slaveholding States having the tive provision to protect them, would, by unquestionable (!) right to pass all such the power of construction, be undermined laws as may be necessary to maintin the and prostrated.— The object of publish- EXISTING RELATION between MASTER ing is circulation; and to prohibit circu- and SLAVE in those States, their right, lation is in effect to prohibit publication.' of course, to prohibit the circulation of any Nothing is more clear than that the publication, or any intercourse calculated admission of the right on the part of Con- to disturb or destroy that relation, is ingress, to determine what papers are in controvertible ' !!-- Within their limits, cendiary, and, as such, to prohibit their the rights of the slaveholding States are circulation through the mail, necessarily as full to demand of the States within involves the right to determine what are whose limits and jurisdiction their peace not incendiary, an I to enforce their circu- is assailed, to adopt the measures neceslation. Nor is it less certain that to ad- sary to prevent the same, and, if refused mit such a right would be virtually to or neglected, to resort to means to protect clothe Congress with the power to abol themselves, as if they were separate and ish slavery, by giving it the means of independent communities.' breaking down all the barriers which the slaveholding States have erected for the protection of their lives and property.'

It is perfectly obvious, that Mr. CALHOUN is not less justly chargeable with the folly of self-confutation than Mr. PINCKNEY. His argument proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. The theory which he advances is the theory of NULLIFICATION it makes the subordinate, paramount-the inferior, superior-the single digit greater than the entire aggregate-the sattelite, the central sun! For,

1. It absurdly assumes, that though Congress may not pass a law which shall be binding upon the several States, the Legislature of South Carolina is invested with such power!

2. That the liberty of the press,-and, by parity of reasoning, the freedom of speech, the rights of conscience, and trial by jury, may be either abridged or wholly taken away, under pains and penalties, by any State Legislature, not only in reference to the inhabitants of said State, but of all the States!

3. That a State Legislature, in a free republic, has power over the liberties of the people, superior to that which is granted to the British Parliament !-for that body cannot shackle the press, except by usurpation.

4. That the Constitution of the United States expressly prohibits Congress from infringing upon the liberty of the press, simply because the right belongs exclusively to each State Legislature Of what value, then, is this great instrument? It becomes truly a blurred and tattered parchment.' For if the freedom of speech and of the press, upon any subject whatever, may rightfully and at any moment be destroyed by the Legislature of a single State, and the act must be respected and obeyed by the people of every other State, there can be nothing left in the shape of liberty, to be protected by the Constitution.— An absolute despotism would reign over the land. In the days of our colonial vassalage, such power was never claimed by the mother country. Have not our fathers spilt their blood in vain?

But let us hear Mr. CALHOUN once more:

If it be admitted that Congress has the right to discriminate in reference to their character, what papers shall or what papers shall not be transmitted by the mail, it would subject the freedom of the press, on all subjects, political, moral and religious,

completely to its will and pleasure. It would, in fact, in some respects, more effectually control the freedom of the press than any sedition law, however severe its penalties. The mandate of the Government alone would be sufficient to close the door against circulation through the mail, and thus, at its will and pleasure, might intercept all communication between the press and the people; while it would require the intervention of courts and juries to enforce the provisions of a sedition law, which experience has shown are not always passive and willing instruments in the hands of Government, where the freedom of the press is concerned.'

But if it be admittted that' a State Legislature has a right to discriminate,' &c. &c. as in the case above supposed, surely the same disastrous results and absurd conclusions must follow. No matter by what body this right shall be exercised: the consequences would be equally fatal to all political and religious freedom.

Surely, Mr. CALHOUN will not claim more power for the Legislature of South Carolina, than he is willing to concede to the Legislature of Massachusetts; nor will he deny, that the people of New-England place as high an estimate upon liberty, as the people of the South do upon slavery. Doctrines which are subversive of human rights are as repugnant to the former, as are the doctrines which conflict with the divine right of slaveholding to the latter. Now, in order to give perpetuity to southern slavery, Mr. CALHOUN boldly affirms, that an act of the Legislature of South Carolina, prohibiting the printing or circulating of anti-slavery views or sentiments* within the limits of that State, is binding upon every other State: hence the call of certain slaveholding States, during the past year, upon the Legislatures of the free States, to suppress by penal enactments, anti-slavery publications and meetings. It follows, therefore, that if the Legislature of Massachusetts should make a law, prohibiting the printing or circulating of any pro-slavery views or sentiments within its territory, and thereby excluding all

* Such as the following, for example:- God commands, and all nature cries out, that man should not be held as property. The system of making men property has plunged 2,250,000 of our fellow-countrymen into the deepest physical and moral degradation, and they are every moment sinking deeper.'-For this expression, R. G. Williams of New-York, publisher of the Emancipator, has been indicted by a Grand Jury in Alabama, as being a wicked, malicious, seditious and ill-disposed person,' and on the strength of which indictment Gov. Gayle has demanded Mr. Williams of Gov. Marcy!!

southern newspapers from the State,-it would be equally binding upon all the slaveholding States; for, if the right to protect her internal peace and security belongs to a State, the General Government is bound to respect the measures adopted by her for that purpose, and to co-operate in their execution'!*

But would Mr. CALHOUN, or Mr. McDUFFIE, or the State of South Carolina, submit to such a law? Would they class it among the reserved rights' of the old Bay State ?-So, too, with regard to any other subject, upon which there may happen to be conflicting views and interests between the several States. If its discussion be prohibited by any one of the twenty-six States, the remaining twenty-five are obligated to be dumb and submissive!

The Report, under consideration, bestows the following panegyric upon the relation' between masters and slaves :

It is against this relation between the two races, that the blind and criminal zeal of the abolitionists is directed-a relation that now preserves in quiet and security, more than 6,500,000 human beings' (!!)— Under this relation, the two races have long lived in peace and prosperity, and, if not disturbed, would long continue so to live' (!!)—' It may be safely asserted, that there is no example in history, in which a savage people, such as the ancestors of the slaves were when brought into the country, have ever advanced in the same period so rapidly in numbers and improvement'(!!)

The 'relation' which is producing so much happiness, safety, improvement, peace, prosperity, &c. &c. is the relation of one man as a beast, to another man as his absolute owner! If such really be its beneficent results, it will certainly bear the test of a most rigid scrutiny; and it is difficult to perceive, why the South should be so angry when we propose to discuss its utility, or why she should require us to preserve unbroken silence!— The solution of this delicate enigma is, that what is affirmed of this 'relation' in the Report, is obviously false, in every particular. The slave system is full of the elements of self-destruction it is a moral Vesuvius-within are raging fires-without

6

In proof of which, Mr. Calhoun gravely adduces the act of Congress of February, 1799, respecting quarantine and health laws (!!)—which, among other things, directs the collectors and all other revenue officers, the masters and crews of revenue cutters, and the military officers in command of the station, to co-operate faithfully in the execution of the quarantine and other restrictions which the health laws of the State may establish.' A very rare analogy!

is desolation, the awful consequence of successive volcanic eruptions, wherever its lava tide has flowed. And the end is not yet." Again:

The blindness of fanaticism is proverbial. With more zeal than understanding, it constantly misconceives the nature of the object at which it aims, and toward which it rushes with headlong violence, regardless of the means by which it is effected.— Never was its character more fully exemplified than in the present instance. Setting out with the abstract principle that slavery is an evil, the fanatical zealots come at once to the conclusion that it is their duty to abolish it, regardless of the disasters which must follow. Never was conclusion more false or dangerous.'

Behold the folly and insanity of the abolitionists! If this be an accurate delineation of their character, it is a poor compliment which Mr. CALHOUN pays to the intelligence, patriotism and piety of the North, to argue that, unless they are put down BY FORCE, the abolitionists can never be vanquished by reason, but will assuredly enlist the people on their side! Fanaticism is quickly consumed by its own fire: its blindness' ensures its speedy self-destruction. It was one of the best and most popular sentiments ever uttered by Mr. JEFFERSON, that error of opinion may be safely tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.' 'The fanatical zealots' stigmatized by Mr. CALHOUN, do not merely call slavery an evil,' but they brand it as a sin—A SYSTEM OF INIQUITIES-One vast aggregation of heaven-daring impieties; and they therefore know that its immediate abandonment is a duty, which wisely and unerringly regards all imaginable consequences, all real interests, whether near or remote, whether appertaining to the few or the many, to the present or the future, to time or to eternity! But they have never been guilty of the folly ascribed to them in the Report,-of asserting that it is 'their duty' to abolish slavery in the southern States: that duty' must be performed by the slaveholders themselves.

It is a relief to know wherein the essential wickedness of the abolitionists consists. According to Mr. CALHOUN, it is found alike in the end aimed at by them, and in the means used to effect that end.