a majority of those who control that Congress. If this be true, and experience proves it, then emancipation is impracticable and absurd. The position of the negro upon our continent has always been an anomaly. His transmigration, as is well known, was at first projected in a mistaken notion of benevolence to the aborigines of the soil, in the days of Las Casas and Hernando Cortez-the former of whom took great credit for his philanthropic scheme, in supplying vassals who would work, instead of those to whom labor was death, to the men whose papal bulls and patents of nobility, according to the belief of the sixteenth century, gave them a right to be masters. The negro's residence here, during a period of three hundred years, has been characterized by an unbroken chain of servitude, through all the different changes of government that have taken place in that time. In manners, in habits, in education, in feeling, he has been as distinct from the other portions of the community, as he is in color. In the struggles for freedom, he has borne no part, and in their fruits he has asked no share; and why should we, for the sake of a race which does not feel the importance of the act sufficiently to ask for it as a race, do that which would be suicide to us and to our institutions? In the meantime, every day which has passed over the heads of the holders of the slaves, has added to the length of their undisturbed possession, and given them a fee-simple-an actual right and title-where, before, a charge might have been made of usurpation. Had slavery only existed a year or two before the war of independence, we might have insisted upon emancipation; and so we might, if the political importance of the slaveholder had been as small as it was in England or France; or had the slaves, in mass, asserted their right to a political existence, we might have insisted upon it with equal force. But in the state in which they are, and continue to be their vox populi-their voice as a race,-tacitly acknowledges the words of the vox Dei, repeated thousands of years ago, servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren;" and abolitionists may preach, and senators may talk as much as they please, before they find a "higher law" than that. 66 a But with the slaveholder it is vastly different. While, with us at the North, the matter is of no importance only at particular times, or as a hobby upon which to ride to political eminence, every word that is said upon the subject is a dagger in the side of a Southern man. When he came into the Union, he came in with vested rights-whether just rights or not, is not for us to determine-but with rights which he had held from a time whence the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. To speak of emancipation at once and immediately to him, is to take away from him everything by which he exists, and is a measure which he certainly did not expect, when he, conjointly with ourselves, signed the articles of confederation. In view of the immense importance of the stake to him, we can pardon his attempts to make slavery perpetual, and his opposition to the admission of a free state, to swell the balance against him, unless he has a fresh pledge, that the power of an augmented majority shall not be used where it is unconstitutionally against him. Under these circumstances, then, emancipation is impossible. Prudence, indeed, would dictate that we should co-operate, by a patient and persevering line of conduct, with the interests of the slaveholder, which are gradually elevating the condition of the slave, until, in the course of time, he may become capable of freedom, which by the way we doubt; or else to labor for the same time, patiently and perseveringly to carry out a colonizing system which might in the end relieve us of our slave population. But as this would be too tedious a process to suit the mercurial genius of the abolitionist, they either revert themselves, or cause others to revert to the second proposition-disunion. But, for the sake of the argument, admitting (what we do not in fact admit) that the right of secession belongs to the states, it is the height of fanaticism for a state, either in the North or the South, to scatter to the winds all the advantages which it possesses by virtue of the Constitution and the Union. As we have shown, this confederation is formed to secure to thirty-one different nations international peace and intercourse, and consolidated strength. Under it, the states have grown in wealth and commerce to an unexampled degree. Admitting that the Union did not exist, would the commerce of the great father of waters be what it is, if its navigation were shut out from one state by the jealousy of another, as the St. Lawrence is shut out from us by the policy of Great Britain? Would the blessings of free trade be as fully appreciated as they now are, if each state levied prohibitory duties on every article imported from another state? Would the postal arrangements be as efficient as they now are, if, instead of a general department at the seat of government, each state was compelled to make twenty or thirty treaties similar to that which exists between this country and Great Britain? Would there be a slave the less, or would northern industry be less dependent upon the slave products? The plain answer to these questions is, No! And we shall have as much reason on our side in breaking a postal treaty with Great Britain because she holds to the principles involved in a monarchical government, to which we do not hold, as we should have in breaking the federal compact, because some of the parties hold to the principle of negro slavery, to which we do not. If we dissolve the Union, we disclaim the principle that consolidation is power; we stifle the feeling of peace and good will; we loosen the ties of country which made the men of the North and the men of the South stand together in the wars of the Revolution, and of 1812; and we dissolve the brotherly feeling which led the Palmetto Regiment and the New-York Regiment, the Mississippi Regiment and the Indiana Regiment, to cast aside all sectional feeling, and to fight together, against a common foe, on the Mexican battle fields, as American citizens! If we dissolve the Union, we deny that the time can ever come, when men shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and when the nations shall learn war no more. And if we dissolve the Union, we that instant lose our proud name as American citizens, and our political importance altogether, and shall, as we deserve, be reduced to the same low level with the petty states of Central and South America. Under these circumstances, when emancipation is not feasible, and disunion would be the direst calamity that could befall us, every honest and patriotic heart will feel himself, not merely a sectionalist but an American, and exclaim, "Let the compromises be sustained, and let the Constitution which sheds such lustre on the names of the Fathers of the Republic, and upon the stars and stripes which they raised as symbols of a new nation born into existence, make our country still, as it has made it hitherto, "A union of hearts and a union of hands, A union of principles none may sever; FALLACIES OF LEGISLATION. ILLUSTRATED BY THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851. IT has been said and admitted, that knowledge is power. Ignorance and poverty are the props of tyranny and oppression. Ignorant men are generally credulous, and are readily influenced by positive assertions when uttered by men of property and position in the world. It often happens, that the intellects of poor ignorant men is confused and blunted through the mere presence of those whom they regard to be great and good. Hence they are often the victims of well-tutored knaves, who have won enough of popular approbation to hold some office. They become the playthings and support of demagogues, who, while pretending to devote their time and labor for the common advantage of those who constituted them, are only attentive to their own selfish interests. The difference of mental efficiency between a child and a man, depend more upon the inexperience and want of knowledge of the former than upon the greater age of the latter: those who are inferior in experience and information are children, no matter about their age; in conflict with the highly cultivated minds of educated men, they must always be beaten, especially where they are also opposed by selfish, dishonest pretensions. The depressed or low condition of sailors, compared with other classes of citizens, is attributable to a want of knowledge beyond their very simple vocation. As a class, sailors have been scourged and maltreated in various ways, and it is only within a few years that any efficient attention has been paid to their condition. Among the most prominent efforts to ameliorate it, are those of Watson G. Haynes. He stumped the country, and kept up agitation of the subject until the use of the lash has been abolished. But this was effected in a hasty manner, and no modes of punishment have been substituted in its place to coerce the vicious to proper action. Though hastily performed, still the act itself is a good one; but more by chance than judicious proceding on the part of Congress. The members of the national legislature are so much occupied in electioneering for office, in making buncombe speeches, that legislation, the great object of their meeting, is left till the last hours of the session, when laws are enacted in haste and confusion. The last Congress is not free from this imputation. In proof of it, the naval appropriation bill may be cited as an instance of imperfect, hasty legislation. his It is a duty and a privilege of every American citizen to express views on all points affecting the common good or interests of classes. While he is bound to bow in obedience to all laws in existence, the American may attempt to point out their errors, that they may be corrected. Even when his opinions are wrong, they may be expressed advantageously to himself, because discussion will elucidate and bring out the truth, and render it manifest to all, or at any rate to the majority. It may be said in defence of Congress, however, that it is the custom to rely on the reports of committees, and the heads of bureaus in the executive departments, especially upon technical points. If the heads of bureaus be feeble, prejudiced, antiquated men, destitute of the spirit of progress which is characteristic of our age and country, or men who are capable only of imitation and of following the precedents of other nations, or men so conservative that they naturally oppose all change and improvement, it is to be anticipated that Congress and the Executive himself will be often led astray, in spite of the best intentions. It is time that the capabilities and qualifications of heads of bureaus should be scrutinized, and where they are found incompetent, even in a moderate degree, more efficient men should be substituted. Those offices may be occupied now, by the best and most efficient men at command of the administration; if so, examination will not harm them or the administration. Yet it is surmised that examination would lead to change in some cases. The law making appropriations to support the navy for the fiscal year, 1851-2, provides, 1st, "That no commutation of rations shall be allowed except to officers and their attendants, and for the spirit part of their rations; and no person not actually attached to, and doing duty on board of a sea-going or receiving vessel, and the petty officers, seamen and ordinary seamen attached to the ordinary of the navy-yards, shall be allowed a ration." 2d. "That no rations stopped for the sick on board vessels, shall be credited to the hospital fund, but shall remain and be accounted for as part of the provisions of the vessel; and that the rations of officers and others of the navy, sent to hospitals on shore, shall be credited to the hospital fund at the cost only thereof; and the chief of the bureau of provisions and clothing, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Navy, shall prescribe all such regulations in relation to stopping such rations as will ensure a faithful accountability for the rations stopped for the sick on board vessels, and to ensure due credit to the hospital fund for the rations at cost of those sent to the hospitals on shore; the said regulations to go into effect on the first day of the succeeding month after their official receipt at yards, stations, and on board vessels." The above legal enactments are based upon injustice, and will operate cruelly and fraudulently upon the common sailors, employed in the naval service. An endeavor to demonstrate the truth of this proposition is here made, in the hope that some benevolent legislator may take up the subject, and procure the repeal of this unjust law, at the next session of Congress. The first provision relates to the commutation of rations; or, in other words, to taking a sum of money in lieu of the articles constituting the ration. The law limits this commutation "to officers and their attendants;" and there is also provided commutation "for the spirit part of their ration," but it is not very clear whose rations; whether it is the spirit part of the rations assigned to the officers alone, or the spirit ration to which the attendants upon officers are entitled, or the spirit ration of both officers and their attendants. At any rate, the interpretation of the words of the law above quoted is, that hereafter seamen cannot commute their grog ration for money, but must drink their grog or throw it away; while officers and their attendants may receive money in lieu of grog, if they please. The question may be asked, who are officers' attendants? The law of March 3, 1835, regulating the pay of naval officers, declares that no officer shall be "allowed servants, or pay for servants, or clothing or rations for them, or pay for the same." Whether this act of 1851, repeals that of 1835, is not absolutely clear; but it is clear that the provisions of the two laws are in conflict as to this point, unless it can be shown that the word "attendants" is not used to designate "servants.' Prior to March 3, 1835, the compensation of all who were in the navy was composed of monthly pay and daily rations. No commission officer received less than two, and many received sixteen rations daily. The commutation price of the ration was then twenty-five cents; two rations a day were equal to $182 50, and sixteen daily rations were equal to $1,460 per annum. The law of 1835 changed this mode of paying officers to an annual salary, with one ration only when afloat, and annulled all allowances and perquisites of every description; but the compensation of sailors continued to be made in a monthly pay and a daily ration. About this time the commutation price of a ration was reduced to twenty cents, which makes it worth $73 per annum. Now, why should "officers and their attendants" be permitted to commute their rations, while sailors are cut off from the same privilege? It is presumed that officers prefer other articles of food than those provided in the naval ration; and as the attendants on their messes will partake of whatever the officers procure for themselves, it is for the advantage of both that their rations should be commuted. But is the privilege of commutation of no advantage to the sailor? A ration supplies more food than is absolutely necessary for one, but not enough for two; perhaps twenty-five rations would, with care, feed a man during thirty days. Experience has taught that a mess of twelve sailors can subsist on ten rations. This knowledge has been made to increase the comfort of men on board ship, and contribute towards the preservation of their health. It has been a common practice for each mess of twelve or fifteen to commute two rations, which brings to the mess a cash revenue of twelve dollars monthly. When in port, this money is expended in fruits, vegetables, milk, or such little table luxuries as do not enter into the composition of the ship's ration. Or, if not expended for common mess stock, the sum is equally divided among the members of the mess, to spend or hoard, as each may deem best. These being the facts, it is very clear that the commutation of rations, at an established price, is of quite as much advantage to the sailor as to the officer. The ration is as much a part of the sailor's compensation, as it is of that of the officer. To make the compensation of the sailor less valuable and less available to him than the same kind of compensation to the officer, is unequal, illiberal, and unjust. It is true, a mess may save its surplus from the rations, and, in most ports, barter it with bom-boatmen for fruit, &c.; but, if this alternative be cast upon the sailor, why should the officer be released from it? Commutation is an advantage to the interests of the government. The materials of a lawful ration cost in most foreign ports, from twenty to fifty per cent. more than in the United States. When a ship is on a foreign station, after the original outfit of provisions is exhausted, she must be supplied by purchase in a foreign market, or from depôts furnished from the United States. The cost of provisions. &c., kept in depôt on foreign stations, is increased beyond the original contract price, by the amount of freight, transportation, store rent, &c., and by the amount lost from leakage, breakage, and decay. For reasons of this nature, it is desirable to lessen the demand or consumption of ration materials; and this |