University of South Carolina Libraries
THE CAMDEN JOURNAL. VOLUME f> . CAMDEN, SOUTH CAROLINA, lUG. 23, 1848~ NUMBER 34. PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNING BY THOMAS W. PEGUKs. TERMS. Three Dollars perannura in advance, Three Dollars and Filly Cents within six months, or Four Dollars at the ei piration of the year. Advertisements inserted at 75 cents per square, (fourteer ines or le**,) for the fir*t and half that sum for each suhse^ quent insertion. The number of insertions to lie noted or all advertisements, or they will be published until ordered to be discontinued, and charged accordingly. One Dollar per square for a single insertion. Quarterly and Monthly advertisement* will be charged the same a; single insertion, and Semi-monthly the same as new ones ? lmt> Jli-ooto lltroo flnllfllN for ptirmxning wiouum uwc >?< u>?.v?....w ? will be charged. All Obituary Notices exceeding six Hues, and Communications recommending Candidates for public offices of profit or trust?or puffing Exhibitions will be charged as advertisements. Alt! letters by mail must be post paid to insure a punctua M ten ion. TO CLUDS. In order to place the Journal within the reach of all. we offer the following reduced rates to Clubs of new subscribers?payment to be made at the timenj subscribing. For 4 copies for one year, 810 09 For 6 copies for one year, 14 00 For 8 copies for ene year, 18 00 For 10 copies for one year, 21 00 For 12 copies for one year, 24 00 Any one ot our present subscribers will be considered as one of either of the above clubs, by obtaining a sufficient number of new subscribers to make up with hitnself, the 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12. 8PEECH OF JOS. A. WOODARD, of sot'tn Carolina. In the House of Representatives, July 3 1848. The House being in Committee of the Whole on thestateofihe Union on the Civ. il and diplomatic Appropriation bill, Mr. Woodwaid having obtained the floor, said? Mr. Chairman: Some days since I thought proper to address the House in reply to a speech made by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Afr. Bayly) upon the question of the right of Congress to legislate for the settlers upon the public lauds. It was not my intention at that time to go into (tie general argument, but only to developc the true practical issue before the country, and to show that he had not presented it fully and fairly. True, in order to prevent misapprehension, F used the occasion to define my position, but with no view entering upon an argument in defence of it. 1 expressly reserved that for a future occasion. I shall embrace the one now offered. Are slaveholders, under the common Constitution of the Union entitled, with their slaves, to enter upon, purchase, and occupy, peaceably, the public lands, which arc the property of the United States? This is the trne question at issue. I take b it little interest in any inquiry into the powers of Congress within the territory, except as it afTects this question. I care as little about the authority attributed to first settlers or Mexican pre-ncctipanfs, or as to the supposed abid.n" f?irce of laws and institutions ien m un. * qtiered territories by Mexico, except as they bear upon this question. If I could have a guarantee that the rights, honor and safety of the Southern Stales and people were to be respected and maintained, I should feel disposed to indulge gentlemen in any opinions they might choose to entertain in relation to these abstract propositions. If you could separate this reasoning from the practical consequences that are to flow from it, I should nol object to their reasoning as best suited then* fancies. But, sir, in the nature of things such a separation is impossible. The vital interests, if not the very safety of the South, are dependant upon the conclusions to which gentlemen may come. T<?eir logic is to be iaw to the South; radical, fundamental law; law upon which our destiny is to depend, unless indeed we should choose j to take our destiny out of other people's hands. Jfitbetrue that the Constilut'on affords no guaranty for us in this emergency; if Congress, too, be impotcntaforour defence; if our rights are to be held even less sacred than the laws and institutions left by it/cxi co in the conquered country, as our Northern friends insist must be done, then is the conditmnof the Southern States humiliating and deplorable in the extreme. 1 deprecate the agitation of these questions and their in ?:? ^ that lliev irooucii'Mi mil# fjwiiiiwa* ii uu... ..... j had never risen. But it will not do for those who have made the occasion, to ask that it be permitted to pass in silence. I know it would be a great accommodation to some gentleman to do so. And I should find no difficulty in fabricating plausible excuses that would be perfectly satisfactory to my constituents, especially when found to be endorsed by a iy desirable number of polical writers; and should I prove incompetent to the task, I could find friends rea Iv and skillful to serve me. Should 1 choose to gratify others by taking such a course, instead of being here under the scowls of angry partisans, glared upon by fierce and hungry ambition, with its horse-leech cry of "give, give," its Anaconda maw, that nothing can overglut, I should find myself in the midst of smiling faces and sympathetic hearts the object of hearty gratitude for the present, and possibly not without hopes of more subatantial reward for the future. ** * 11 />l?" vkrA^oorl In llif> JBlM, mr. ^nairmaii, I ouan p,U^VVM argument. And my intention is to present a fair and ingenuous argument. I shall wound no gentleman's feelings intentionally, but shall leave everyone wholly without excuse for not following an example of frank and liberal discussion. 'The people of the territories have exclusive right manage their own internal affairs ?-given to govern themselves." This is one of the propositions to be met. Sir, there runs throughout this phrase more lurking sophistry than was ever couched in the same number of words, while on its front it presents about as available an ad captandam as a politician could find convenient to make use of for any electioneering emergency whatever. In the first place, occupants found upon a rtftlili/* domain, external to some sovereign ^/VIWIIW ? - J ty owning if, can in no proper sense be called "a people;"if we are to have any regard for political science as taught from Kent backwards through the whole train of public writers. Except wc mean to repudiate all such political science as was recognised and actet on bv our forefathers, and assume to ordaii new doctrines and ideas according as thi l exigency of party may require, no one car t be warranted in calling such inhabitants as , have described -'a people." ] have no time al lowed me to argue this question. I shall tak< | it for granted that gentlemen who step forth to argue such questions know something? | at least, that when the occasion indicates the necessity of doing so, they will look into the 1 books and learn something. How many in> dividuals buying tracts of land in the pub lir? rlnmain umiifri <>nn?t it til p ji npnnle? How ..V, UVII.U.I. ,,VU,V' f'7 I . close together should they reside to constitute them one people? How far apart tc make them two peoples? How many peoples might they erect themselves into within a given circumference?say two hundred mile square?and each group declare itself absolutely independent of the others? In the second place, the word territory is a term of geography, used by the framers of the Constitution in that sense, as synonimous with public domain. The word will be found in the Constitution in the singular number, not as descriptive of any defined and limiied region of country, coincident with a sphere of political jurisdiction, but as applicable to all the public lands every where in all their detached parts and fractions. But in the language of the day, it is used as a political term indicative of a certain form and condition of society, with established jurisdictional limits, within which, by constructive ownership and eminent domain, the people there have the right to make and enforce law. In short, sir, according to the argument of certain gentlemen, territory means a State, a commonwealth. When our forefathers made reference to any portion of territory marked out for settlement and political organization, the word "district" was invariably made use of?the same word that is applied to the seat of Federal Government? a term by-the-by that would never have been applied to a community, supposed to possess the power of self-regulation. In the third place: This people it is said, have a right to manage their own "internal affairs"?O govern themselves. Now, sir, it is here assumed that all affairs internal to their supposed limits arc their affairs. No one has any rights there but themselves. True, we. the people of the United States, are the owners of 99 acres in a hundred of ad the lands there, and the inhabitants could have emigrated thither only by our laws, and have acquired nothing beyond the fragment of land that each one severally occupies. We are the owners of all intermediate tracts separating one settler from another, and of all the region encompassing them about, to an indefinite extent And yci, u|7i;u ,71 v.n,in.u >jr iiuiiii" 1,^ come the owners of a few acres, at a nominal price, or probably no price at all, they assume to qualify our title to all the rest; to affix conditions to its purchase and occupa-* - t ? * ...!.?% II I * rv t It a cf of o r?f won; 10 ucicrmiiiu wiiui Mian uu mv. muiu vi human society on all the rest; to repel us, the owners, upon a political lest; to practise a sort of naturalization system, to the exclusion of a part of the rightful owners of the soil, they arc said to be doing nothing more than managing their internal affairs. Sir, is it not manifest that in excluding the people of the South from the public lands, the settlers would be assuming to do more than manage their internal affairs? They would undertake, thereby, to determine their external relations to the United States, and to subject their ownership of the public lands to terms and conditions that did not originally attach to it. But, sir, to take a brief, general view of the subject. Jt is an essential part of a people or commonwealth that it possess certain geographical limits. It must constitute it an independent State, it must be capable of maintaining its limits and excluding all jurisd clions it has not consented to admit. It must also, and most especially, have the power of preserving its own unity and indivisibility, to prevent its own subdivision and disNnw will vntir rolonists or settlers stand when tried by these tests? Suppose one settlement, where would be the authority to coerce it? Which would be supreme over the other? Who would define and settle the question of boundary between them? In the Oregon country 'here is a colony on the Willamette river. Its whole occupacy is not greater than 30 miles square. Oregon is about 700 miles square. Mas this colony jurisdiction throughout the whole region? Are all the "affairs" internal to that region their internal affairs? Docs their diminutive "self" fill all the land with their jurisdiction? I foot, what is their compass and extent? IIow far beyond the border settlements? Are their boundary lines straight or crooked? Suppose the United States should draw a line tight about them, could they burst the ligature? They might be reduced to a triangle, a quadrangle, or a circle. A line might be run through the middle, sundering them into two colonies. What would be the consequence? Would .1 III-? ?!?? nrnnmrnte bv divisi on IIIC} , lint; me pi,ii |^uo, |,. _ and for each sundered sovereignty, would two juvenile spring up? In this same territory of Oregon there if another settlement on Pugct sound, aboul 150 miles north of the one mentioned.? There is likely to be a third on the Walla walla, about 200 miles eastward of the othei two. All these are separated by extensive regions of waste, mountainous country. Sup> pose each should claim to be independeni of the other, could it maintain its right tc be so? if not, which should control the oth er two? If Congress should erect them in to one colony, under a common charter o government, could they insist upon separate existence and self-government? It must be manifest to every one that such a chartei would bind the whole into one society. N( local constitution could spring up under it Such a constitution could find no geograph ical limits. It could not determine its owi i shape or place upon the face of the earth. naanBanHBMHBBnMManMnmvnuaaaaa ] The language of Mr. Madison is decisive 1 of this question, and I propose to bring to 2 the attention of the committee a passage i from his writings, which I was perfectly [ astonished to hear my friend from Virginia . (Mr. Bayly) repeat in support of his position. ? In the 38t'h No. of the Federalist, alluding i to the public lands, Mr. Madison says: "Congress have assumed the administra> tion of this stock, (the public lands.) Con; gress have undertaken to do more; they have . proceeded to form new Slates; to erect tem. porary governments; to appoint officers for r them; and to prescribe the conditions on . which such States shall be admitted into the i confederacj'. All this has been done, and without the least color of constitutional au. thority. Yet no blame has been whispered; no alarm has been sounded. A great and independent fund of revenue is passing into the hands of a single body of men, who can f raise troops to an indefinite number, and ap. propriate money to their support for an indefinite period of time. And yet there are men who have not only been^silent spectators of this prospect, but who are the advocates of the system which exhibits it; and. at the same time, urge against the new system the 1 objeclons which we have heard. Would i they not act with more consistency in urging the establishment of the latter, as no less ne- 1 cessary to guard the Union against the fu. ' lure powers and resources of a body con. I structed like the existing Congress, than to 1 save it from the dangers threatened by the I present impotency of that assembly. I "1 tnean not, by any thing here said, to ' throw censure on the measures which have | been pursued by Congress. I am sensible ' they could not have done otherwise. The < public interest, the necessity of the case, im ( posed upon them the task of overleaping ' their constitutional limits. But is not the fact an alarming proof of the danger res. It- ' ing from a government which does not pos- 1 sess regular powers commensurate to itsob- ' jects? A dissolution or urusrpation is the t dreadful dilemma to which it is continually 1 exposed." ( Does this 1-ok as if Mr. Madison though J there was conpetent auihorily with the i;i- 1 habitants ol the colonial settlements to insti- f lute temporary governments, and erect themseves into new Stales, against the authority I of the United States? If this power naturally ? belonged to the inhabitants, how could Mr. 5 Madison say that the old Congress "could ? not have done otherwise!1" That '-the public f interest, the necessity ol: the case, imposed * upon them the task of overleaping their con- 1 stitutioml limits." He makes it an argument r for the new constitution, that it supplied the s defects of the old in this respect, and temov- t ed the necessity lor usurpation. He upbraids f the conduct of those who stood bv and saw Congress usurp these powers under the old 1 the same were made legitimate in the new \ constitution. Mr. Madison addressed this language to the American people at a time I when they were debating the question of 1 the adoption of the new constitution; and he [ told them in plain words, before they had 1 adopted the insniment, that it recognised in ' Congress all the powers in this respect, f which it ought to have had under the old 1 system. And, so far from branding the old s Congress with usurpation, he speaks of what ( thev did as a "task imposed upon them" by * ii . r. I : _ ' the inexorable necessity 01 me case?imposed upon thein, because there was nowhere ' else an authority that could assume to per- 1 form it. And yet we have Mr, Madison ' introduced here to show that this task be. < longed naturally and originally, as a very ' sacred privilege, to the inhabitants of the set- | dements. < Consider, sir, the weight of Mr. Madison's I authority. It is not the mere opinion of an 1 eminent lawyer or statesman. Mr. Madis >n was a member of that convention; one of the ' very ablest, and far the most attentive and I watchful. He sat from day to day, writing | down every thing said and done, for the 1 information of posterity for all time to come. I He speaks, therefore, as a historian, a chronicler, an eyewitness lie tells what he saw ' with his own eves, heard with his own ears, and with his own hands helped to perform. Is testimony like this to give way to meta- 1 physical inductions drawn from the Declaration of Independence? To hear gentlemen talk, a stranger would suppose that the Dec laralion was a body ol authentic law, ratihea and adopted by Ihe same conventions that ratified the Constitution. That Declaration was nothing more than a revolutionary pronunciamenlo; a glorious one, indeed, but still nothing more. If gentlemen will examine the Constitution, they will find that in many respects it pays little respect to some doctrines of the Declaration. Congress, for instance, is invested with supreme and perpetual legislative dominion over all the people resident in this city and District, without their consent, numerous as they may become. You have a Senate elected by State Legislatures; a President elected by colleges.? And this President thus elected by persons removed from the people, elects fifty times I as many officers as all the people themselves. 1 He elects all the great officers of the States. He elects the entire body of executive offi i cers (rom his cabinet down. Ife elects the I whoie body of judicial magistracy, from the Supreme Court down; and too, for life. He elects the entire corps of dignitaries and agents entrusted with the foreign relations ; of the country. He elects every military and naval officer. There is not a single office L of profit; civil diplomatic, or judicial, that is > not put at his disposal. Such are the provis - ions of our Constitution. And yet gentlemen - find it difficult to persuade themselves that f this same Co" ion could so far have lost ? sight of lh' nocratic principle as to cn. ; trust Cong ith a temporary and parentr al authority over a company of settlers upon ) the domain! There is other authority than that of Mr. . Madison equally conclusive; to say nothing i of the whole current of judicial decision by the ablest jurists from the beginning, and the unbrm or lion of Congress, without dispute o controversy. For the case cited from fir. Giles by the honorable member from "Vrginia makes no exception to what I have verted. That was a case where a negro hal been imported as a slave in violation of the aws of the I nited States against the slave tade. The question was, whether such nejro fell uncfer the jurisdiction of Congress, vhose lawsvere violated, or the State Legisla.ure. Tb decision was that he fell under State autbrity. The argument related to the quesion of the rights of the sovprpicrn Sintnc /Viip. thn rnnspniipnt nrlinn v,b" v,u""" 1 ?? of Congress in ie matter placed the territorial districts ?) the same footing with the States in this articular; but this implied nothing more tan that the charter governments ofsuc'districts were supposed to confer upon thm authority in the matter. It did not me?, however, that previous to such charters th people found on the public land would ha* had any such jurisdiction. Certainly Joli Jacob Astor and his trappers on the Orep* river could not havo ousted Congrcsjof jurisdiction iri a like case. But th advocates of the: right of independent Jegjition in the districts involve themselves irtt most extraordinary dilemma.? By whauourseof reasoning would they establish th authority of the constitution over those duicts? The people there are not nariies t<the Constitution. What right has Congresto "coin money" for them, or regulate "weghts and measures," or "establish post offies and post roads"?or, indeed, to ^xercise over them any of the delegated powers? Those districts have delegated no such porers to us. They are not rcprcsmtedjj bre; nor do they participate in the ilectior of President. The maxim of the right ofself government is not restricted to 'internil affairs/' as the argument of gentlenen would seem to imply. It comprehends whercit exists, all affairs, internal and cxterial. We have no more right to force upon hem the Constitution of the United Slateshan o subject them to the legislatoin of, Congress. Both acts are equally incompati >le with their right or seit-coniroi. dui, sir, t is icedless to argue further against such Jgrejious folly. Bat gentlemen will insist on the source of )ov\er in Congress being pointed out. I am tnxious to satisfy their demand; but my poutioa is so strongly fortified by authority, tnd by the manifest absurdity of the opposite )osition, and rests so stably in the sound sense of practical and judicious minds, that [ could not feel justified in detaining the comniitee with a detailed argument. I shall satisfy myself, therefore, with giving a clue o what 1 conceive to be the true view of the juestion. The great and fundamental usurpation of lie old Congress, under the articles of cono'owri externa"!' prmmrchrt: Phis being done, almost everything else fol. r....asl no n mnllor nf /vlllrSP Thft COnVen* yj w tvi ao a niuii^i wi _ ion that framed the Constitution found those Icpendencies constituent elements of the Unon. They found the Union composed party of sovereign States and partly of dependnil Colonics* And for the Union, so conlitioncd and constituted, they made the constitution. The Constitution, in its preamble, ixpresses itself to be made "for the United Stales," that is, for lite States already united. The Constitution did not create the Union, jut only made a new government foi it.? I could adduce an abundance of authority in support of this proposition. The convention lid not think it worth while to create a powjr to own these dependencies. Such a rower, although usurped, had been fully exscuted and finished, and had resulted in a permanent condition of things. The territories arc therefore only alluded to in the Constitution as already belonging to the United States. The territorial districts, with their governments; their United Slates judges, governors and councils; their delegates sitting on the floor of Congress, with the privilege of debate; continued over under the new Constitution, just as they existed under the articles of confederation. No mention was made of them. The force of what I have said will become more striking from an illustration. Suppose we should all become convinced that Texas had been unconstitutionally admitted into the Union; would we think of dispelling her? Surely not. Would we think of altering the Constitution s j as to legalize the act? Not at all. Although convention should be actually in session, with competent authority to ratify the act, a proposition for that purpose would be laid on the tabic as nugatory. And such a course would not be yielding to the force of mere precedent, but to the force of circumstances: an irreversable condition of things. Thus will be seen the situation of the framers of the Constitution in relation to the territorial possessions. And if we will endeavor to realize their situation, we shall find no difficulty in realizing how they reasoned. Now, from the ownership of a colony there followed, as a matter of course, the right to make all laws "necessary and proper', to a colonial possession. The fact of ownership imposed upon Congress the task of government. There was no need of any grant of " - - * -1 -_ power. And this is in conformity wiin uic whole method of the Constitution, which is to indicate the subject of power; without pretending to specify or enumerate what laws Congress may make upon the subject. They are only required to be necessary and appropriate laws. The convention did not, in fact, expressly create any power. It was thought sufficient that Congress had undoubted possession of the subject. I admit, as J have long since been convinced, that the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the territory regards the territory simply as property, But it will be asked, why this minor powei was expressed? Because a portion of the the territory lay within the jurisdiction ol sovereign States, and the State might, upor the pretext of eminent domain, claim a pow er paramount to that of the owners, and, a? the organized districts were shortly to become States, and there was in that event danger of the same pretence being set by them, the power was expressed in general terms. The expression of this power, therefore, was to effect an unequivocal exclusion of any State power, as my friend from Virginia (Vlr. B.) has properly argued. This provision of the Constitution is, strictly speaking, a prohibition upon the States. Let me not be misunderstood. The colonial powers of Congress should conform to the liberal principles of colonization that characterizes the age, and should be in the strict subordination to our own Constitution. The United States,the parent country,should mark out and fix the boundaries of the region to be colonized, establish the unity and indivisibility of the inhabitants within those limits, provide for them a charter of govern, ment or organic law, therein disabling them to do anything in derogation of the ricrlit* and privileges of the people of the United I states, and with this leave them to manage ^ what might be properly and strictly their own 1 in enidi v.. M Such is the provincial ' system of enlightened nations; i Congress ought to have done, and is precW. i ly what it did do, from the first. , But I am here met by my friend from Virginia (iMr. Baily.) with the maxim, dele, gatus non delegare; a delegate cannot dele, gate his powers to another. The application is, that if Congress have authority to legis. late for the districts, it cannot transfer that power to the district itself. He wholly mis. conceives the spirit of the maxim. It amounts to nothing more than that a mem. bcr of Congress cannot appoint his proxy, or that Congress could not disperse, leaving as a substitute another body of men to take its place. It does not mean that we could not appoint subordinate instruments to act in a different sphere from ourselves. If it did, then would the charter given to the city of Washington, and every other such chart, er, be null and void, and mayor and a'der. men would have to be appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, as United States officers. The maxim in question is one of self-government, and trans, ferring to the territorial districts the right to be governed by delegates of their own choice we would be carrying out the maxim instead of violating it. We are not their delegates. To be concluded next week. From Godey'a Book. And here is a sweet domestic picture, two portraits in one frame, from the pen of Richard Coo, Jr.?Ed. Godey's BookOCR LITTLE BOY. When the evening shadows gather Round about her quiet hearth, Comes our eldest born unto us, Bending humbly to the earth! And wilh hands onclaspcd above, This prayer he offers nightly To the Source of light and lovo: "Bless my parents, Oh! my Father! Bless my little sister dear; While I gently take my slumber, Be thy guardian angels near! Should no morning's dawn e'er greet me, Beaming brightly from the skies, Thine the eye of love to meet me In the paths of Paradise!" Now a glad "good night" he gives us, And ho seals it wilh a kiss; Naught of earthly sorrow grioves us In an hour full of bliss! Now our arms about him wreathing, One fond kiss before ho sleep; Soon wo hear his gentle breathing In a slumber calm and deep. OUR LITTLE GIRL. Our lender babe! our bright eyed one! Our youngest darling joy, We tench, at evening hour to kneel Beside our little boy; And though she cannot lisp a word Nor breathe a simple prayer, Wo know her Maker blesseth her Tlio while she kneeletli there. And, oh! wc leve our little one, So artloRS and so pure; She hath so many winning way* Our fondness to sccuic; And while she thus in silence kneels, Some angel-prompted lone, Unheard by us, may mingle with The prayer to Mercy's throne! And she, too fondly comes to us With eyes of sparkling bliss, And, like her brother, she receives A good-night, parting kiss. Nor aught of fear disturbs our breast The while to sleep she's givon, For such as she will ever find Tho guardianship of Heaven! From the Philadelphia Sun, 8th inst. Tremendous Excitement Relative to Slaves. ?On Saturday afternoon there was a tremendou?excifement on the wharffrom Walnutstreet to Dock in consequence of a few ultra abolitionists endeavoring to rescue a family of slaves, from their masters. It appears that a French gentleman and family set sail from Barbadoes, some time ago, to take a tour through the United States, doubtless having heard that it was j decidedly a great country. After a pleasant _! passage they arrived in New York, and proceedeed southard. On Saturday they arrived in the New York line at Walnut street wharf, and the news of their coming having been made known to a few individuals of this city, there was seemingly a sort of spontaneous gathering of about three hundred ofthe colored population, from ebony to bright mulatto. Several ultra abolitionists mingled in the crowd, , and urged the free colored folks on to deeds of violence. Several attempts were made to rescue the slaves from the police, into whose custody they had been given for protection against j the assaults of an excited crowd. The slaves clung to the police, and begged not to be 6ep. arated from their master. One of them, a fc male, cried the louder, as the attempts were made the stronger to keep her from going on ! board the steam boat nt Dock street whaif. f j The police used their maces to a considers I hie extent over the heads ot about a dozen 01 the colored leaders, which seemed to quiet them i Rome what. All at once the crowd became calm. About five hundred of all colors had by this timo assembled on the wharf. Some of the colored men got on board the steam boat, and in the French language en* deavored to persuade the slaves to come ashore. They adopted all sorts of means to get their ends answered, but all in vain. The slaves clung to their master, one and all, and wept bitterly at the thought of separation from him. Finally the last bell tapped, and the captain ordered the linea to be cast off. Now came the rush. Cries of "stop the boat,"?"don't let them go;" and mingled with curses, skipped with all the speed olthe Magnetic Telegraph, from lip to lip. The police, about a dozen strong, kept the feverish crowd back, and one or two personal encounters took place. A large colored man, having on his head a "rocky moun lain beaver," seemed to be conspicuous. He received about halfa dozen well directed blows over his head, about as hard as the police officer could let drive, before he desisted. The boat finally left the wharf, much to the apparent delight of the slaves, and the chagrin of the major part of the crowd. Such a scene has seldom been witnessed in this section of the country, and the probability is that the owner of the slaves, not understandingthe English language, ffd&J^.nsiderably surprised at this demonstrasome of the coIbre>a~tw?JjXACon ve rsation with wharf, wo learned that they weredecI^C&Tj-wf*-?___ posed to the movements of the abolitionists in the above case, and some of them would have been willing to have exchanged situations with slaves from Barbadoes. We understand that the French gentleman is rich, and entertains much affection for them; they having been brought up from infancy almost under his own eye. Several persons will probably be arrested to-day on the charge of inciting to riot. Whiting Paper.?I have been asked the derivation and application of the term cap papcr. Cap, as applied to paper, is of modern use entir ely, at least to certain parts of the United Slates. Not more than thirty years since I was so familiar with the phrase Foolscap, that I distinctly recollected how 'cap,' its abbreviation, grated on my ear, upon 6rst hearing it, as much as 'pike' for turnpike does yet. The question is thus shifted to what is the origin of the phrase foolscap, as applied to wri. ting paper, which has home the name so long, that its origin is lost to most persons. The Kings of England, from Edward 1., if not earlier, granted various monopolies, either for the support of government, or to enrich favorites. One of these was the exclusive right* to manufacture paper, granted by the first Charles. On the finer kinds was a species of notice of the monopoly, the royal arms of England forming the water mark. Vast sums were of course made from this exclusive privilege to make and vend an article in such general use. All these monopolies were swept away by the Parliament which brought Charles to the scaffo'd, and in this peculiar case, by way of show. as they bad already been from the sign posts, public halls, &c., substituting a fool, with a cap and bells, as the effigy. This was done in 1649. Most of the manuscript written between that period and 1660. bear, accordingly, as a water mark, a fool wearing the dress described as his costume in the court of the British monarch. Cromwell, when made Lord Protector, changed the water mark by substituting a dragon grasping in his claws arrows of fire, and afterwards putting his coat of arms in its place. This still occasionally appears. Charles II., at the restoration, replaced the royal arms, and enlarged the size of the sheet, which was much smaller than we see in mou. em days. In England, paper of the size which the rump Parliament ordered for their journals, wearing the foolscap effigy, is still retained for ordinary writing paper, centuries after the reason for it has eeased, and now serves as it will serve (or ages, to designate all writing paper in ordinary use, as distinguished from paper designed to be folded in the form of letters. This la<t clas of writing paper has been reduced greatly, and widened somewhat to adapt it for a convenient shape in folding, and still bears its original name of post paper, applied to it from the mail or post by which letters were conveyed to their address. So recently has the United States made its own paper, that most of our early letters, written in the West, even as late as 1800 bear the Impress of royal arms. St* Clair, Hamer, Wilkinson and Wayne's letters are all of this description.?Cist's Advertiser. The chief organ of the Barnburners, the N. Y. Post, says "the free States have the wealth, the votes, the virtue, tho intelligence and the enterprise of the country." This mo<fcot.Tho oWieor goes on as follows to say what they intend to do with all this justice: "We tell our brethren of the South, that' the die is cast. The doom ofslavery west of the Rio Grande is forever sealed?the last act of the United States Senate in favor of this insti. tution has been passed. The question now comes to the people?what they hare Jong petitioned Congress to do?what their legislatures have long instructed to do, it now falls to their lot to act upon themselves. The ballot box in November will tell the tale. The three hundred thousand slaveholders, negroes and all can make more resistance to the North at the ballot box, than Louis Philippe and all bis minions and gold could make to the indignant people of Paris." Mr. Adams and Gen. Taylor.?-The North Carolina Repister contains a letter from the' H on. Thus. L. Clingman, in which he states that the late John Quincy Adams was fa. vorablc to the nomination and election of Gen. Taylor. Strangely enough, Mr. Clingman publishes this leter as an argument for his support by Southern men. The longest day in Great Britain, is two hours and twelve minutes longer, than the Ion* gost day in the United States; and the shortest day in the United States is one hour and fifty minutes longer than the shortest day in Great Britain. 1 Wisconsin extends from Lake Michigan t0 the Lako of the Woods?a distance oflOOO p miles. Dividing this whole territory into two i equal parts, each part would be as large as the State of New York.