TERMS OF THE GLOBE.
Per annum in advance
Six months
Three months
A failure to notify a discontinuance at the expiration of
the term subscribed for wal be considered a new engagc
went.
TERMS OF Ai VERTiSINC;
Four lilies or
Oue square. (12 lines.)
Tiro squarer,.
Three squares,
Over three week and less than three months, ::;.) cents
per square for each insertion.
Six lines or less,
One square,
Two squares,....
Three squares,...
Four squares,.
italf a column,
One column
Professional and Busineas Cards not exceeding four lines,
one year, S 3 00
Administrators' and Ex,:ctstors' Notices,
Advertisements not marked with the number of inser
tions de;ired., will be continued till forbid and charged ac
cording to these terms.-
Utica , * t.
LETTER OF HON. A. H. STEP HENS
We publish below 'he letter recently writ
ten by the distinguished Georgian—Hon. A.
H. Stephens—in regard to the proceedings at
Charleston, and the policy of the Democratic
party, omitting only a few passages of minor
importance:
CRAWFORDSVILLE, GA., May 9, 1860
A State Convention should be called at an
early day—and that Convention should con
sider the whole subject calmly and dispas
sionately, with " the sober second thought,"
and determine whether to send a representa
tion to Richmond or to Baltimore. The cor
rect determination of this question, as I
view it, will depend upon another ; and that
is, whether the doctrine of non-intervention
by Congress with slavery in the Territories
ought to be adhered to or abandoned by the
South. This is a very grave and serious
question, and ought not to be decided rashly
or intemperately. No such small matters as
the promotion of this or that individual, how
ever worthy or unworthy, ought to enter into
its consideration. It is a great subject of
public policy, affecting the vast interests of
the present and the future. It may be un
necessary, and entirely useless, fur me to ob
trude my views upon this question, in ad
vance of the meeting of such Convention,
upon whom its decision may primarily de
volve. I cannot, however, comply with your
request without doing so, to a limited extent,
at least. This I shall do. In the first place,
then, I assume, as an unquestioned and un
questionable fact, that non-intervention as
stated, has been fur many years received, re
cognized, and acted upon, as the settled doc
trine of the South. By non-intervention, I
mean the principle that Congress shall pass
no law upon the subject of slavery in the Ter
ritories, either fur or against it in any way—
that they shall not interfere or act upon it at
all—or, in the express words of Mr. Calhoun,
the great Southern leader, that Congress shall
,` leave the whole subject where the Constitu
tion and the great principle of self-govern
ment place it." This has been eminently a
Southern doctrine. It was announced by Mr.
Calhoun, in his speech, in the Senate, on the
27th of June, 15.18; and after two years of
discussion, was adopted as the basis of the
adjustment finally made in 1850. It was the
demand of the South, put forth by the South,
and since its establishment has been again
and again affirmed and reaffirmed as the set
tled policy of the South, by party conventions
and State Legislatures, in every form that a
people can give authoritative expression to
their will and wishes. This cannot now be
,natter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly
fixed upon the record as the fact that the col
ony of Georgia was settled under the au
pices of Og!ethrope, or that the war of Amer
ican Revolution was fought in resistance to
the unjust claims of power on the part of the
British Parliament.
I refer to this matter of history connected
with the subject under consideration barely
as a starting point—to show how we stand in
relation to it. It is not a new question. It
Las been up before, and, whether rightly or
wrongly, it has been decided—decided and
settled just as the South asked that it should
be—not, however, without a great effort and
a prolonged struggle. The question now is,
shall the South abandon her own position in
that decision and settlement? This is the
question virtually presented by the action of
the seceders from the Charsleston Conven
tion, and the grounds upon which they based
their action. Or, stated in other words, it
amounts to this: Whether the Southern States,
after all that has taken place on the subject,
should now reverse their previous course, and
demand Congressional intervention for the
protection of slavery in the Territories, as a
condition of their remaining longer in the
Union. For I take it for granted that it
would be considered by all the most mis
chievous folly to make the demand unless we
intend to push the issue to its ultimate and
legitimate results. Shall the South, then,
make this demand of Congress, and when
made, in case of failure to obtain it, shall
she secede from the Union as a portion of her
delegates, (some under instructions and some
from their own free will,) seceded from the
Convention, on their failure to get it granted
there ?
Thus stands the naked question, as I un
derstand it, presented by the action of the se
ceders, in its full dimensions ; its length,
breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude.
It is presented, not to the Dernocralic party
alone ; it is true, a Convention of that party
may first act on it, but it is presented to the
country, to the whole people of the South, of
all parties. And men of all parties should
duly and timely consider it, for they may all
have to take sides on it, sooner or later.
It rises to importance high above any par
ty organization of the present day, and it
may, and ought to, if need be, sweep them
all from the board. My judgment is against
the demand. If it were a new question, pre-;
seated in its present light, for the first time,
my views upon it might be different -from
what they are.
The only cause of complaint I have heard
is, that non-intervention, as established in
1850, and carried out in 1854, is not under
stood at the North as it is at the South ; that
while we hold that, in leaving "the whole
subject where the Constitution and the great
principles of self-government place it," the
common Territories are to remain open for
settlement by Southern people, with their
slaveS until otherwise provided by a State
Constitution. The friends and supporters of
the same doctrine at the North maintain that
under it the people of an organiied Territory
can protect or exclude slave property before
the formation of a State Constitution. This
opinion, or construction of theirs, is what is
commonly dubbed "squatter sovereignty."—
Upon this point of difference in construction
of what are "the great principles of self-gov
_
i::-,•rtiva
..... ;
2a ?.
73/ 2 "
.
1 00
1 40
1 51
2 .20
3 months. 0 :nonths. 12 months.
50 ;3 00 C 5 00
... 3 00 500 700
.... 5 00 800 10 00
... 7 00 10 00 15 00
9 00 13 00
.12 00 16 00
ETD
20 00
$1 50
.1.1..
1 00
2 Ou
3 OU
WILLIAN LEWIS,
20 00
2-1- 00
50 00
VOL. XV,
ONE
ernment," under the Qonstitution of the Uni
ted States, a great deal has been said and
written.
We have heard it in the social circle, in the
forum, on the hustings, and in the halls of
legislation. The newspapers have literally
groaned with dissertions on it. Pamphlets
have been published fur and against the re
spective sides. Congress has spent months
in its discussion, and may spend as many
years as they have months, without arriving
at any more definite or satisfactory conclu
sion in relation to it than Milton's perplexed
spirits did upon the abstruse questions on
which they held such high and prolonged de
bate when they reasoned :
"Of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fate;
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute,
And found no end, in wandering manes lost."
It is not my purpose now to enter the list
of these disputants. My own opinions upon
the subject are known ; and it is equally
known 'that this difference of opinion, or con
struction, is no new thing in the history
of this subject. Those who - hold the doctrine
that the people of the Territories, according
to the great principle of self-government, un
der the Constitution of the United States, can
exclude slavery by Territorial law, and regu
late slave property as all property, held the
same views they now do, when we agreed
with them to stand on those terms. The fact
is also historical. The South held, that under
the Constitution the Terrritorial Legislatures
could not exclude slavery—that this required
act of sovereignty to do. Some gentlemen of
the North held, as they now do, that the Ter
ritorial Legislatures could control slave prop
erty as absolutely as they could any other
kind of property, and by a system of laws
could virtually exclude slavery from amongst
them, or prevent its introduction if they
choose.
That point of difference, it was agreed by
both sides, to leave to the courts to settle.—
There was no cheat, or swindle, or fraud, or
double-dealing in it. It was a fair, honorable
and constitutional adjustment of the differ
ence. No assertion or declaration by Con
gress, one way or the other, could have effec
ted the question in the least degree ; for if
the people, according to "the great principle
of self-government," under the Constitution,
have the right contended. for by those who
espouse that side of the argument, then Con
gress could not and cannot deprive them of
it. And if Congress did not -have, or does
not have, the power to exclude slavery from
a Territory, as those on our side contended and
still contend, they have not, then they could
not and did not confer it upon the Territorial
Legislatures. We of the South held that
Congress had not the power to exclude, and
could not delegate a power they did not pos
sess—also, that the people had not the power
to exclude under the Constitution, and, there
fore, the mutual agreement was to take the
subject out of Congress, and leave the ques
tion of the power of the people where the
Constitution had placed it—with the courts.
This is the whole of it. The question in dis
pute is a judicial one, and no act of Congress,
nor ony resolution of any party Convention
can in way affect it, unless we first abandon
the position of non-intervention by Con
gress.
But it seems exceedingly strange to me,
that the people of the Sofith should, at this
late day. begin to find fault with this North
ern construction, as it is termed—especially
since the decision of the Supreme Court, in
the case of Dyed Scott. In this connection, I
may be permitted to say that I have read,
with deep interest, the debates of the Charles
ton Convention, and particularly the able,
logical, and eloquent speech of Hon. Win. L.
Yancey, of Alabama. It was, decidedly, the
strongest argument I have seen on this side
of the question. But its p,..feateW power was
shown in its complete answer to itself. Nev
er did a man, with greater clearness, demon
strate that " squatter sovereignty," the bug
bear of the day, is not in the Kansas bill, all
that has been -said to the contrary notwith
standing. This, he put beyond the power of
refutation. But he stopped not there—he
went on, and by reference to the decision of
the Supreme Court alluded to, he showed con
clusively, in a most pointed and thrilling cli
max, that this most frightful doctrine could
not, by possibility, be in it, or in any other
Territorial bill—that it is a constitutional im
possibility. With the same master-hand he
showed that the doctrine of "squatter sover
eignty" is not in the Cincinnati platform ;
then, why should we of the South now com
plain of non-intervention, or ask a change of
platform ?
What else have we to do but to insist upon
our allies to stand to their agreement?—
Would it not have been much more natural
to look for flinching on their side than on
ours? Why should we desire or want any
other platform than that adopted at Cincin
nati? If those who stood with us on it, in
the contest of 1856, ail willing still to stand
on it, why should we not be equally willing ?
For my life I cannot see, unless we are de
termined to have a quarrel with the North
anyhow, on general account. If so, in behalf
of common sense, let us put it upon more ten
able ground ! These are abundant. For
our own character's sake, let us make it upon
the aggressive acts of our enemies, rather
any supposed shortcoming of our friends, who
have stood by us so steadfastly in so many
constitutional struggles. In the name of pa
triotism and honor, let us not make it upon a
point which may so directly subject us to the
charge of breach of plighted faith. Whatev
er may befal us, let us ever be found, by
friend or foe, as good as our word. These
are my views, frankly and earnestly given.
The great question then, is, shall we stand
by our principles, or shall we, cutting loose
from our moorings where we have been safe
ly anchored so many years, launch out again
into unknown seas, upon new and perilous
adventures, under the guide and pilotage of
those who prove themselves to have no more
fixedness of purpose or stability as to objects
or policy than the shifting winds by which
we shall be driven ? Let this question be de
cided by the Convention, and decided "with
that wisdom, coolness, and forecast which be
come statesmen and patriots. As for myself,
Ar. ref
I can say, whatever may be the•course of fu
ture events, my judgment in this crisis is,
that we should stand byour principles "through
woe" as well as " through weal," and main
tain them in good faith, now and always, if
need be, until they, we, and the Republic,
perish together in a common ruin. I see no
injury that can possibly arise to us from them
—not even if the constitutional impossibility
of their containing " squatter sovereignty"
did not exist, as has been conclusively demon
strated. For, if it did exist in them, and were
all that its most ardent advocates claim for it,
no serious practical (Luger to us could result
from it.
Even according to their doctrine, we have
the unrestricted right of expansion to the ex
tent of population. They hold that slavery
can and will go, under its operation, wher
ever the people want it. Squatters carried it
to Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama,
Mississippi and Arkansas, without any law
to protect it, and to Texas against a law pro
hibiting it, and they will carry to all coun
tries where climate, soil, production, and pop
ulation will allow. These are the natural
laws that will regulate it-urder non-interven
tion, according to their construction ; and no
act of Congress can carry it into any Territory
against these laws, any more than it could
make the rivers run to the mountains, instead
of the sea. If we have not enough of the right
sort of population to compete longer with the
North in the colonization of new Territories
and States, this deficiency can never be sup
plied by any such act of Congrress as that
now asked for. The attempt would be as
vain as that of Xerxes to control the waters
of the Hellespont by whipping them in his
rage.
The times, as you intimate, do indeed, por
tend evil. But I have no fears for the insti
tution of slavery, either in the Union or out
of it, if our people are but true to themselves
—true, stable, and loyal to fixed principles
and settled policy; and if they are not thus
true, I have little hope of anything good,
whether the present Union lasts or a new one
be formed. There is, in my judgment, noth
ing to fear from the " irrepressible conflict"
of which we hear so much. Slavery rests
upon great truths, which can never be suc
cessfully assailed by reason or argument. It
has grown stronger in the minds of men the
mcre it has been discussed, and it will still
;row stronger as the discussion proceeds and
time rolls on. Truth is omnipotent, and must
prevail. We have only to maintain the truth
with firmness, and wield it aright. Our sys
tem rests upon an impregnable basis, that
can and will defy all assaults from without.
My greatest apprehension is from causes with
in—there lies the greatest danger. We have
grown luxuriant in the exuberance of our well
-I)eing and unparalleled prosperity.
There is a tendency everywhere, not only
at the North, but at the South, to strife, dis
sension, disorder, and anarchy. It is against
this tendency that the sober-minded and re
flecting men everywhere should be called up
on to guard.
My opinion, then, is, that delegates ought
to be sent to the adjourned Convention at
Baltimore. The demand made at Charleston
by the seceders ought not to be insisted upon.
Harmony being restored on this point, a nom
ination can doubtless be made of some man
whom the party everywhere can support with
the same zeal and the same ardor with which
they entered and waged the contest in 1853,
when the same principles were involved.
If in this there be a failure, let the respon
sibility not rest upon us. Let there be no
cause for censure at our door. If in the end
the great national Democratic party—the
strong ligament which has so long bound and
held the Union together—shaped its policy,
and controlled its destinies, and to which we
have so often looked with a hope that seldom
failed, as the only party North on which to
rely in the most trying hours when constitu
tional rights were in peril, let it not be said
to us, in the midst of the disasters that may
ensue, "you did it I" In every and any event,
let not the reproach of Punic faith rest upon
your name. If everything else has to go
down let our untarnished honor at least sur
vive the wreck.
We copy the following leading article from
the Baltimore Patriot of the 19th, the promi
nent Opposition journal in Maryland, at pres
ent conducted with unusual ability :
MR. DOUGLAS' GREAT SPEECH.—Mr. Doug
las has eclipsed himself. Hitherto, in all his
efforts to make plain his doccrine of squatter
sovereignty, he has walked in a fog, and his
commentators after him, including even our
distinguished townsman, Reverdy Johnson.
They were all treading, as it were, upon ciia
eres dolosos, or, in the Western vernacular,
they were walking on eggs, and they held
their breath for fear of breaking some of them.
But since the Charleston Convention has
rudely smashed every egg in his pathway to
the Presidency, he has thrown away all pru
dential policy, torn the mask from his face,
and revealed himself in his true proportions
before the country.
We used to think Mr. Douglas was a dem
agogue, who would sell his country for gold ;
but not so now. His rebellion against the
slave-codists redeemed him in some measure
in our estimation as a statesman, but his con
tinuing to adhere to the political organiza
ion which sought to crush him, made him
seem to us a cringing politician still, that
thrift might follow fawning. We never
dreamed that he had it in his heart to war
upon the slave-codists from that stand-point,
with a solemn determination to crush them
out, or crush out the Democratic party. His
course, or rather the course of his friends in
the Charleston Convention, and his recent
great speech in the Senate house, have opened
our eyes very wide indeed, and we are now
prepared to accord to him a statesmanship
and a political integrity which his previous
.history had never been able to impress us
with. So true is it, that when a man throws
away the scabbard he- can always make a
better fight than with it—in other words,
when a man plants himself upon truth, and
in utter disregard of expediency, goes forth
to its defence—he is sure to rise up to
HUNTINGDON, PA., MAY 30, 1860.
A Significant Article.
-PERSEVERE.-
the true measure of his manhood and genius.
He has proved, beyond the possibility of
cavil, that he is not the author of squatter
sovereignty, but that General Cass is, and
that the Democratic party in the slave States
accepted it as the cardinal doctrine of Demo
cratic faith upon the subject of slavery, both
in the States and in the Territories. It is a
historical question, and he perfectly over
whelms his opponents by copious citations
from the printed records of the Democratic
party in the South. The tergiversations, too,
of the now slave-codists, he shows up with ir
resistible ridicule. Never, never have we
met with a speech delivered anywhere, in
which the unities have been so completely
preserved. He lays down all his propositions
with all the vigorous certainty that belongs
to a mathematician, and he goes on to his
demonstrations with the same rigor of argu
ment, leaving nothing to be inferred, and in
every case coming .out logically triumphant.
Ho has proved to the world that he and his
supporters are the sole representatives of the
Democracy that went into the Presidential
conflict of 1850, and came out victorious. lie
has established beyond a doubt, that squatter
sovereignty is Democracy, and Democracy
squatter sovereignty ; and in the demonstra
tion he is upheld by such meu as Governor
Hershel V. Johnson and Alexander 11. Ste
phens, of Georgia, and Mr. Speaker Orr, of
South Carolina, and others of their school,
who have not gone after the false gods of
slave-codism, and revival of the African slave
trade, and disunion.
Never before, in all previous contests, have
`the treasonable designs of disunion been made
to stick to the backs of the slave-code Democ
racy as Mr. Douglas has made them. He
states their principles in their own language,
and leaves them to the logical fate of those
principles, and that is, pure unmitigated dis
unionism. There is no escape from this Nes
sus' shirt.
The Democratic party proper, therefore,
according to Mr. Douglas, its recent chosen
leader and expounder at Charleston, by a clear
majority vote, is the exponent of squatter sov
eignty, or the right of the people in the
Territories of the United States to admit or
prohibit slavery, as they shall see fit to do,
without interference from the General Gov
ernment in any way. In other words, that
they are politically supreme, just as the people
of the States are, under the Constitution.
The bolters, on the other hand, from the
regular organization, are those who want to
make slavery a Federal institution, both in
the States and the Territories, to be protected
and preserved as such by law. With these
clear distinctions before the public, Mr. Doug
las patronizingly offers quarter to the dissen
ters, which they as scornfully reject. And
thus it is that the slavery-extensionists and
slave-codists are now compelled to accept
squatter sovereignty, which is certain death
to the further extension of slavery, because it
adjures all the power of Congress over the
subject, or to go out of the Union ! Whether
Mr. Douglas' gracious offer of quarter will
be accepted by the Richmond Convention or
not remains to be seen. If they arc consis
tent, they will spurn it, just as Jefferson Da
vis spurned it a day or two ago. It will then
be for the people at large to decide whether
they will have Douglas to be their " Majesty"
or not, as the Japanese called the President
the other day.
Who Shall be Nominated at Baltimore ?
Who shall be nominated fur President at
Baltimore, is a question as easily answered
as asked. If the delegates, when they as
semble on the 18th of June, in that city, are
governed by the choice of the rank and file
of the Democracy, they cannot hesitate to
nominate Stephen A. Douglas. The vote
which hereceived at Charleston proves beyond
a doubt that the people want him for their
standard bearer in the coming Presidential
contest; and why should they not be gratified?
His 1521 votes represent several thousand
more than two-thirds of the numerical strength
of the Democratic party; which, if any indi
cation at all, is conclusive to his popularity
with the masses. Why should he not be nom
inated ? There is no good reason against it.
He is acknowledged as an experienced and
able statesman, and conservative, and his De
mocracy is endorsed beyond question by the
strong support he received in the Convention.
He is the representative man of the party,
and stands a head and shoulders above all
his competitors. While the people are for
him, it is true that the politicians are against
him. So they were against Jackson, but the
popular feeling of the country overrode all
such puny opposition and placed him in pow
er in spite of it; and unless we are much mis
taken in coming events, such will be the case
with Mr. Douglas. We find that the opposi
tion made to his nomination is composed of
two elements, the federal office-holders and
hangers-on in the free States, and the avowed
disunionists men in the - South ; who appear cor
dially to fraternize to strike down the great
leader of the Democratic party. These men,
if we are to judge from their action, would
sooner seethe party destroyed, than that Doug
las should be elected. They not only unite
in the most bitter personal warfare upon him,
but join hands in advocating doctrine which
is a disgrace to the ago, and will ruin any
party which endorses it.
Now there are many reasons in favor of his
nomination at Baltimore, when the Conven
tion re-assembles at that place, but none
against. lie has a majority of the delegates
who represent two-thirds of the Democratic
vote of the Union. lle is strong all over the
North, and the conservative masses of the
South are with him. The minority asks him
to give way, but wherefore ? Our whole sys
tem of government is founded upon majori
ties, which ho has, and why should it not be
respected in this instance, and draw to him
the additional votes to make up two thirds?
The weaker has no precedent, nor right, for
asking the stronger party to give way ; if
either must yield, and one or the other will
have to, if a nomination is made, the former
must go under. As an argument against the
nomination of Douglas, his enemies say ho
cannot be elected. But why not, unless the
friends of other candidates go over to the Re-
Editor and Proprietor.
publicans ; which some of the leaders may do,
and we hope will, but none of the rank and
file will follow them. They expect the friends
of Douglas to support any one of their men if
nominated, and it would he treason not to do
it; wherefore then should they not du like
wise
Inlbis district we think the voice of the
people is fairly for Douglas, and believe, if
they had the power to do so, they would so
record it. Mr. Wilson, of Lehigh, cast his
vote for him at Charleston; and we feel as
sured that Mr. Vansant will represent his
constituents, if he does the same thing at Bal
timore, which we have every hope he will do.
The delegates are not self-constituted, but
are the representatives of the people, and in
Convention are supposed to do that which
carries out their will.—Doylestown Democrat.
Good Pluck
When the Southern fire-eaters bolted from
the Charleston convention, Mr. Claikmrn, of
Missouri, arose and is reported to have made
the following plucky speech :
" Gentlemen of the National Democratic
party of the United States—l am a slave
holder, and represent a slaveholding district
that has shed more blood for slavery than all
Alabama. I was sent to this Convention to
save the Union, and not trample it under foot.
The party that the whole country has rallied
around the last fifty years cannot be denation
alized even by the secession of delegates from
fifteen slaveholding States, from whom we
will appeal to the people. The contest for
the nomination has been a war waged by a cor
rupt administration and its office-holders to
strike down the Napoleon of America poli
tics. , I came here believing that the heart of
the people was throbbing more wildly for Doug
las than for any other living man ; and I
don't feel a d—d bit scared at this secession.
I did't mean to swear, I .mt hot weather, five
dollars a day, and disruption would make a
preacherswear. Let us emblazon on our ban
ner the name of Douglas, and it will give it a
new lustre.
Oliver Stevens, Esq., a delegate from Mas
sachusetts, immediately took the floor and
spoke as follows :
" I have come to the conclusion that the
secession to-day was a deep laid plot for the
defeat of Douglas. I say no more here than
I have said to my colleagues, that they who
oppose Douglas misrepresent Massachusetts.
I am willing to go home to my constituents
and present to them the record of my fidelity.
This whole thing of secession is but a ruse to
frighten the friends of Judge Douglas. All
we have to do is to go straight forward, in our
line of duty, and then we can stand before the
people.
Col. 'Wright of Pennsylvania, followed Mr.
Stevens and said:
"The day of concessions has gone by, and
we must now act with firmness and decision.
The North has yielded up to the South every
thing she can concede but her honor. When
it was charged upon us in the meetings of the
platform committee that we sympathized with
abolitionism, I hurled back their base insinua
tions. Two weeks' association with Southern
men at Washington, has convinced me that
Douglas will carry every Southern State, in
the teeth of secession from the National Dem
ocratic Convention by a band of fire-eating
fanatics, who represent minorities in the States
from which they came. The "Old Keystone
State" will give her vote to Stephen A. Doug
las by an immense majority. Throw out of
the Convention the federal office-holders, and
there would be but one voice, and that for
Douglas.
I Wish I Had a Capital."
So heard I great strapping young man ex
claim the other day. I did want to tell him
a piece of mind so bad. But I'll just write
it to him. You want a capital, do you?—
And suppose you had what you call capital,
what would you do with it ? You want cap
ital ! Haven't you got hands and feet, and
body and muscle, and bone, and brains ; and
don't you call them capital ? What more
capital did God give to anybody ? Oh ! but
they arc not money, say you. But they ark .
more than money. If you will use them
they will make money, and nobody can take
them from you. Don't you know how to use
them ? If you don't it is time you were
learning. Take hold of the first plow, or
hoe, or jack-plane, or broad-ax that you can
find, and go to work. Your capital will soon
yield you a large interest. Aye, but there's
the rub; you don't want to work, you want
money or credit that you may play the gen
tleman and speculate, and end in playing the
vagabond ; or you want a plantation and ne
grecs, that you may hire an overseeer to at
tend to them, while you run over the coun
try and dissipate, and get in debt ; or want
to marry some rich girl who may be foolish
enough to take you for your fine clothes and
good looks, that she may support you.
Shame upon you young man ! Go to work
with the capital you have, and you'll soon
make interest enough upon it, and with it, to
give you as much money as you want, and
make you feel like a man. If you can't make
money upon which capital you have, you
couldn't make it if you had a million of dol
lars in money. If you don't know how to use
bone and muscle and brains, you would not
know how to use gold. If you let the capital
you have lie idle and waste and rust out, it
would be the same thing with you if you had
gold; you would only know how to waste.
Then don't stand about like a great help
less
child, waiting for somebody to come in
and feed you, but go to work. Take the first
work you can find, no matter what it is, so
that you be sure to do it like Billy Gray did
his drumming—well. Yes, 'whatever you un
dertake, do it well ; always do your best. If
you manage the capital you already have, you
will soon have plenty more to manage ; but
if you can't or won't manage the capital God
has given you, you will never have any other
to manage. Do you bear, young man?
,0& - A good-looking young lady recently en
tered a dyer's shop, and thus accosted him:
"'lon are the man that dies are you not ?"
" No," replied the gallant, " I'm the man
that lives, but I'll die for you."
A mother teaching her child to pray, is an,
ject at once the most sublime and fender
iat the imagination can conceive. Elevated
above earthly things, she seems like one of .
those guardian angels, the comp - anions' . of our
earthly pilgrimage, through whose ministra-
tion we are incited to good and restrained
from evil. The image of the mother be - -
tomes associated in his mind with the invoca
tion she taught him to his " Father who is in
heaven." When the seductions of the world
assail his youthful mind, that well remem
bered prayer to his "Father who is in heav
en," will strengthen him to resist evil.=
When in riper years he mingles with man
kind and encounters fraud under the mask
of honesty ; when he sees confiding goodness
betrayed, generosity ridiculed as weakness;
unbridled hatred, and the coolness of inter
ested friendship, he may indeed be tempted
to despise his fellow-men ; but he will re
member his " Father who is in heaven."
NO. 49.
Should be, on the contra - q, abandon him:-
self to the world and allow the seed of self
love. to spring up and flourish in his heart, lie
will, notwithstanding, sometimes hear a warn
ing voice in the depths of his soul, severely
tender as those maternal lips which instruc
ted him to his " Father who is in heaven."
But when the trials of life are over, and he
may be extended on the bed of death, with
no other consolation but the peace of an ap
proving conscience, he will recall the scenes
of his infancy, the image of his mother, and
with tranquil confidence will resign his soul
to Him who died that we might live—the
Redeemer of the world.
How beautiful is that religion which teaches
me to love God above all things and my neigh
bor as myself I Religion is benevolence, and
benevolence includes every virtue. The be
nevolent can not be uncharitable, can not be
unfaithful, can not be censorious, can not be
impure in act or thought, can not be selfish ;
they love God and their neighbors, and they
do as they would be done by. But who is
religious ? who is benevolent ? who is at all
times free from censoriousness, from unchar
itableness ? None. No, not one. The pre
cepts taught us as those on which hang all
the law and prophets," the love of God and
the love of thy neighbor, may be impressed
upon the heart and have the whole undivided
assent of the understanding; while the mind
is in this state, the individual is religious.—
But the cares of the world and their jarring
collisions must at times occupy the thoughts,
and divert the mind from this wholesome
state. The passions which have been cher
ished by bad education—the indulgences that
have become habitual before the beauty of
wisdom was perceived by the thousand and
ten thousand occurrences which tempt the
rich to uncharitableness, and the poor to en
vy and malice, all by turns, banish the truth
from the mind. This has led men to the des
ert and to the monastery ; to become hermits
and monks. Truth becomes effective by fre
quent contemplation ; and the habitual recur,
rence of its precepts induces practice.
A sergent with about twenty-five soldiers
had been sent out some miles from Fort De
fiance, New Mexico, to guard some stock
which were sent to graze, when they found
that the party was surrounded by about four
hundred hostile Navajoe Indians. The brave
and skillful sergent took position on an emi
nence, and by a volley from the long shooting
rifles of his party at first drove off the sav
ages, who, however, soon rallied, and were
prepared to storm the small party on all sides.
The sergent, in taxing his brain fur an ex
pedient by which to convey intelligence of the
desperate peril in which his party Was placed,
took a single clog which had accompanied the
party, fastened to his collar a note written
with a pencil, informing the commander at
the fort of his situation, took a tin cup in
which he put some pebbles, which were con
fined with a piece of cloth over the top, fas
tened with a stringto the dog's tail, and start
ed the dog loose, knowing that he would in
his fright run to the fort. He dashed with
his greatest speed to Fort Defiance; the note
was discovered and read. Straightway a par
ty was sent to the rescue, and arrived just in
time to save the lives of the whole party.
One thing you will learn fast enough in
the world for it is potent in such teaching—.
that is, to be suspicious. Oh I cast from you
forever the hateful lesson. Men do not think
how much of true innocence they are laying
down, when they assume a clothing whose
texture is guile. Beware of this mock pro
tection ; for you can hardly use it without
practicing deceit. Ido not ask you to trust
always, but I would have you think well of
men until you find them otherwise. When
you are once deceived, either by an acted or
a spoken falsehood, trust that person no more.
I had once laid down to me as an axiom by
a very dear friend (and I am sosatisfied of the
precept's truth as to make it a rule of my life,)
that persons rarely suspect others except of
things which they are capable of doing them
selves. Yes I these shadows of doubting are
generally flung from some bad realities with
in. You are looking at your own image when
you see so much vileness in your neigdbor'a
face. How much better might not we our
selves become, if we used more largely to oth
ers that blessed charity which thinketh no
evil
HOME LIFE.-If home life is well ordered,
the children having, according to age, work
ing time, play time, books, games, and
household sympathies, they will love home,
and find pleasure there.
Give the little ones slates and pencils, and
encourage their attempts to make pictures.—
Drawing will amuse them when noisy plays
have lost their zest, or are unseasonable ; and
the art will be useful to them in after life.—
Have them read to each other stories and par
agraphs of your selection, and save the funny
things and the pleasant ones you see in pa
pers to read them at your leisure. You can
not imagine how much it will please them,
and how it well bind them to you. But choose
well for them ; for the impression made on
their minds now will last when the hills crum
ble. Have them sing together, and sing with
them, teaching them songs and hymns. Let
them sing all day—like the birds—at all
proper times. Have them mutually interes
ted in the same things—amusements and oc
cupations; having specified times for each, so
that their time will be orderly. Let them
work together in the garden—boys and girls
—both need out-of-door work. Together let
them enjoy their games, riddles, etc.—all
their plays, books, and work—while the pa,
rents' eyes direct and sympathize, and their
loud voices blend in loving accord.
,e,ErA cook expected company, and was at
a loss how to entertain her friends, Her mis
tress said : " Chloe, you must make an apoh
ogy." " Lal missus, how can I make it? I
got no apples, no eggs, no butter, no ritan,
to make it wid l"
A Beautiful Picture.
Genuine Religion
An Ingenious Advice
Suspicion