lewis™ EXTRA. LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE o F JAMES BUCHANAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. FELLOW-CITIZENS OF IHE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES :—Throughout the year since our last meeting, the country lias been eminently prosperous in all its material inter ests. The general health has been excellent, our li irvests have been al un iant, and plenty Bmiles throughout the land. Our commerce and manufactures have btea prosecuted with energy and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns,. In short, no nation in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period. Why is it, then, that discontent now so ex tensively prevails, and the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction? The long con tinued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery iu the Southern States has at length produced its natural effects. The different tections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by theFatlnrof his Country, when hostile geo graphical parties have been formed. 1 have long foreseen and often forewarned my country meu of the now impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part of Congress or the territorial legislatuies to ex clude slavery from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execu tion of the Fugitive Slave law. All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union, (as others have been,) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the reineJy. The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agita tion of tho slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century, has at length produced its malign influence upon the slaves, aud inspired them with vague notions of freedom. Hence a cense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to ap prehensions of servile insurrection. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and her children before the morning. Should this ap prehensioa of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of thcSouthern people, then disunion will become inevitable.—Self-pre servation is the first law of nature, and lias been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose ; aud no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other re-pects, can long continue, if the ne cessary const quence be to render the homes and firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitu ally aud hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such a Union must he severed.— It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet arrived ; and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations. But let us take warning in time, and remove the causa of danger. It canuot be denied that, for five and twenty years, the agitation at the North against slavery in the South, has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills, and in flammatory appeals, were circulated extensive ly throughout the South, of a character to ex cite the passions of the slaves ; and, in the lan guige ot General Jackson, "to stimulate them to insurrection, aud produce all the horrors of a servile war." This agitation has ever since beeu continued by the public press, by the pro ceedings of State and county conventions, and by abolitiou sermons and lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speech es on this never-ending subject; and appeals in pamphlet and other forms, endorsed by distin guished names, have been 6ent forth from this central point, and spread broadcast over the Union. How easy would it be for the American peo ple to settle the slavery question forever, and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country. They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States ever contended, is to be let alone, and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are re sponsible before God aud the world for the Elavery existing among them. For this, the people of the North are not more responsible, and have no more right to interfere, than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil. Upon their good sense and patriotic forbear ance I confess I still greatly rely. Without their aid, it is bej'ond the power of any Presi dent, no matter what may Le his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the States. Wisely limited and re strained as is his power, under our Constitu tion and laws, he alone can accomplish hut lit tle, for good or for evil, on such a momentous question. And this brings mo to observe that the elec tion of any one of our fellow-citizens to the cf fice ot President does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority, of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may probably never again occur, la order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Govern ment must be guilty of "a deliberate, palpa ble, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the Constitution. The late presi dential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy tkiß very Constitution? Keason, justice, a regard for the Constitution, all re quire that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous set on the part of the President elect before resorliDg to such a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President elect Lave been sufficient to jus tify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate des truction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the viry na ture of Iris office, audits high responsibilities, he must ntcessarly be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and com plicated concerns of this Government affords in itself a guarantee that he will not attempt any viola tion of a clear constitutional right. After all, he is no mote than the chief cxtcu'ive officer of the Government. His province is not to make, but to ex- cute, the laws; and it is a re markable fact in our history, that, notwith standing the repeated efforts of the ami slavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri Compromise,impairing in the slightest degree, the rights of the South to their property in t slaves. And it may also he observed, judging | from present indications, that no possibility exists of tLe passage of such an act, by a ma jority of both Houses, either ia the preseut or the next Congress Surely, under these cir cumstances, we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as never mas spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of evil may I never come, unless we shall rashly bring it j upon ourselves. i It is alleged as one cause for immediate ss j ces-ion that the Southern States are denied ; equal rights with the other States in the coui | moil Territories. But by what authority are | these dtnied? Not by Congress, which has j never passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from these Territories: and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property, their owners have a right to take them into the common Terri tories, and hold them there under the protee i tion of the Constitution. 80 far, then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything they have already doue, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for an imme diate dissolution of the Union. It is true that the territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d of February, 1800, passed in great haste an act, over the veto of the governor, declaring that slavery "is and shall be, forever prohibited in this Tciritory." Such an act, however, plainly violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely be declared void by the judicialy whenever it shall he presented in a legal form. Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Couitofthe United States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a ter ritorial legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the correct ness of this decision has been extensively im pugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts through out the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our highest constitu tional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could, invest a ierritorial legislature with power to annul the scrtd rights of prop erty. This power Congress is expressly for bidden by the Federal Constitution to ex ercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden by its own constitution to exercise it. It cannot be exercised in any State except by the people in their high est sovereign capacity when framing or amend ing their State constitution. In like manner, it can only he exercised by the people of a Ter ritory represented in a convention of delegates for the purpose of fsaming a constitution pre paratory to admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or 6hall not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign authoTity, and not of subordinate territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in the Territories be de stroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would depend, not upon the guarantees of the Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of au it responsible territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can not long influence auy considerable portion of our people, much less can it afford a good rea son for a dissolution of the Union. The most palpable violations of constitution al duty which have yet been committed consist iu the acts of different State legislatures to de feat the execution of the fugitive slave law. It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts, neither Congress nor any President can justiy be held responsible. Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution, they are therefore null and void. All the courts, both State and National, before whom the question has arisen, have from the beginuing declared the fugitive slave law to be constitutional The single exception is that of a State court in Wisconsin; and this has not only been reversed by the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validi ty of this law has beeu established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unauimity. It is founded upon an express provision of the Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one Stats to another shall be "deliv ered up" to their masters. Without this pro vision it is a well-known historical fact thatthe Constitution itself could never have been adopt ed by the Convention. Jn one form or other under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the fugitive slave law has beeu the law of the laud from the davs of Washington until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented, in which it will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enact ments of State legislatures. Should he fail in the performonce of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitu tion and laws, to the great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the Union. But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty ? This would be at war with every principle of justice and of Christian charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has beeen carried into execu tion in every contested case since the commence ment of the present administration ; though often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and inconvenience to the master, and with consid erable expense to the government. Let us trust that the State lsgislatures will repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for arty human power to save the Union. The Southern States, standing: on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North - Should it ba refused, thou the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peace ful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it Las been claimed within the last two years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union, in accordance with the Constitution, and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy, That as each became parties to the Union by the vote < f its own people assembled ia Conven tion, so any one < f them in ty retire from the Union in a similar uiauuer by the vote of such a convention. in order to justify secession as a constitution al nno dy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary asto ciatiou of States, to be dissolved ut pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States.— In this manner our thirty-three States may re solve themselves into as many petty, jarrine, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the t nion, without responsibility, whenever j any sudden excitenunt might impel them to | such a course. By this process a Union might i be entirely broken iuto fragments in a few I weeks, which cost our forefathers manv years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Fed eral Constitution. After it was framed, with the greatest deliberation and care, it was sub mitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, COHI p sed of the first men of the country. Its op ponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates main tained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle be tween the first intellects ot this or any other country, it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert, or even to intimate, that their efforts were all vain lal or, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing ar gument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would he endangered by the Constitution. The tiuth is, that it was not until many years afL-r the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met aud refuted by the conclusive argu ments of Gene.al Jacksou, who in his message of 16th January, 1833, transmitting the nulli fying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language: "The right of the people o a single State to absolye them selves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obliga tions, and hazard the liberty aud happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upou which the General Government is consti tuted aud to the objects which it was expressly formed to attain." It is not pretended that any clause in in the the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded upou iufer ence, not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign char acter of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like au iudividval, to yield a portion of its sovereign right to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madisou, who has been called thefather of the Constitution : "It was formed by the States—that is, by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sov ereign capacity ; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the State constitution." " Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a Gov ernment iu the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are, within tbeir several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and ju diciary departments. It operates, like them, directly on persons and things ; and, like them it has at command a physical force for execu ting the powers committed to it. It was intended to he perpetuated, and not to he annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old articles of con federation were entitled "Articles of Confeder ation and Perpetual Union between the States;" and by the 13 th article it is expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Uuion shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution ot the United States, having express reference to the articles of Confedera tion, recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect Union." And yet it is contended that this "more perfect Union" does not include the essential attribute of per petuity. But that the Union was designed to be per petual appeals conclusively from the nature aud extent of the powers conferred by the Constitu tion on the Federal Government. These pow ers embrace the very highest attributes of na tional sovereignty. They place both the sword and the purse under its control. Congress has power to make war, and to make peace; to raise and support aimies and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign governments. It is in vested with the power to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States. It is not necessary to enumer ate the other high powers which have been con ferred upon the Federal Government. In order to carry the enumerated powers into effect, Con gress possesses the exclusive right to lay and collect duties on imports, and in common with the States to lay and collect all other taxes. Bnt the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States from interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has, in strong prohibitory language, expressly declared that "no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money ; emit bills of credit ; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts ; pass any bill of attainder ex pott facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts."— Moreover, "without the consent of Congress, no State shall lay any imposts or duties on any imports or exports, except what may be abso lutely necessary lor executing its inspection laws;" and, if they exceed this amount, the excess shall belong to the United States. And "no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage; keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace ; enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power; or eDgage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such immi nent danger as will not admit of delay." In order still further to secure the uninter rupted exercise of these high powers against State interposition, it is provided "that this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all treaties made, or which shall be marie, un der the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be hound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligations of official duty, aud all senators and representatives of the United States, .all members of State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, "both of the United States and of the Eeveral States, shall be bound by oatli or affirmation to sup port this Constitution." In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution has established a perfect Gov ernment in all iis forms, Legislative, Execu tive, and Judicial; and this Government, to the extent of its powers, acts directly upon the individual citizens of every State, and exe cutes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this respect it diffeis entirely from the Government under the old Confederation, wnich was confined to making requisitions on I the States in their sovereign character. This left it in the discretion of each whether to c bey or to r- fuse, and they often declined to comply wsth such requisition-. It thus became nece through ut the State ot South Carolina, so far as the laws of the United Stat, s to secuie the administiation of justice by means of the Federal Judiciary are concerned. All the Federal officers within its limits, through whose agency alone these laws can be carried into execution, have already re signed. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney, or a marshal, in South Caro lina. In fact, the whole machinery of the Fed eral Government, necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among the pet pie, has been demolished ; and it would b,; difficult, if not impossible, to replace it. The only acts of Congress on the statute book, bearing upou this subject, are those of the 28th February, 1795, ami il l March, 1807. These authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that the marshal with hia/xJtw comituius is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the army and navy to aid him in performing this service, having first by Proclamation commanded the insurgents "to disperse and retire peaceably to tbeir respective abodes, within a limited time " This duty cannot by possibility be performed in a State where no judicial authority exists to issue pro cess, and where there is no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were 6uch an tffi cer, the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist him. The bare enumeration of these provisions prove how inadequate they are without further legislation to overcome a united opposition in a single State, not to speak of other States who may place themselves in a similar attitude.— Congress alone has power to decide whether the present laws can or cannot be amended so as to carry out more effectually the objects of the Constitution. The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws for the collection of the customs. The revenue still continues to be collected, as heretofore, at the custom house in Cliailestou; and should the collector unfortunately resign, a successor may be ap pointed to perform this duty. Then in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina. This has been pur chased for a tair equivalent, "by the consent of the legislature of the State,'' "lor the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals," &c., and over these the authority "to exercise exclusive legis lation" has been expressly granted by the Con stitution to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contin gency, the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the as sailants. Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the rela tions between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He Las been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independ ence of that State. This would be to invest a mere Executive officer with the power of re cognising the dissolution of the Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress the whole question in all its bearings. 'Jhe course of events is so rapidly hastening ffir watd, that the emergency may soon arise, when you may be called upon to decide the momc-n tons question whether you possess the power, by force ot arms, to compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express an opinion on this important subject. The question fairly stated is: Has the Consti tution delegated toCongrcss the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actuaMy withdrawn from the Confederacy ? If answered in the affirmative, it must he on the priuciple that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection 1 have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Cogress or to any other department of the Federal Govern ment. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the Constitution, that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress ; aud it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "oecwmy aud proper for carrying into ex ecution' any oue of these powers So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution It appears, from the proceedings of that body, that on the 31st of May, 1787 the clause "au thorizing an ex rtion of the force of the whole against a delinquent Siate" came up for con sideration. Mr. Madison op osed it in brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract hut a single sentence. lie observed: "The use of force against a Stale would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punish ment : and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all pre vious compacts by which it might be bound,' Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, a id was never again I believe pre sentui St on afterwards, on the Bth June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the sub ject, he said : "Any Government for the United States, formed tn the supposed practicability of tiring force against the unconstitutional pro ceedings of the Stabs, would prove asvisiora ry and fallacious as the'government of Con gre.-s, ' evidtntly meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation. Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asseited, that the power to make war against a State is at vatiance with the whole spit it and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State, how ate we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province, and govern it by despotic power ? In the nature of things we could not, by physical force, control the will of the people and compel them to elect senators aud representatives to Congress, and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition, aud required from the free citizens of a ftee State as a constituent member of the Confederacy. But, if possessed of this power, would ft be wise to exercise it under existing circumstau cs ? The object would doubtless be to pre rv the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it; but would banish all hope of its peaceable rocon struction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a v st amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation be tween the States impossible. In the mean time, who can foietell what would be the suf fering and privation of the people during its existence ? T he fact is, that our Uuion rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood i f its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the atTections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation ; hut the sword was not placed in their hands to preserve it by force. But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate, be fore they determine to destroy this, the grand est temple which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future The Union has already made us the most prosperous, and, ere long, will, if preserved, render us the most powerful nation on the face of the eatth. In every foreign re gion of tire globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pro nounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of our countrymen to swell witlr honest pride. Surely when we reach the brink of the yawn ing abyss, we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal plunge. By such a dread catastro phe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of despotism would enshroud the nations. Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost; but would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unlit fur self government. It is not every wrong—nay, it is not every grevious wrong—which can jnstify a resort to such a fearful alternative This ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despairing peo ple, after every other constitutional means of couciliatiou had been exhausted. We 6hould re.fkct that under this free government there is an incessant ebb and flow in public opinion. The slavery question, like everything human, will have its day. I firmly believe that it has already reached and passed the culminating point. But if, in the midst of the existing ex citement, the Union shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable. Congress can con tribute much to avert it by proposing and re commending to the Legislatures of the several States the remedy for existing evils, which the Constitution has itself provided for its own pre servation. This has beeti tried at different criti cal periods of our history, and always with eminent success. It is to be found in the fifth article providing for its own amendment.— Under this article amendments have been pro posed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and have been " ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States," and consequently become parts of the Constitution. To this process the country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of petition. To this we arc also indebted for the Bill of Rights which secures the people against any abuse of power by the Federal Government. Such were the apprehensions justly entertained by the friends of States rights at that period as to have ren dered it extremely doubtful whether the Con stitution could have long survived without these amendments. Again, the Constitution was amended by the same process after the election ot President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in February, 1803. 'This amendment was render ed necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers which had seriously threatened the existence of the Government during the pen dency of that election. The article for its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional ques tions like the present, which might arise be tween the governments of the States and that of the United States. This appaars from con temporaneous history. In this connection, I shall merely call atten tion to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature agaiost the strictures of several other State legislatures. These were mainly founded upon the protest of the Virginia legis lature against the "Allen and Sedition Acts," as "palpable aud alarming infractions of the Constitution." In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional remedies, and he referred to none other, to which the States were authori zed to resoit, on such occasions, be concludes by saying, "that the legislatures of the States might have made a direct representation to Congress with a view to obtaiu the rescinding of the two offensive acts, or they might have represented to their respective Senator in Con gress their wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanntory amendment to the Co nstitution, or two thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might, by an applica tion to Congress, have obtained a convention for the same object." This is the very course which I earnestly re commend in order to obtain an "explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the the subject slavery. This might originate with Con gress or the State Legislatures, as may be deem ed mcst advisable to attain the object. The explanatory amendment might be con fined to the final settlement of the true con struction of the Constitution on three special points: 1. An express recognition of the right property in slaves in the States where it now exists or may hereafter exist. 2 The duty of protecting this right in all the common territories throughout their ter ritorial existence, and until tiny shall be ad mitted as States into the Uniuu, with cr with out slavery, as their constitutions may pie sciibe. 8 A like recognition of the right of the master to have his 6lave, who h is escaped from one State to another, restored and "delivered up" to him, and of the validity of the fugitive slave law enacted for this purpose, together wiih a declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and aie consequently null and void. It may be objected that this constiuction of the Constitution has already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and what more ought to be required. The answer is, that a very large proportion of the people of the United States still contest the correctness of tliis decision, and never will cease fiom agitu tion and admit its binding force until clearly established by the people oi the several States in thtir sovereign character. Such an explana tory amendment would, it is believed, tuiever terminate the existing dissensions aud le.-tor o peace and harmony among the States It ought not to be doubted that such au ap p