North Branch democrat. (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, August 12, 1863, Image 1
>IH—UII mi mm -in v in in" ■uiiiiim n ■■■ IMMMMIIIM ■ ■ "' - (The Sinrfli Stanch Hcinntr.il. Z&Z Ar.VEY BIOKI JER, Proprietor.] NEW SERIES, gurHj ftamtjr pmactai A weekly Dcm^ Term*—l copy 1 year, (in advance) 51.50. If not pain within six months, $2.00 will be charged ADVEnTISINTG. 10 lines ort ( 1 1 i 1 less, make three \' Jour ! two .three i six ; one one square iceek.i^weekslmo' th' mo'Ui mo'th year 1 Square 1,00 1,25? 2,25 ; 2,8"! 3.0o! 5,00 2 do. 2,01) 2.50; 3,255 350 4,50 6,00 3 do. 3,00 i 3,75? 4,75? 5,50j 7,00? 9,00 J Column. 4,00| I do. 6.00! 7,00! 10,00; 12.00? 17.00; 25.00 I do. 8,00; 9,50; 14,00? 18,00?25,00?35,00 1 do. 10,00? 12,00? 17.00' 2*2,00? 28,1X1' 40,00 Business Cards of one square, with paper, 85. JOB WORK of all kinds neatly executed, and at prices to suit the times. fusiness fiotirrs. BACON STAND.—Nicholson, Pa. C. L JACKSON, Proprietor. fvln49tf] HS. COOPER, PHYSICIAN & St* I!GEON • Newton Centre, Ltiserne County Pa. GEO. S. TtJTTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW. Tunkhaimock, Pa. Offioe in Stark's Brick Block, Tioga street. WM. M. PIATT. ATTORNEY AT LAW? Of fice in Stark's Brick Block, Tioga St., Tunk hannoek, Pa. 1' ITTI.E At HEWITT. ATTORNEY'S AT J LAM*, Office on Tioga street, Tunkhannock, Pa. 11. R. LITTLE. j. r>fcvriTT. JV. SMITH, M. D, PHYSICIAN A SURGEON, • Office on Bridge Street., next dvor tto the Pcrno ornt Office, Tunkhannock, Pa. HARVEY SICK LEU, ATTORNEYAT LAW and GENERAL INSURANCE AGENT - Of- Bridge street, opposite Wall's Hotel, Tunkhan tiock Pa. DR. J. C. CORSE LUIS*. HAVING LOCAT ED AT THE FALLS, WILL promptly attend aJ! calls in the line of his profession—may be found st Beemer's Hotel, when not professionally absent Falls, Oct. 10, IS6I. DII. J A RECKKTTA <7777, PHYSICIANS Si SURGEONS, Would respectfully announce to (be citizens of Wy cfcifgiAiutthey have located at Tunkhannock wh'er hey will promptly attend to all ca lls in the line of neii profession. May be found at his Drug Staro when not professionally absent. JM. CAREY, M, I>. (Graduate of the ;q • M. Institute, Cincinnati) would respectfully announce to tbe citizens of Wyoming and Luzerne Counties, that be c .ntinues hi regularpractice in the various departments of bis profession. May be found •t his office or residence, when not professionally ab ed Particular attention given to the treatment Chronic Dlseas entrtuoreland, Wyoming Co. Pa.—v2n2 WALL'S HOTEL," LATE AMERICAN HOUSE, TUNKHANNOCK, WYOMING CO., PA. THIS establishment uas recently been refitted and furnished in the latest style Every attention will be given to the comfort and convenience of those who patronize the House. T. B. WALL, Owner and Proprietor. Tunkhannock, September 11, 1861. NORTH BRANCH HOTEL, MESHOPPEN, WYOMING UOUNTY, PA Wm. 11. CORTRIGHT, Prop'r HAVING resumed the proprietorship of the above Htel, the undersigned will spare no effort to render the house an agreeable place ot sojourn for all who may favor it with their custom. Win. H. CCRTRIHHT. June, 3rd, 1863 MAYNABD'S HOTEL, TU NK r IANNOCK, WYOMING COUNTY, PENNA. JOHN NAYNARD, Proprietor. HAY TNG taken the Hotel, in the Borough of Tunkhannock, recently ocoupied by Riley .Warner, the proprietor respectfully solicits a share ot public patronage. The House has been thoroughly Repaired, and the comforts and accomodations of a irst class Hotel, will be found by all who may favor t with their custom. September 11, 1861. M. OILMAN, MGILMAN, has permanently located in Tunk • bannock Borough, and respectfully tenders bis jprofdwional services to the citizens of this place and urroun.ling country. rsori on WARRANTED, TO GIVE SATIS- OffLf*" 01566 OT6r Tutton ' B L * w offio *T Bear the Tos Dec. 11, 1861. Blanks!! Blanks : J! BLANK DEEDS SUMMONSES SUBPCENAES EXECUTIONS - -CONSTABLE'S SALES ~^ Uat *r i ' 8 :. CSn,ab, * ,8 > aDd ,e * al Blanks of all j Statly and Correctly printed on good Paper, ®em£m %ttheoffice of th ® " North Branch L"for satoit i ARMKRS ' AS A FERTILIZE xXSLL* VEKKOI " S F G . rou ° d fixator in Q,uantitie§ t prices to suit purchasers, now for sale a •esheppen ny y> Mlrimr J* BI"RLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. ! BY JOHN H. HOPKINS. Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont (Continued.) Of course, they sympathize warmly with the poor, opprsst-c 1 African, and are gener ously excited to hate 'he system of slavery with all their heart. Then the eloquent preacher chooses it for the favorite topic of his oratory. The theine is well adopted to rouse the feelings, and it is usually by no means difficult to interest and gratify the audiance, when the supposed sins of others, which they are under no temptation to com mit, are made the object of censure. In due time, when the public mind is sufficiently heated, the politician lays hold of the sub ject, and makes the anti slavery movement the watchword of part}'. And finally the Press follows in the wake of the leaders, and the fire is industriously fanned unt.l it be comes a perfect blaze; while tho admiring throng surround it with exultation, and fan cy its lurid light to be from heaven, until the flames begin to threaten their own secur ity. Such has been the perilous course of our Northern sentiment on the subject of slave ry. The great majority, in every communi ty, are the creatures of habit, of association and of impulse, and every allowance should he made for those errors which aro commit ted in ignorance, under a generous sympa thy for what they suppose to be the rights of man. I can not, however, make the same apology for those who aro professedly pledg ed to understand and inculcate the doctrines of the Bible. On that class of our public in structors, the present perilous crisis of the nation casts a fearful responsibility. Sol emnly hound by their sacred office to preach the Word of God, and to follow Christ and his apostles, as the heralds of " peace and goodwill to men,'" they seem to me strangely regardless, on this important subject, of their highest obligations, But it is me to judge them. To their own Master, let them stand or fall. I have promised, however, to notico the various objections which have been raised in the popular mind to the institution of South ern slavery, and to these I shall now pro ceed. Birston this list stand the propositions of the far famed Declaration of Independence, ''thai all men a:e ceated equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These statements are here called self-evi dent truths. But with due respect to the celebratek names which are appended to thi3 document, I have never been able to cjmprehcnd that they are " truths" at all. In what respect are men u created equal," when every thoughtful person must be sens ible that they are brought into the world with all imaginable difference in bod}-, in mind, and in every characteristic of their so cial position ? Notwithstanding mankind have all descended from one common parent, yet we see them divided into distinct races, so strongly marked, that infidel philoso phers insist on the impossibility of their hav ing the same ancestry. Where is the equal ity in body between the child born, with the hereditary taint ofscorfula or consumption, and the infant filled with health and vigor? Where is the equality in mind between one who is endowed with talent and genius, and another whose intellect borders on idiocy ? Where is the equality in social position be tween the son of the Esquimaux or Hotten tot, and the heir of the American statesman or British peer 1 Neither am I able to admit that all men are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because it i 3 manifest that since " sin enter ed into the world and death by sin," they are all alienated , forfeited and lost, through the consequences of transgressi on. Life is alienated not only by the sentence of the law, but by innumerable forms of violence and accident. Liberty is alienated not only by imbrisonment, but by the irresistible re straints of social bondage to the will, the temper, the prejudices, the customs, or the interests of others ; so that there is hardly an individual to be found, even in the most favored community, who has really the liber ty of word and action so confidently assert ed as the unalienable right of all men. And as regards tne " pursuit of happiness," alas ! what multitudes alienate their right to it, boyond recovery, not only in the cells of the penitentiary, but in the reckless indulgence of their appetites and passions, in the dis gust arising from ill chosen conjugal rela tions, in their associations with the profligate and the vile, in the pain and suffering of sickness and poverty as the results of vice, in the ruin of the gambler, the delirium of the drunkard, the despair of the suicide, and in every other form of moral contamination ! Jf it be said, however, that the equality and unalienable rights of all men, so strong ly asserted by this famous Declaration, are only to be taken in a political sense, I am willing to concede that this piay bo the prop er interpretaion of its intended meaning, but I can sot Bee how it removes the difficulty. This statement is that " all meo arc created equal," and that " the CREATOR has endow ed them with these unalienable rights,"— Certainly if the authors of this celebrated "TO SPEAK HIS THOUGTS IS EVERY FREEMAN'S RIGHT. "—Thomas Jefferson. TUNKHANNOCK, PA., WEDNESDAY, AUG. 12 1863. document designed to speak only of political rights and political equality, they should not have thus referred them to the act of creation, because it is perfectly obvious that., since the beginning of human government men have been created with all imaginable inequanlity, under slavery, under despotism , under aristocracy, under limited monarchy, under every imaginable form of political strife and political oppression. In no respect whatever, that I can discover, has the Al mighty sent our race into the world with these imaginary rights, and this fanciful equality. In his sight the whole world is sinful, rebellious, and lying under the just condemnation of his violated laws. Our original rights, whatever they might have been, are all forfeited and gone. And since the fall, mankind have no lights to claim at the hand of the Creator. Our whole depend ence is on his mercy and compassion. And be dispenses these according to his sover eign will and pleasure, on no system of equal ity that any human eye can discover, and yet, as every Christian must believe, on the eternal principles of perfect benevolence, in union with impartial justice, and boundless knowledge, and wisdom that can not err. Where, then, I ask, did the authors of the Declaration of Independence And their war rant for such a statement ? It wa6 proba bly jcdicious enough to call their proposi tions " self evident truths," because it seems manifest that no man can prove them. To estimate aright the vast diversity among the races of mankind, we may begin with our own, the highly privileged Anglo-Saxon, which now stands at the head, although our ancestors were heathen barbarians only two thousand years ago; From this we may go down the descending scalo through the Turks, the Chinese; the Tartars, the Japa nese, tho Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Indi an tribes, the Laplanders, the Ahyssinians, the Africans, and how is it possible to imag ine tnat God has made them all equal ! As truly might it be said that all the trees of the forest are equal—that all the moun tains, and seas, and rivers are equal—that all the beasts of the fields are equal—that all the birds of the air are equal. The Gets rather establish tho very contrary. The Deity seems to take pleasure in exhibiting a marvelous wealth of power through the rich variety of all his works, so that no two indi viduals of any species can be found in all re spects alike. And hence we behold a grand system of order and GRADATION, from tho thrones, dominions, principalities and pow ers in heavenly places, rank below rank, to man. And then wo aea the same system throughout our earth displayed in the varie ty of races, some higher, some tower in the scale in the variety of governments, from purr despotism to pure democracy— in the variety of privilege and power among the subjects of each government, some being born to commanding authority and influence, while others are destined to submit and obey. Again, we behold the system contin ued in the animal creation, from the lordly lion down to the timid mole, from the eagle to the humming bird, from the monsters ol the deep to the sea-star in its shell. The same plan meets us in the insect tribes. Some swift and powerful, others Blow and weak, some marshaled into a regular govern ment—monarchy in the bee-hive, aristocracy in the ant-hill, while others, like the flies, havo no government at all. And in perfect harmony with this divine arrangement, the inanimate creation presents us with the same vast variety. The canopy of heaven is studded with orbs of light, all differing in magnitude, all differing in radience, and all yielding to the sovereign splendor of the sun. The earth is clothed with the most profuse diversity of vegetation, frcm the lofty palm down to the humble moss. The miueral kingdom shines with gold, silver, iron, cop per, and precious stones, in all conceivable forms and colors. From the mammoth cave down to the minutest crystal—from moun tains of granite down to the sand upon the shore, all is varied, multiform, unequal, yet each element has its specific use and beauty, and the grand aggregate unites in the sub lime bymn of praise to the wisdom, the good ness, and the stupendous resources .of that ineffable Power which produced the whole. This brief and most inadequate sketch of the order of creation may serve at least to show that the manifest inequality in the condition of mankind is no exception to the rule, but is sustained by all analogy. It is the will of God that it should be so, and no hu man sagacity or effort can prevent it. And the same principle exists in our political relations. We may talk as we please of our equality in political rights and privileges, but in point of fact, there is no such thing. Amongst the other civilized nations it is not even pretend ed. None of the great galaxy of European governments can have a better title to it than England, yet who would be 60 absurd as to claim political equality fn a land of monarchy, of hereditary nobles, of time-honored aristoc racy? The best approach to political cquali ty is confessedly iiere, and .here only. Yet even here, amidst the glories of our universal suffrage, where is it to be found ? Political equalitj , if it means any thing, must mean that every man enjoys the same right to pol itical office and honor ; because the policy of any government cousists iu its system of ad ministration, and hence it results, of necessi- ty, that those who can not possibly be ad mitted to share in this administration, hare no political equality with thoso who can— We do, indeed, say that the people arjt sov ereign. But every one knows, full well, that the comparative few who are qualified to take the lead, by talent, by education, by natural tact, and by a conjunction of favoring circum stances. are practically ''soveroign over thepeo pie. The man who carries a hod gives his vote for a candidate. The candidate himself can do no more so far as it concerns the mere form of the election. Are they therefore politically equal ? Who formed the party to which tho candi date belongs ? Who ruled the convention by which his name was put upon tho list ? Who arranged the orators for the occasion ? Who subsidized the Press ? Had the poor hodman any share in tho operation, any in fluence, any voice whatever ? No more than the hod which he carries. Can any human power ever manufacture a candidate out of him ? The notion would be preposterous Where then Is his political equality ? Even here, in our happy land of universal suffrage, how does it appear that all men are b >rn equal ?" Tho proposition is a sheer absurdi ty. All men are bora unequal , in body, in i mind, and social privileges. Their intellec tual factulties are unequal. Their education is unequal. Their associations are unequal. Their opportunities are unequal. And their freedom is as unreal as their equality. The poor are compelled to serve the rich, and tho rich are compelled to serve the poor by paying for their services. The political party is compelled to servo the leaders, and the leaders are compelled to scheme and toil, in order to serve tho party. The multitude are dependent on the few who are endowed with talents to govern. And the few are depen dent on the multitude for the power, with out which all government is impossible.— From the top to tho button of the social fab ric, the wholo is thus seen to bo inequality aud mutual dependence. And hence, al though they are free from that special kind of sluvery which the Southern States main tain ouer the posterity of Ham, yet they are all, from the highest to the lowest, in bond age quite as real, from which they can not escape—the slavenj of circumstances, called in the ordinary language of the world, NECES SITY. 1 have been, I fair, unreasonably tedious in thus endeavoring to show why I utterly discard these famous propositions of the Declaration of Independence. It is because lam aware of the strong hold which they have gaiued over the ordinary uiind of the nation. They are assumed by thousands upon thousands, as if they were tho very doc trines of divine truth. And they are made the basis cf the hostile feeling against the slavery of the South, notwithstanding their total want of rationality. Yet Ido not won der that such maxims should bo popular.— They are admirably calculated to gratify the pride and ambition so natural to the human heart, and are therefore powerful incentives in the work of political revolution. It was for this purpose, I presume, that they were introduced in that famous document, which publicly cast off the allegiance of the colonies to tho British crown. And the same doc trines were proclaimed a few years later, in a similar gervice, by the French Directory, in the midst of a far more terrible revolution.— Liberty, equality, and fraternity—the rights of man, were then the watchwords of the excited populace, while their insane leaders published the decree of Atheism, and a noto rious courtesan was enthroned as the goddess of reason, and the guillotine daily massacred the victims of democratic fury, till the streets of Paris ran with blood. I do not state this fact because I desire to place the revolutions in the Colonies and in Trance on the same foundation, with respect to the spirit or the mode in which they were conducted. God forbid that I should forget the marked features of contrast between them ! On tho one side, there was religious reverence, strong piety, and pure disinterest ed patriotism. On the other, there was the madness of atheism, the brutality of ruffian ism, and the "reign of terror" to all that was good and true. In no one mark or character, indeed, could I deem that there was any comparison between thera, save in thi3 : that the 3ame false assumption ot human equality and human rights was adopted in both. Yet how widely different was their result on the question of uegro slavery ! The American revolution produced no whatever on that institution ; while the French revolution roused the slaves of their colony in St. Do mingo to a general insurrection, and a scene of barbarous and cruel butchery succeeded, to which the history of the world contains no parallel. This brings me to the last remarks which I haee to present on this famous Declaration. And I respectfully ask my readers to consid er them maturely. First, then,it seems raanifes!, that when the signers of this document assumed that " nil men were born equal," they did not take the negro race into account at alt. It is unqnestionablo that the author, Mr. Jef ferson, vii a slaveholder at the time, and continuek so to his life's end. It is certain that the great majority of the other signers of the Declaration were slaveholders likewise No one can be ignorant of the fart that slav ery had been introduced into all the colo onies long before, and continued to exi st long after, in every State save one . Surely then it can not be presumed that these able and sagacious men intended to stultify them selves by declaring that tas negro race had risihts, which nevertheless they were not ready to give them. And yet, it i 3 dvident, that we must either impute this crying injus tice to our revolutionary patriots, or suppose that the case of the slaves was not contem plated. Nor is this a solitary example, for wc have a complete parlallel to it in the preamble to the Constitution, where the important phrase, " We, tho people of the United States," must be understood with the very same limitation. Who were the people ? Undoubtedly the free citizens who voted for tho Constitution. Were the slaves couuted as a part of that people ? By no means. Tho negro race had uo voice, no vete, no influence whafeve rin the matter. Thus, therefore, it seems per fectly plain that both these instruments must be understood acccordlng to the same rule of interpretation. Tho slaves were not included in the Declaration of Independence for the same reason precisely that they were not included amongst tho " people" who adopted the Constitution of the United States. Now it is the established maxiin of the law, that every written document must be understood according to the true intent of the parties when it was executed. The lan guage employed may be such that it admits of a different sense ; but there can be only on e just interpretation, and that is fired un alterably by the apparent meaning of its au thors at the time. On this ground alone, therefore, 1 respectfully contend that the Declaration of Independence has no claim whatever to be considered in the controversy of our day. I have stated, at some length, my reasous tor rejecting us famous proposi tions, as being totally fallacious and untena ble. But even if thjy were ever so "self evi dent," are capable of the most rigid demon stration, the rule of law uterly forbids us to appeal to them in a sense which they were not designed to bear. In the second place, however, it should be remembered that the Declaration of Indepen dence, whether true or false, whether it be interpreted legally or illegally forms no part of our present system. Asa great histori cal document, it stands, and must ever stand, prominent before the nations of the world.— But it was put forth more than seven years anterior to the Constitution. Its language was not adopted in that Constitution aud i t has uo place whatever in the obligatory law uf tho Uuited States. When our orators,our preachers, and our politicians, therefore, take its propositions about human rights and human equality, and set thetn up a3 tho su preme law, overruling the Constitution and the acts of Congress, which are the real law of the land, I can not wonder enough at the absurdity of the proceeding. And I doubt whether the annals of civilized mankind can furnish a stronger instance of unmitigated perversity. Thirdly, and lastly, I am utterly opposed to those popular propositions, not only be cause I hold them to be altogether fallacious and untrue, for the reasons already given, but further, because their tendency is in di rect contrariety to the precepts of the Gospel, and the highest interests of the individual man. For what is the unavoidable effect of this doctrine of human equality ? Is it not to nourish the spirit of pride, envy, and con tention ? To set the servant against the master, the poor against the rich, the weak against the strong, the ignorant against the educated? To loosen {ill the bonds and rela tions ofsociety, and reduce the whole duty ot subordination to the selfish cupidity of pe cuniary interest, without an atom of respect for age, for office, for law, for government, for Providence or for the word of God ? I do not deny, indeed, that this doctriue of equality is a doctrine of power to urge men forward in a constant struggle for advancement. its natural operation is to force the vast majority into a ceaseless coo test with their circumstances, each discon tented with his lot. so long as he sees any one else above him, and toiling with unceas ing effort to rise upon the social scale of wealth and importance as fa3t and as far as he can. Thera is no principle of stronger im pulse to stimulate ambition in every depart ment. Aud heuce arises its manitold influ ence on the business, the enterprise, the commerce, the manufactures the agriculture, the amusements, the fashions and the politi cal strifes of our Northern people, making them all restless, all aspiring, and all deter mined, impossible, to pass their rivals in the race of selfish emulation. But how doss it operate on the order, the stability, and the ultimate prosperity of the nation ? 11 JW doe 3it work on the steadfast administration ot justice, the honor and puri ty of our public officers, the quiet subordina tion of the various classes in the community, the fidelity and submission of domestics, the obedience of children, aud tho relations of family and home? Above all. how does it harmonize with the great doctrines of the Bible, that the Almighty Ruler appoints to I every man his lot on earth, and borumanfis him to he satisfied and thankful for his por -1 tion—that we must submit ourselves to thus ITEmvrs: fi1.30 PER, ATvrivrmwr who have the rule over us—that ire should obey the laws and honor the magistrates— that the powers that be are ordained Of God, and he that resisteth the power shall receive condemnation—that we may oof covet the property of others—that having food and' rai ment, we should he therewith content— that we must avoid strife, contention and railing accusations, and follow peace and charity, and good will, remembering that the service of Christ is the only perfect freedom, and that our true happiness depends not on the meas ure of our earthly wealth, on social equaltiy, on houor, our on or relative position in th# coimnuuity, but on the fulfillment of our per sonal duty according to our lot, in reliance on H is blessing ? I have no more to add, with respect to this most popular dogma of human equality, and shall therefore dismiss it, as fallacious in itself, and only mischievous in its tendency. As it is the stronghold of the ultra -abolition* ist, I have devoted a large space to its exami nation, aud trust that the conclusion is suffi ciently plain. Happily it forms no part of our Constitution or our laws. It never was intended to apply to the question of negro slavery. And it never can be so applied with* out. a tot ul perversion of its historical mean* ing. and an absolute contrariety to all tht facts of humanity, and the clear instruction of the Word of God. The next objection to the Slavery of tho Southern States, is its presumed cruelty , be cause the refractory slave is punished with corporal correction. But our Northern law allows the same in the case of children and apprentices. Such was the established sys tem in the army and the navy, until very ( atel>'. The whipping-post was a fixed insti tution in Eugland and Massachusetts, and its discipl ne was administered even to free citi* zeus during tho last century. Stripee, not exceeding forty, were appointed to offenders in Israel by diyine authority. The Saviour himself used a scourge of small cords when he drove the money-changers from the temple. Are our random philanthropists raoae mercl-s ful than Christ, and wiser than the Al mighty ? But it is said that the poor slaves are treated with barbarity and doubtless it may sometimes bs true, just as soldiers and sailors and e'en wives an 1 children, are shamefully abused amongst ourselves, in many instances. It i 3 evident however, that the system of slavery can not be specially liable to reproach on this score, because every motive of inter est us well as moral duty must be opposed to it. The owner of the horse and the ox rare ly treats his brute 3 with severity. Why should he 1 The animals are hrs property and he knows that they muct be kindly and carefuliy used, if he would derive advan tage from their labor. Much more mast the master of the slave be expected to treat bint with all fairness and affection, because here 'here are human feelings to be influenced, and if the serrant be not contented and attaohed, not only will he work unwillingly, but ha may be converted into an enemy and an area - ger. Wheu the master it a Christian, the principles of the Gospel, as laid down by St. Paul, will operate, of course, in favor of this slave. But even when these are wanting, tha' mo tives of interest and prudenoe remain.— And hence I can not doubt that ths examples of barbarity must be exceedingly lew, and ought to be regarded, not as the general rula' but as the rare exceptions. On the whole, indeed, I see no reason to deny the statute nt of our Southern friends, that their slaves are the happiest laborers in the wbrld. their wants are all provided for by their master* Their families are sure of a home and mainte nance for life. In sickness they are kindly nursed. In old age they are affectionately supported. They are relieved from allAmpe tv for the future. Their religious privileges are generously accorded to them. Their work is light. Their holidays are numerous. And hence the stroug affection which.they usual/ manifest toward their master, earnest longing which many, who were persuaded to become fugititives, have been known to ex press,that they might be able to return. The third objection is, that slavery mast be a sin, because it leads to iiunorcUity . Bat where is the evidence of this ? I dispute not against the probability and even the certain ty that there are instances of licentiousness enough among slave holders, just as there are amongst those who vilify them. It woald be a difficult if not an impossiba task, however, to prove that there is more imdictf'aljty amongst the slaves themselves than exiats amongst the lower class of freemen. In Sab bath-breaking, profane cursiog and swearing, drunkenness and quarrehng--.m brutal abuae of wives and children, in rowdyiam and ob scenity, in the vilest excesses of prostitution—to say nothing of organised bands of counterfeiters, thieves and burglsct —I doubt whether there arn not more offen ses against Christian morality committed in the single city of New-York thjm can he fount amongst th.) slave population of allibe fifteen States together. The fact would rather seem to be that the wholesome restraints of slevery, as a general rale, must be, to e greet eg ton* an effectual cheok upon the worst bind of Im morality. And therefore this charge, so often broguht against it, stands entirely unsupport ed either by positive proof or by retiqjßp probability. The fourth objection is sdvanoed bye mul- VHL.3, NO. ,1.