ping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

We have certainly a right to construe an instrument made for the purpose of "establishing justice," which the Constitution of the United States professes to be, as much in accordance with justice, as the language of its provisions will possibly allow. What right have we to take it for granted, that in any of these republican states, a person may be held to service or labor, "under the laws thereof," except as the result of a contract, or of a "due process of law," enjoining the service or labor, as an equivalent for value received. Any other supposition, would attribute to the particular state, conduct, not only unjust but unconstitutional. On the natural construction of the language, the Constitution simply forbids the state to discharge the fugitive party from a certain obligation legally incurred in another state, and enjoins his delivery on the claim of the party to whom he is indebted. There is nothing in the language to distinguish the claim from an ordinary one of debt. If, then, the Constitution had forbidden the several states to discharge a debtor escaping from one state into another, and had enjoined each state to compel the payment of the debt, on claim of the party to whom it was due, where and how would the claim have been adjudicated? Certainly it must have been adjudicated in the jurisdiction where the debtor should be found residing, for the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. And it would have been necessary for the claimant to establish, before a jury, a fair bargain of quid pro quo, under and according to the laws of the state in which it was made, as well as the identity of the debtor. Hence manifestly the claimant in the case of a fugitive from service or labor, has no remedy under the Constitution, unless he can establish before a jury the indebtedness of the party claimed to have been holden to service or labor, in any state, under the laws thereof. It is not sufficient for him to prove that the laws of his state permit slavery. Slavery is unknown to the Constitution, which declares that no person "shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law."

But in practice, a very different construction has been put upon this clause of the Constitution. By the act of Congress of 1793, in relation to fugitives, &c., a citizen of one state may claim a citizen of another state as his slave, may

select his own magistrate, and having proved to the satisfaction of that magistrate, that the person so claimed is his slave, without offering any proof of legal indebtedness, shall have a certificate to remove him into slavery in the state from which he is claimed to have escaped. It is plain, that this law leaves the liberty of the colored citizen, especially, most unrighteously exposed. He is left at the mercy of a single judge, not of his own choosing, without any compulsory power of summoning witnesses. By high authorities. this law has been declared to be unconstitutional. It is certainly most unrighteous, and ought to be repealed. Its repeal should be petitioned for, and in the mean time, its validity should be tested, if opportunity should offer, before our judicial tribunals.

The noble example of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in permitting an arrest of the summary process, by a resort to a jury, is worthy to encourage abolitionists to petition for like justice from each of the free States.

Another point on which the most strenuous political action is demanded, is the confinement of slavery within its present limits. The recognition of Texan independence is doubtless but a stepping-stone to its admission into the Union as a brood of slave states. It was slaveholding cupidity that planted in Texas the standard of revolt; and the re-establishment of slavery, abolished by Mexico throughout her entire territory, was the object. The determination of the South to introduce Texas into the Union, is but too apparent. The delay and pretended hesitation have only been resorted to to gain time and get the more smoothly over northern scruples of conscience. There will not be wanting northern men who will sell themselves to the interests of southern oppression in this, as they have done in all other cases, where a price was offered. Says Gen. Houston, in a letter to Gen. R. G. Dunlap, of Tennessee, dated July 3, 1836

"There is but one feeling in Teras, in my opinion, and that is to establish the independence of Texas, AND TO BE ATTACHED TO THE UNITED STATES."

At a Texas meeting held in the city of New-York on the 18th of August, 1836, at which Samuel Swartwout, Esq. presided, and Gov. Hamilton, and Senator Preston of South Carolina, and the Hon. Cornelius W. Lawrence, Mayor of the city of New-York, were among the guests, the follow

ing toast was proposed by the HON. RICHARD RIKER, Recorder of the city:-

"May the citizens of Texas remember their father land, and speedily engraft their country on the parent stock."

The Charleston Mercury gives the following account of the language used by Hon. John C. Calhoun, at a public dinner in that city, since the rising of Congress :

"He spoke of Texas, and at that name was interrupted with long and loud cheering; and his concluding words on that topic, pronounced with deep emotion, that 'Texas must be annexed to the Union,' were answered with a universal burst of applause, that showed how glowing was the sympathy of the people of South Carolina with the heroes of San Jacinto. He pointed out clearly the importance to the South of the annexation, &c."

It remains to be seen, whether there is Christianity, honor, or honesty enough in the United States, to prevent her from overrunning Mexico with her states and her slaves.

Another object of importance, to be accomplished by political action, is the support of freedom and the discountenance of slavery in our foreign relations. With one remarkable exception, it has been our national policy to recognize the independence of every nation which has been able to establish and maintain independence, de facto. The right or wrong of the contest has not been inquired into. It was enough for us to know that a people were independent, and resolved to remain so. On this principle, the independence of Texas was recognized at the close of the last session of Congress. The exception we have made in relation to one people, rests on no graver reason than the color of their skin. Hayti, once called St. Domingo, was involved with France in her bloody revolution. Her half million of slaves profited by the lessons taught them by a handfull of pale faces, and rose in rebellion on the 15th of August, 1791. At the request of the French ministers, like true brother slaveholders, we helped the masters to arms and money from the national chest. The slaves at length gained their freedom-not by arms, but by the act of the French Republic. They enjoyed it worthily till 1801, when Buonaparte, finding leisure from the deeper game of European conquest, sent 60,000 of his choicest veterans to reimpose the yoke. But neither their swords nor their more dangerous cunning and perfidy availed. Eighteen months swept them into their inglorious graves, and Hayti was free. Under her own chieftains, she resumed the arts of peace; and so much did her commerce prosper, that its

destruction was thought a matter of importance by the French Emperor, then in the zenith of his power. Unwilling again to risk his troops or his laurels in a war of blood, he resorted with his characteristic energy to a war of starvation! In this honorable business, he found a willing partner in our slaveholding government. An act of Congress was passed in 1806, prohibiting, under forfeiture of vessel and cargo, all commerce with independent Hayti. After a year's trial of this noble and magnanimous warfare, the high belligerent parties-Imperial France, and the Republican United States--had the gratification to find that their mighty effort had had the effect only to throw the commerce of Hayti into the hands of Great Britain! The hero of Italy made his retreat without the sound of trumpet, and the Act of Congress went to its tomb with a private funeral. We presume this piece of liberalism has never been recorded among the glories of our country, and never will be. Since that time, we have enjoyed commerce with Hayti on as favorable terms as any other nation; and if it has not been at all times as safe as it might be, we have, as will presently appear, not much cause for complaint. But before any further remark upon our own relations to Hayti, let us sketch the history of her negociations with France. Hayti, at first, fell under the leadership of rival chieftains, and France long cherished the hope of profiting by their dissensions. But she hoped in vain. On the restoration of the Bourbons, the French sought Haytian commerce, and were admitted under a masked flag. It was the policy of Hayti to open her ports freely to all who sought them. In 1814, Dauxion Lavaysse was sent to Hayti by the French, with the offer of a treaty; and his proposition was nothing less than that Hayti should acknowledge the sovereignty of France. This insult was resented with so much spirit, that the French king thought it politic to disavow an agent who bore instructions under the undeniable signature of his own minister! Two years after, France contented herself with merely asking what she called a constitutional sovereignty. In 1821, she reduced her demand to a simple suzerainte, or right of protection, like that exercised by the British over the Ionian islands. But to all these claims of the right of dominion or protectorship, Hayti returned but one decided NO. In 1823, France waived all other claims, and descended to the negociation of an indemnity; but in

1824, she returned to her claim of the "exterior sovereignty," or the control of Haytian commerce, which she was graciously pleased to say to the Haytians, would be, and was only designed to be, for their own good! But in the mean time, step by step, Hayti had become consolidated under one republican government, and there was no longer any hope to France that she could recover her lost colony by arms or artifice: it was time, therefore, to make the most of the indemnity in behalf of the French planters, which the Haytian government had from the first offered to pay. For some commercial advantages, and an indemnity of 150,000,000 francs, payable in five yearly instalments, it at last, in 1825, pleased "Charles the Tenth, by the grace of God, king of France and Navarre," to recognize Haytian Independence, by his royal ordonnance. Thus ended a negociation of eleven years, in which France wormed through all the mazes of diplomatic chicanery and perfidy, to subjugate a nation of men whom she despised as stupid, and hated as rebellious slaves, at the same time that she feared to meet them in battle. On the other hand, Hayti stood erect, neither deluded by artifice, wearied out by importunity, nor awed by threats. As to the payment of the indemnity, we have no information but the following passage from a geographichl work, published in Paris in 1835. "It is well known, that the chambers of this republic voted the sum of 150,000,000 francs, to indemnify, so far as practicable, the ancient French colonists. The last instalment has been paid in 1835. This is a rare example of the kind, and worthy of record."* Although the payment of this large indemnity by a nation of lately emancipated negroes is almost too much to be believed, even without prejudice, we are at a loss to account for such a statement in a geographical work, and equally so to account for the friendliness of France, except by supposing some arrangement by which the indemnity is effectually secured.

But to return to our own country: although we have a commerce with Hayti about equal to that with Russia; and though there are many nations in Europe at whose courts we support expensive missions with which we have far

* On sait que les chambres de cette république ont voté cent cinquante millions pour indemniser, autant qu'il etait possible, les anciens colons francais. Le dernier dividende a été payé en 1835. C'est un example rare en pareil cas, et bon citer.-L' Amerique, &c. Paris, 1835.