Alleganies and the Atlantic ports. The tonnage of the home and foreign trade also increased as follows:

At an average of $50 per ton, the cost of this increased tonnage is equal to nearly $65,000,000. This sum added to the cost of the rail-roads built since, and to $50,000,000 spent in canals and other works, gives $260,000,000 of capital put into the means of transportation in the United States in ten years. The effect of this has been to open an extent of agricultural country to the demands of the seaboard several fold larger than that which was capable of supplying it. in 1840. As a necessary consequence, much larger quanties of produce were available for export at lower rates. Of several leading articles of western produce the quantities exported have been as follows:

The year 1840, having been one of short crop abroad, was considered a year of large exports; but the trade has gone on to increase in the astonishing manner here indicated. These large exports in the past year were made in the face of prices in western Europe and England lower than in any previous year of the present century. They have ruled so low in France, that the War Minister proposed the entrance of the government into the markets, for the purchase of large supplies for the army to go into store, as a matter of economy for the government and of relief to the grain-growers.

The prices in England now hold out inducements for renewed exports; and if the price of cotton falls back from its high level, the increased supply of bills from produce may be expected to prevent any serious drain of the precious metals. The bank credits throughout the Union are undoubtedly spreading very fast, and already $20,000,000 of new capital is being organized. Of this, 7 millions is in Massachusetts, $6,000,000 in New-York, $2,500,000 in Kentucky, $2,000,000 in Virginia, &c. The supplies of gold from California are large, and the general increase of business is great, which causes a demand for circulating medium. The mint only turns the gold into $20 pieces, and these are of no use as a currency, but serve as a basis for bank operation; hence the demand falls upon bank paper, and thus promotes the inflation which will soon lead to revulsion. The great wealth of the country will prolong the season of apparent prosperity, but the revulsion will be all the more severe when it

comes.

NORTHERN DEMOCRACY AND THE UNION.

THE LATE SILAS WRIGHT.

THE following extracts from an oration delivered by the late Silas Wright, Jr., on the 4th of July, 1839, embodies the true sentiments of the Northern Democracy upon that subject, as distinguished from the Van Buren Sewardism of the present day:

"Another difficulty of equal magnitude, and superior delicacy, met our venerable fathers in the Convention of 1787, at the threshold of their most responsible labors. One of the earliest features in the policy adopted by Great Britain towards her American colonies, was the firm and extensive establishment within them of the institution of domestic slavery. At the time of which we speak, the institution existed in a large majority of the northern and middle states, and, from the circumstances of climate, pursuits, habits, and various other accidents of established and settled society, was much more extensively and firmly incorporated with the existence and prosperity of the southern states. Hitherto, the slavery existing in the colonies had been a subject over which the colonists had had no control, and for which they could be held, in no way, responsible. The policy of the mother country was marked and settled, and its pursuit was determined and unyielding. Every attempt, on the part of any one of the colonies, to check the growth, or ameliorate the condition of the institution, or even to remonstrate against the policy, met the stern rebuke and indignant frown of power at home. This state of things had continued for more than a hundred years, when the termination of the war of the revolution made the colonies free and independent. Then, for the first time, it devolved upon them to manage and direct this fastly-rooted, firmly-established, and widely-disseminated evil. A forced inheritance from an unkind mother was upon their hands, was incorporated with the very organization of their society, habits, and pursuits. It was thus placed as much beyond the reach of sudden and violent remedies, as is that disease of the human body which has its seat in the heart, and is diffused with the blood over every portion of the system. The idea of a republic, therefore, must be entirely abandoned, or the seeming anomaly must be encountered, of organizing a free republican confederacy, with the extensive existence of slavery within the States which should compose it. This was the alternative presented to the Convention of 1787. Could the patriotic delegates who composed that body, men whose devotion to liberty had made them the principal and prominent advocates for the war of the revolution, and the independence of the colonies, most of whom had devoted themselves to, and encountered the perils of, the public service throughout that protracted and desperate struggle, and many of whom, with their Illustrious President at their head, had followed the fortunes of the war, and freely offered their lives as the price of the liberty they contended for: could such men doubt what was their duty? what choice they should make? The fact of the slavery, or the extent of its existence in the country, was not to be affected, certainly not strengthened or magnified by the plain course of right and reason. The opposite alternative, an utter abandonment of all effort to organize a Republic, might, indeed, have avoided the apparent contradiction of a free government with the toleration of domestic slavery, by continuing the white race in an endless subjection to some despotic and arbitrary power, similar to that from which they had just discharged themselves by the force of arms, and an im mense expenditure of blood and treasure; by making them the enduring objects of the oppressions, exactions, and contumely of such a power, and thus constituting for them a slavery, not perhaps as perfect, but, considering the condition of the two races, far more galling and unendurable to them, than is that to the African which holds him in involuntary servitude. Then, too, might African slavery have preserved its existence, in its full extent and vigor to this day, in all the states where it was instituted. Were our revolutionary fathers to be the authors of superadded evils like these to their country and their fellow-citizens? Never! The delegates assembled in convention did choose, and our present free and happy institutions of government are the result of their choice. The present greatly increased, and rapidly increasing population and wealth and power of these states are the fruits of the choice. And does any one who hears me, does any American, who loves his country, her institutions, and her pros perity, believe, or feel, that the choice thus made was unwise, or unpatriotic? Can any one make himself believe that the venerable framers of the Constitution of the

United States were less lovers of their country and of liberty than their descendants of the present generation? That they were less pure and patriotic and conscientious than we are? And yet, under the circumstances in which they found themselves placed, they did not consider it a fatal impeachment of their republican principles, or a violent outrage upon their conscience, to tolerate domestic slavery when it became essential to the establishment of a free government, for the free citizens of their country. "This was, at that time, a great and commanding interest in the states of the confederacy. Our own proud and powerful, and now free state, was then an extensive holder of domestic slaves. Such, at that period, was the fact with many other of the present free states. The interest, therefore, was one to be compromised by the Convention, or their labors must come to a useless termination. They did compromise it, and how?

"The nature of the institution was such as required that its police be left unconditionally with the states where it existed. It was so left. Its continuance, or abolition, was purely a matter of state interest, when the police was devolved upon their local governments, and when all questions of private property were, of course, questions between the state and its citizens, and were, like all other questions, in reference to all descriptions of property in all the states, to be left to the state administrations. So far, therefore, the only duty of the Convention was not to interfere with the state sovereignties. Yet there were other considerations connected with this delicate and troublesome subject, which conld not fail to be pressed upon the Convention, and to require their action. The laws of the slave states recognized the slaves, not only as property, but as persons, and so far as they partook of the latter character, they necessarily formed an ingredient in that basis of representation which was established upon population alone without reference to property. A recognition, too, of the institution, in its anomalous form, in the provisions of the federal compact, was a matter of vital interest with the states of the South, where slavery existed most broadly, and was most deeply interwoven with the existing organization of society. The basis of federal popular representation and taxation adopted in the Constitution, is the compromise of the Convention upon these points, and it will not fail to be remarked that, while the free states may feel that the rule of representation is unfavorable to them, the slave states cannot forget that they pay for any advantage they receive in the rule of taxation. The terms of the provi

sion are,

Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.'

"A further concession was yielded by the Convention to this great interest, for a most valuable equivalent. It was vitally essential that the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations' should be conferred upon the national government, as neither internal peace and harmony, nor external quiet and prosperity, could be reasonably hoped to be secured without this grant. The apprehensions of the slave-holding interest formed a strong impediment to success, and a compromise to that interest was effected in the following provision:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.'

"Here again it will be seen that the power of taxation, to a limited extent, was given, for the temporary privileges conferred, limiting the force and effect of the clause to the strict letters of its terms: But it is now matter of history, and universally conceded, that the fair construction of the provision gave to Congress the power, after the time limited, (1808,) to prohibit the importation of persons, and thus to cut up the foreign slave trade altogether, without being compelled to resort, for that important power, to the general grant of power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.' "The practice of our government, under the clause, has been, since the expiration of the period of limitation, in conformity with the construction here declared, and it is gratifying to be able to state that this practice has been no more strongly recorded by the representatives of any portion of the American people, than by the representatives of the slave-holding states. Was not here a compromise entered into upon sufficient equivalents? And has it not already resulted in an immense alleviation of that evil in favor of which it purported to be made?

"A single other provision of the Constitution touches this delicate question, and its justice shall be plainly submitted. It is in these words:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping

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.'

"That this clause of the Constitution is applicable to the fugitive slave is unquestionably true, as he is held to service in the slave state, under the laws thereof,' and that it is as applicable to the legally bound apprentice and servant of the free states is equally plain and true. Does the fact, that the provision is broad enough to embrace the slave vitiate it, and make wrong its insertion as a part of that sacred instrument? Is it not just and proper in itself, and ought not the friendly relations to exist, and be perpetual, among the states of the Union? As applicable to the slave, is it not due to the previous provisions, which recognize and tolerate the institution of slavery, and respect the rights and interests of the slave-holding states? Could the fair faith implied by these provisions be carried out without this one, and can they now be available, in the true spirit of the compact between the states, without a faithful observance of this covenant also? "Are there any who will blame our venerable fathers, the delegates in the Convention of 1787, for giving their assent to this clause of our Constitution? All the old thirteen states assented to it, and to all the other concessions and compromises which have been mentioned, as connected with the subject of domestic slavery. The people of all the states assented to them, and fifty years of internal peace and abundant prosperity have attested the wisdom of the Convention, the patriotism and devotion of the Federal Union, and the intelligence and justice, and faith of the people. What American citizen will now rise, and, claiming to be purer than Washington, the President of that Convention, purer and more patriotic than the sages who supported him in the great work of forming our Constitution, as they had previously in the achievement of our independence, will cast the first stone at that temple of human liberty which they erected? Who, that loves his country, will open again the delicate and troublesome compro mises thus solemnly formed, thus settled, and now consecrated by time and happy experience, with the hope of reaching better results from the present temper and feeling of the country? Who will cast upon the ocean of time and chance the invaluable blessings we have gained, the triumph to human liberty we have secured, for the dark and stormy prospect which presents itself of more perfect success in a new effort? Who will wantonly trample upon the faith we have solemnly pledged to our brethren of the other states, upon entering the confederacy, as a means of moulding them to a more yielding disposition in some future compact? Who will boldly strike at the Union itself, and take its fate against his sympathy for the slave?

Look, fellow-citizens, at the pivot upon which the fate of this fair fabric of ours turned. One state was entirely unrepresented in the Convention of 1787. A majority of the delegations from two of the states, among the largest class, and them both slave states, declined to sign the Constitution as adopted by the Convention. A merely equal portion of the delegates from two other of the states, and one of the second in population, could consent to give it their signatures. Majorities, and in some cases bare majorities, from four others, subscribed to the instrument, and in but four states out of the twelve, did the entire delegations in attendance give their signatures. Thus imperfectly sustained and recommended, the Constitution was submitted to Conventions of the people of the several states. It received, with as much promptness as could have been reasonably anticipated, the ratification and adoption of eleven of the stater, while five of the eleven accompanied their assents with expositions of their understanding of the true intent and meaning of various provisions of the instrument, or with proposed amendments to it, or both most strongly indicative of their distrust and fear of the workings of the system, to which, from the most solemn convictions of public necessity and duty, they were yielding a reluctant assent. These ratifications enabled the Congress to declare the Constitution in force over the states which had adopted it, and to take measures for the organization of the government under it, which was done on the 13th of September, 1788. The 4th day of March, 1789, was fixed upon for the organization of the new government; and the elections of a President, Vice-President, Senators, and members of the House of Representatives, in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, were to be immediately made. The elections were made, and the government organized on the day appointed, and still two of the thirteen states, the one north and the other south, had not given their assent to the system, and were not members of the confederacy under it. The twelfth state came in unqualifiedly on the 21st of November, 1789, while the thirteenth held out until the 29th day of May, 1790, and then accompanied its ratification with a long exposition, and with recommendations for amendments consisting of twenty-one articles. This restored again the union of the states, completed the new system of government, gave it an extension over the whole territory of the original United States, and may be said to have terminated the

civil, as the peace of 1783 had done the military, incidents of the American revolution.

"Still the public mind was not at rest. Apprehensions were extensively entertained that the powers granted to the federal government were too broad, and that they would be made yet broader by unforeseen and unintended constructions. To prevent these evils, if they should be real, and to allay apprehension if they were not, the Congress organized under the Constitution, at its first session, caused amendments to be prepared, taken from the suggestions and recommendations of the several State Conventions, consisting of twelve articles, which were, according to the provisions of the Constitution, submitted to the several State Legislatures for their ratification or rejection. These amendments were acted upon with reasonable promptitude by the requisite number of the legislatures, and ten of the twelve articles were adopted and made part of the Constitution, while the two first did not receive the ratification of the requisite number of the legislatures of the states, and were rejected. Of the ten articles adopted, it is worthy of remark to notice that every one is restrictive of the federal powers, or declarative of the rights of the people, or of the states, or both, and that not one word relating directly, or indirectly, to the subject of domestic slavery, is found either in the articles themselves, or in the expositions or recommendations of the State Conventions which gave rise to them.

"But two other amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States up to this day, the first of which relates to the stability of the states, and was adopted in January, 1798; and the other relates to the manner in which the presidential electors shall give their votes for President and Vice President, and was adopted in September, 1804.

"Such and so few have been the amendments to that Constitution, adopted and recommended to the people and the states by the Convention of 1787; and it would be more just to consider the ten articles of the amendment first adopted as parts of the original instrument, incorporated upon it by the Conventions of he states, at the time of their ratification, than as alterations of it, after it had met their approbation. In not one of these amendments has a single point been touched, which was matter of compromise of any delicate or conflicting interest.

"Is it not then unwise, as well as unfaithful to this sacred compact, and dangerous to the permanency of the Union, for the people of the free states now to disturb the harmony of the country, by threatening a violation of those compromises which disposed of the agilation question of domestic slavery in the country, and by virtue of which that question remained at rest for nearly the first half century of the existence of the republic under the Constitution? To pretend that the subject of the immediate abolition of slavery in the country can be seriously urged upon the national legislature, without disturbing these compromises of the Constitution, is to disregard as well the plain provisions as the spirit of the instrument; and to persist in the agitation, regardless of these considerations, is to set the object above the Constitution, above the value of the Union, above the peace of the country, and above the most solemn obligation of the citizens to observe and regard the rights of others, while in the enjoyment of their own.

"That foreigners, ignorant of the nature and character of our institutions, and owing no duty or obligation to them; that citizens of that country which forced domestic slavery upon us, as though it was an institution best calculated to put far off the day when we should venture to spurn the protection of a monarch's arm, or attempt to liberate ourselves from the despotism of a monarch's power, should be willing now to disturb the harmony of our country, to break its peace, and perhaps overturn those enviable institntions which are so rapidly conducting us to wealth and power, and greatness, by means of that very institution which was intended to perpetuate our colonial bondage, is not strange. That the subjects of that monarchy, schooled to bow before an earthly throne, and to cringe and tremble, and be silent in the presence of hereditary aristocracy, should visit our country to lecture us upon the subjects of liberty, may not be as strange as it is ludicrous; but that the high-minded citizens of our republic should be led away by such teachers, into conflicts with their political brethren, into excitements which threaten, not the quiet and harmony of their country merely, but the perpetuity of that sacred charter by which she exists as a united nation, is strange, is more than strange. "Yet such things are; and is it not time that we devote ourselves to examination? That upon this solemn festival, when we meet to celebrate the returning anniversary of our country's independence, we inquire, not simply how that independence was gained, but how it has been secured? That we examine carefully the history of the formation of our Constitution and our Union, and learn thence our duties to both, that we may transmit to our successors unimpaired and pure, and perfect as they have come down to us from the hands of our revolutionary fathers, the richest of civil blessings?