“The Unionist of August 29, gives an account of a meeting in Plainfield, Ct. at which the ‘Anti-Slavery Society of Plainfield, and its vicinity,’ was organized. An address was delivered by Mr. Andrew Rockwell, and a constitution adopted. Forty three persons then became members of the Society. The following persons were then chosen officers.

Dea. Rinaldo Burleigh, President

Samuel L. Hough, George Sharpe, Vice Presidents

Edwin Tucker, Rec. Secretary.

Rev. S.J. May, Cor. Secretary.”

CAUTION.—All persons are forbid employing John Skinner, a minor, without the consent of the subscriber who is guardian to the said minor, and will require any person employing said minor to account for his services. The said Skinner is 16 years old of a light complexion and middle size. It is expected said minor was enticed away from the care and employ of the subscriber on the 17 ^th inst. and that he wore away a brown linen jacket, Marseilles vest and striped jean pantaloons.

DANIEL BENNET.

Canterbury August 30, 1833r 

WANTED, a Horse of about 6 or 7 years old that can be warranted sound and kind, good in harness or saddle, and that will stand without tying. Any one having such a horse (none others need apply) can hear of a purchaser, on application to J.B. Whitcomb.

            Brooklyn, August 29, 1833.

TAKEN up, on the 14 ^th of July last, a red one year old heifer, with no artificial mark. The owner is requested to call and prove property, pay charges, and take her away.   LORENZO LITCHFIELD.

            West Woodstock, Aug. 12 ^th . 1833, 

WOOL, LEATHER AND HIDES

For sale by BENSON & CHACE.  No. 12 Westminster-street, Providence, R.I.

CHRISTIAN LOVE.

Oh father, when the soften’d heart

            Is lifted up in prayer to Thee,

When earthly thoughts while depart,

            And leave the mounting spirit free—

Then teach us that our love, like Thine,

            O’er all the realms of earth should flow,

A shoreless stream, a flood divine,

            To bathe and heal the heart of we.

Then Afric’s son shall hear no more

            The tyrant’s, in the christian name,

Nor tears of wasting anguish pour,

Unpitied o’er his life of shame.

But taught to love Thee, by the love

            That bids his long-worn fetters break,

He too shall lift his soul above,

            And serve Thee for thy mercy’s sake.

[Ibid.]                                                              AGNES.

As of 2021, this statue has been removed from the City Council chamber, and sent to the New-York Historical Society, following more revelations concerning Jefferson's slave-owning past

This is the statue in question - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jefferson-statue-removed-nyc-slaveowner/ - now removed (accessed 10/9/22)

See also here - https://news.artnet.com/art-world/thomas-jefferson-statue-headed-new-york-historical-society-2035662

The artist David d’Angers (1788-1856) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_d%27Angers

The Holy Bible in Canton. —A second edition of the Bible has been published at the Anglo Chinese College, in Malacca; it is a large and beautiful octavo in 21 volumes, and has been printed with new blocks. Had the College been the means of accomplishing nothing more than the publication of this and a former edition of the Bible, we should think its founder and contributors abundantly repaid for all their labors. But we know from good authority, that many of the students who have been educated in the college, are now filling respectable stations, civil or commercial in the Straits; and that some of them are teaching the English language in Pegu and Cochin China. And above all we rejoice to know that some have there received the gospel in the love of it; obey its precepts; enjoy its consolations; and assist, even in China itself, in diffusing a knowledge of its righteous requisites and its glorious promises.

Chinese Courier

U.S. Deposits. —A writer in the Boston Daily Advertiser, who is evidently familiar with banking operations, shows by mathematical demonstration, that “The Government deposits, cannot be removed from the Bank of the United States, because there is no local Bank strong enough to take them, burthened as such a duty is with the obligation, on the part of such local Bank, to receive the bills of all the branches of the Bank of the United States and to pay out Gold and Silver, for the checks of the Government.” It is also stated that the proposed removal is illegal, and not within the power of the Executive.

The New York Commercial Advertiser contains the following paragraph:—

“Of one thing we feel very strongly assured, and we wish well what we say. No matter what terms or conditions are offered by the local banks— the deposits will not be removed. And further: No matter for the sentiments or the vetoes of the President, the Charter of the Bank will one day be renewed.”

PROSPECTUS

OF

THE UNIONIST.

At no time more than at the present, has been felt the want, in this county, of a firm, independent press. The acts of our last legislature are a sufficient index of the character of that party which has obtained, for a brief space we hope, the ascendancy in this State. We cannot, for a moment, believe that a majority of the people of Connecticut, approve all the recent enactments of our Legislature, but such has been and is still the course pursued by the only press existing in this county, that many of the people are probably unapprised of the spirit and tendency of their proceedings. It is too evident to be denied, that the Advertiser is so devoted to the policy of a party, and the aggrandizement of a few party leaders, that a fair discussion of the pretensions and measures of our prominent men, cannot find admission to its columns. Hence the necessity of another organ of communication to the public, on the great interests of the state and nation, which has brought the Unionist before the public.

This paper will be pledged to no party, but will canvass the claims of all aspirants to the public favor, and all measures of public policy, on their own merits. On all the great questions upon which the mind of the community is divided, a free admission will be given to well and candidly written articles on both sides, if offered, but every thing of a scurrilous or abusive character will be excluded, come from what source it may.

The Unionist will be the advocate of temperance, virtue and sound morality, and will pursue that course which a deep conviction of the truth of the sentiment contained in its motto points out. It will also contain items of general intelligence, literary selections and the usual variety of miscellaneous matter, and no effort will be spared on the part of the editor to make it worthy of the public favor. How far his efforts will succeed, the future course of the paper will determine.

TERMS. - -Mail subscribers, $2, in advance. Delivered by stage, or post, one dollar and seventy-five cents. Those taken at the office, one dollar and fifty cents

No paper will be discontinued till arrearages are paid, except at the discretion of the publisher.

Advertisements inserted at the usual prices.

All communications addressed to the editor, post-paid.

Brooklyn,, August 1, 1833.

An Act to repeal certain Acts therein mentioned.

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General assembly convened, That the act passed by the General Assembly, at their session in October, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, entitled, "An Act for the support of Literature and Religion,” together with the act passed May session, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen entitled “An Act in addition to an Act for the support of Literature and Religion,” and the Act passed May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, suspending said last mentioned act, (if in force) be, and the same is hereby repealed.

SAMUEL INGHAM,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

EBENZER STODDARD,

President of the Senate.

                                                                                    Approved, May 31 ^st , 1833

HENRY EDWARDS.

An Act in addition to an Act entitled “An Act in addition to an Act concerning Gaols and Gaolers.”

BE it enacted the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Assembly convened, That whenever it shall be necessary to build or to change the place for holding the Supreme Court of Errors, Superior Court and County Court, in any town in which by law said Courts are required to be held, it shall be the duty of the chief or presiding judge of the County Court of the county in which said town is situated, on the application of a majority of the representatives in the General Assembly, for the time being, from said county, to convene the judges of the County Court and the Representatives from said county, at such place in said town as he shall appoint, giving reasonable notice of the time and place of such meeting; and the persons so convened, shall designate the place in said town where said court shall be holden; and if said report shall be accepted by the General Assembly, as the place for holding said courts, when by law required to be holden in said towns.

SAMUEL INGHAM,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

EBENZER STODDARD,

President of the Senate.

                                                                                    Approved, May 24th, 1833

HENRY EDWARDS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Assembly convened, That whenever a debtor may be imprisoned at the suit of any creditor or creditors, and such debtor shall not, within three months from his commitment, or if now imprisoned, within three months from the rising of tis Assembly, be admitted to take the poor debtor’s oath, as provided by the “Act concerning Gaols and Gaolers,” such debtor shall be deemed an absconding debtor within the meaning of the act to which this is an addition. And it shall be lawful for such creditor or creditors to proceed against the goods, effects, and credits of such absconding debtor, in the hands of his or her attorney, agent, factor, trustee or debtor, in the manner provided in said act.

SAMUEL INGHAM,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

EBENZER STODDARD,

President of the Senate.

                                                                                    Approved, May 31st, 1833

HENRY EDWARDS.

From the Brooklyn Unionist, October 10

MISS CRANDALL’S SECOND TRIAL.

Last Thursday Miss Crandall was brought before the Superior Court sitting in this place, (Judge Daggett on the bench,) upon an information similar to that on which she was tried at the last session of the County Court. She had been bound over to answer to two complaints, one for teaching, and the other for boarding colored persons from other states., but was tried on the former only. A.T. Judson, Esq. and C.F. Cleaveland, the State’s Attorney, conducted the prosecution, Henry Strong, Esq. and Hon. Calvin Goddard the defence. The plea as on the former trial was not guilty. Several witnesses were examined, the facts necessary to conviction were proved, and nothing remained but to establish the constitutionality of the law.

Mr. Judson opened the case for the prosecution and pursued much the same train of argument as on the former trial, except that in addition to the points then made, he contended that the clause in the constitution which was made the ground of the defence, was intended as a rule of action to the general government only, and not to the State Legislatures. He was followed by Mr. Strong, who, in a powerful, logical and conclusive argument, clearly exhibited the unconstitutionality of the law, showing that the Constitution was made to control the action of the state Legislatures; that it was intended to secure to all citizens of the United States, the enjoyment of such privileges and immunities as are fundamental; that the privilege of obtaining an education is fundamental; and that free blacks are citizens, and of course entitled, though citizens of other states, to the same privileges as our own colored population, and among others to that of acquiring knowledge here. Mr. Goddard closed for the defence, briefly but eloquently, and the State’s Attorney having concluded on the part of the prosecution, the judge rose and saying a few words respecting the importance of the question, and his inability to do it justice, declined giving his charge till the next morning.

On Friday morning as soon as the court was opened every seat was occupied and many persons stood unable to obtain seats, all listening with profound attention to the charge. It occupied as nearly as we could estimate, about an hour, and as will be seen by the outline given below was decidedly in favor of the constitutionality of the law.

After stating to the Jury the charge on which Miss Crandall was brought before them, His Honor Judge Daggett proceeded: “In relation to the facts there does not appear to be much controversy—it is your province however to decide whether they have been proved. It is also your province to decide as to the law, the court cannot direct you as to either. But it is the duty of the court to advise you in respect to the law.

It is claimed that the law under which this prosecution is instituted, is unconstitutional. If it be, it is because it violates the constitution of the United States, for it is not violation of the constitution of Connecticut. The question then is, Does this law violate the constitution of the United States? If a law is clearly unconstitutional, it is the duty of the humblest court in the land, even a justice of the peace, so to pronounce it, for all judges, under which name are included jurors when acting as judges, are bound by the constitution or laws in the respective states to the contrary notwithstanding.

In considering the question, “Is this law unconstitutional,” you will lay out of consideration all extrinsic matter, slavery, and all its enormous evils; the degradation of the blacks, and the utility and necessity of their being educated, except so far as it is necessary to determine whether the privilege of education is fundamental, of which I have no doubt.

There are two points to be considered.

1 ^st . The constitution secures to all citizens of the U.S. the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The construction of this section is not, as was contended at the bar, that it regulates only the action of the general Government: it is operative as well upon the state Legislature as upon Congress.

2 ^nd . Are the persons affected by this law, citizens of the United States. The law prohibits colored persons from Havana coming here, as well as the blacks of other states. With respect to the former, the right of exclusion is unquestionable, for they are not citizens of the United States. Are the colored inhabitants of this country citizens? It is the opinion of this court that they are not. Are slaves citizens of the United States? The constitution recognizes them only as the basis of representation and taxation. I refer to the definition of the word citizen as given by Mr. Webster, the ablest philologist of this or any country. (The judge here read the several definitions of the word as given in Webster’s dictionary, the last of which, and the only one applicable to the case is as follows—“In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, and of purchasing and holding real estate.”) Slaves, then, are not citizens, in any of the state constitutions. Are Indians citizens? It is difficult to say what they are, but they are not citizens. Kent, in his commentaries, speaks of them as distinct tribes, living under the protection of the government,—2 Kent, 70. Are the free people of color citizens? I answer, No. They are not so styled in the Constitution of the United States, or, so far as I am aware, in the laws of Congress or of any of the states. In that clause of the constitution which fixes the basis of representation, there was an opportunity to have called them citizens if they were so considered. But that makes free persons (adding three fifths of all other persons,) the basis of representation and taxation..

It has been said that free blacks own vessels which participate in the peculiar privileges of American shipping. But this claim has never been settled by judicial decisions. I know of no case where this question has been settled. It is said also that blacks may sue in the U.S. Courts, but this too, has never, within my knowledge been decided. It is claimed that they are citizens because they may be guilty of treason, but so may any person who resides under the government and enjoys its protection, if he rises up against it.

[His honor then read from Kent’s commentaries II, 210 a note in which the commentator speaks of the degraded condition of the blacks and the disabilities under which they labor, and thence inferred that in Kent’s opinion they were not citizens.]

Another reason for believing that people of color were not considered citizens, is found in the fact that when the United States Constitution was adopted every state except Massachusetts, tolerated slavery. The slave laws of New-York were as severe as those of any state in the Union. In 1740 a slave in that state was convicted by three justices and jury of five, and burnt at the stake. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this people, by stating these things, but such is our condition.

But if free blacks are citizens I am not prepared to say that the law is unconstitutional, though on this point I have more doubts than on the other. The constitution of the United States did not profess to vest in the State Legislatures any new powers, but to abridge those already possessed. I see not but the Legislature, under their general power, might pass this law, I say nothing of its justice or injustice, for I do not stand here to justify or abuse the legislature which passed it. If the people disapprove the law, let them choose better men to represent them who will repeal it. The privilege of acquiring an education is certainly a fundamental privilege, but I am of opinion that the Legislature may regulate it.

The jury went out, and after an absence of 20 or 30 minutes returned with a verdict of GUILTY.

A bill of exceptions was filed by the defendant’s council, and the case will be carried to the Supreme Court of Errors, which will sit here next July.”

“Judge Daggett.—This respected magistrate, we perceive, was not compelled, as we supposed, to sentence a Christian sister to an infamous punishment for the crime of teaching other Christian sisters the knowledge by which they could be qualified to do good to their class. The case was carried directly to the Court of Errors. The Hon. Judge, in giving his opinion in favor of the constitutionality of the “Black law” did not, as we learn by a private letter, commit himself to any opinion in favor of the law itself.

The question of constitutionality turned mainly upon this point, whether the persons affected by the law are citizens of the United States. The judge relied on the definition in Webster, that citizens are those who enjoy the elective franchise, and can hold real estate, and it has never been judicially decided that blacks can do this, or sue in the United States Courts. A writer in the “Unionist,” who seems to have examined the subject, shows that the right of suffrage may be exercised in New-Hampshire by male inhabitants; in Vt. by a man; in Mass. by male citizens; (under which term blacks have always voted, and one has held a seat as representative,) in R. I. by a subject; in N.Y. blacks of certain qualifications can vote; in Pa. every freeman, and the same in N.C. and Tenn. The constitutions of Md., Va. N.C. Ky. Ala. Miss. Mo. And Lou. limit the right of voting to free white citizens, which would be superfluous unless blacks may be citizens. The same number of the Unionist contains extracts from speeches delivered in the convention of New-York, 1821, by such men as Peter A. Jay, James Kent, Rufus King, Abraham Van Vechten, all maintaining expressly that people of color are citizens. Also a letter from De Witt Clinton to President Adams in 1826, claiming Gilbert Horton as ‘a citizen of this State,’ unlawfully imprisoned at Washington.”

“We have copied on our last page, from the Brooklyn (Conn.) Unionist, a report of the trial of Miss Crandall with the charge of Judge Daggett. It will be seen that Judge D. has given it as his opinion, that no colored man is a citizen of the United States. This opinion, we are sure, will be viewed with astonishment in many parts of the Union. In Massachusetts, the constitution and laws have never deprived any man of any privilege on account of the color of his skin. The black man there votes, buys and sells real estate, and is eligible to the office of Judge, Senator, or Governor. The same is true of Maine, and we believe also of Vermont, New Hampshire, and several other States. In Connecticut and New York, it is true, the laws are not equally creditable to the humanity and republicanism of the people; and in most of the states farther south, there are distinctions between different classes of the population still more opposed to sound moral and political principle, but we believe that Judge D. is the first judge in the United States who has officially expressed the opinion, that free colored men are not citizens. We cannot believe that this is sound law, and we are supported in this belief by some of the ablest jurists in our country, whose opinions we quote below.

While we are on this subject we must caution our foreign friends not to make too wide an application of the censure which they may found on the proceedings in the case of Miss Crandall. So far as we have noticed, those proceedings, beyond the limits of Connecticut, are everywhere viewed with marked disapprobation. We regard them as the offspring of a delusion similar to that which pervades Georgia in relation to the Cherokees. It is local, and we trust it will be temporary.

The opinions of the jurists referred to above, are contained in the following extracts from “Reports of the proceedings and debates of the Convention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the State of New-York.” The extracts were made by Judge W. Jay, of Bedford.”

ANOTHER SPECIMEN!!

To the Editor of the Liberator,

DEAR SIR—The following, which was received through the Post Office a few days since, may be published in the Liberator, if you think proper. We wish to have it come before the public in order to show the opposition of certain white people to the education of their colored brethren. The letter is given, word for word, and letter for letter, as they stand in the original. It seems to us it would be well for ‘twelve’ students of a literary institution to pay some attention to spelling. In the words ‘colord’ and ‘ peacable’ for example.

To young Beman.

A no. of the students of this university, deeming it derogatory to themselves, as well as to the university to have you and other colord people recite here, do hereby warn you to desist from such a course, and if you fail to comply with this peacable request, we swear, by the ETERNAL GODS! that we will resort to forcible means to put a stop to it.

                                                                                                            Twelve of us

            Wesleyan University.

The following was on the outside of the letter:

                                    To

                                                            Beman junior

                        The P.M. will please

                        to forward this as                   Middletown

                        soon as possible

An explanation of the foregoing may not be out of place, and will place the subject in a stronger light before your readers. It is well known to those who have perused the Liberator during the past year, from the facts given in the 2d No.,of the present volume, that a colored man of the name of Ray was formerly a student in the Wesleyan University, and that he was under the necessity of leaving it (the university) on account of the prejudices of certain students. We are informed that the person who sent letters to the Liberator, which he had received relative to Mr Ray’s leaving, incurred the severest displeasure of those prejudiced students. It is probably known that he was not then a member of the university. The excitement however soon passed away, and in the course of a few months he entered the university. As the subject of the above letter wished to pursue certain studies, instruction was given him in that student’s room. Mr Beman recited three times each week, and for a considerable time was unmolested other than by the reproachful terms of a few base fellows as he passed to and fro from his recitation. His conduct towards others was ever such as to merit a gentlemanlike deportment from them, but this he did not receive. When those disaffected students found that reproaches did not deter him from pursuing his course of recitations, they resorted to other means. In going out from the university on a certain morning, a quantity of water was thrown upon him, by which he was completely drenched. Some time in the course of the next day one of the party interested in the affair caused a notice to be put up, calling a meeting of the students, that evening, the spirit of which was such as to lead many to think it was written by one not unfriendly to Mr Beman. This trick however was discovered, and exposed at the meeting before mentioned. When the meeting was opened, that very person who wrote the notice, and who, there is strong reason to believe, was concerned in insulting Mr Beman, rose and offered a resolution disapproving the conduct of those engaged in that affair. After the subject before the meeting had been with much warmth discussed, and a request having been made that the student who then instructed Mr B. would hear him recite at some other place, the meeting was dissolved.  This request, for the sake of producing harmony among the students, was, in form, complied with, but owing to the subsequent advice of some friends, the recitation went on as before, till the college vacation. Since the Commencement, for the convenience of him who is instructing Mr B, the recitation has not been heard in the university. All went on very well till this letter was received, which has produced much excitement and unpleasant feeling. It will not prevent the instruction that may be desired however.

In this letter there is one thing not very consistent, and, to a certain extent, unaccountable; that is, that such a request and such a threat should be made when the subject of it does not recite in the university. It may be that there are certain ones who are unwilling that the colored people should be educated in any way whatever, and are endeavoring to drive those who may wish to pursue any course of study from their places of instruction. But we feel thankful that the ‘Canterbury law’ has no effect in this case, for the subject is not a ‘foreigner.’ ”

The foregoing facts may be relied on, for we have received them from those who are immediately acquainted with the circumstances.

The Unionist and Emancipator will confer a favor by copying this article.                            TRUTH

MIDDLETOWN, Conn. Sept. 1833.

PROSPECTUS

OF

THE UNIONIST.

At no time more than at the present, has been felt the want, in this county, of a firm, independent press. The acts of our last legislature are a sufficient index of the character of that party which has obtained, for a brief space we hope, the ascendancy in this State. We cannot, for a moment, believe that a majority of the people of Connecticut, approve all the recent enactments of our Legislature, but such has been and is still the course pursued by the only press existing in this county, that many of the people are probably unapprised of the spirit and tendency of their proceedings. It is too evident to be denied, that the Advertiser is so devoted to the policy of a party, and the aggrandizement of a few party leaders, that a fair discussion of the pretensions and measures of our prominent men, cannot find admission to its columns. Hence the necessity of another organ of communication to the public, on the great interests of the state and nation, which has brought the Unionist before the public.

This paper will be pledged to no party, but will canvass the claims of all aspirants to the public favor, and all measures of public policy, on their own merits. On all the great questions upon which the mind of the community is divided, a free admission will be given to well and candidly written articles on both sides, if offered, but every thing of a scurrilous or abusive character will be excluded, come from what source it may.

The Unionist will be the advocate of temperance, virtue and sound morality, and will pursue that course which a deep conviction of the truth of the sentiment contained in its motto points out. It will also contain items of general intelligence, literary selections and the usual variety of miscellaneous matter, and no effort will be spared on the part of the editor to make it worthy of the public favor. How far his efforts will succeed, the future course of the paper will determine.

☛All who receive this number of the Unionist, and approve its plan, or are willing to patronize a work of this character, are requested to send us their names as subscribers, taking care to specify particularly, the place to which they wish their papers sent.

MRS. CHILD’ S ‘APPEAL.' Seldom has any work more richly repaid us for the time spent in its perusal than Mrs. Child’s ‘Appeal,’ of which an advertisement will be found in another column.—Written in a style, easy, simple and elegant; enlivened with occasional flashes of wit, rich in important facts, happy illustrations and forcible, conclusive reasoning—its satire delicate but keen; its appeals touching and powerful; its reproofs grave, just and severe, yet couched in language courteous and dignified—it is altogether one of the most valuable publications which have for a long time fallen under our eye. We were particularly struck with the appearance of extensive research which characterizes the work. The gifted authoress lays under contribution; law, history and political science, the productions of human genius, and the records of divine inspiration, and with admirable skill and taste combines the materials drawn from these several sources, into one finished piece of neat & polished workmanship. As a powerful auxiliary to the Anti-Slavery cause, we feel unable to express our high opinion of its value, and we would only express our ardent wish that a copy might be placed in the hands of every friend and every enemy of our cause, for the former an armory well stored with weapons of approved temper to arm him for combat in the righteous cause, to the latter the means of overcoming his opposition, and bringing him to enlist under the banner of justice, and defend the rights of the oppressed.

To us it appears impossible for any candid mind and unprejudiced person to read this book with the attention it merits both for the importance of the subject and for the manner in which it is treated, without becoming a decided Abolitionist. We can confidently recommend the work to all who feel interested either way on the subject of slavery, Colonization, and Abolition, to all who would wish for a great amount of information  on these interesting topics, compressed into a small space, and to all who would see an important subject handled withfairness , ingenuity and ability, and we need not add—so well is Mrs. Child known in the reading community—to all lovers of fine writing.— Unionist

“Mr. Speaker, Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland is that dreary system of partial bondage, which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object, and Citizens by their practice countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the parent country lent her fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of such inhuman merchandize; its continuance is as shameful as its origin.

Eternal infamy await the abandoned miscreants whose selfish souls could ever prompt them to rob unhappy Afric of her souls, and freight them hither by thousands, to poison the fair Eden of liberty with the rank weed of individual bondage. Nor is it more to the credit of our ancestors that they did not command these savage spoilers to bear their hateful cargo to another shore, where the shrine of freedom knew no votaries, and every purchaser would at once be both a master and a slave.

In the dawn of time, Mr. Speaker, when the rough feelings of barbarism had not experienced the softening touches of refinement, such an unprincipled prostration of the inherent rights of human nature, would have needed the gloss of an apology: but to the everlasting reproach of Maryland, be it said, that when her citizens rivalled the nation from whence they emigrated, in the knowledge of moral principles, and an enthusiasm in the cause of general freedom, they stooped to become the purchasers of their fellow creatures, and to introduce an hereditary bondage into the bosom of their country, which should widen with every successive generation.

For my part, I would willingly draw the veil of oblivion over this disgusting scene of iniquity, but that the present abject state of those who are descended from these kidnapped sufferers, perpetually brings it forward to the memory.

But wherefore should we confine the edge of censure to our ancestors, or those from whom they purchased? Are not we equally guilty? They strewed around the seeds of slavery; we cherish and sustain the growth.— They introduced the system; we enlarge, invigorate, and conform it.—Yes, let it be handed down to posterity, that the people of Maryland, who could fly to arms with the promptitude of Roman citizens, when the hand of oppression was lifted up against themselves—who could behold their country desolated, and their citizens slaughtered, who could brave with unshaken firmness, every calamity of war, before they would submit to the smallest infringement of their rights—that this very people could yet see thousands of their fellow creatures, within the limits of their territory, bending beneath an unnatural yoke; and instead of being assiduous to destroy their shackles, anxious to immortalize their duration, so that a nation of slaves might for ever exist in a country where freedom is its boast.

“Even the very earth itself, (says some celebrated author) which teems with profusion under the cultivating hand of the freeborn laborer, shrinks into barrenness from the contaminating sweat of a slave.” This sentiment is not more figuratively beautiful than substantially just.

Survey the countries, sir, where the hand of freedom conducts the ploughshare and compare their produce with yours.—Your granaries in this view appear like the store houses of emmets [a colloquial word for “ant”], though not supplied with equal industry. To trace the cause of this disparity between the fruits of a freeman’s voluntary labors, animated by the hope of profit, and the slow-paced efforts of a slave, who acts only from compulsion, who has no incitement to exertion but fear—no prospect of remuneration to encourage—would be insulting the understanding. The cause and the effect are too obvious to escape observation.

But it has been said (and who knows but the same opinion may still have its advocates) “that nature has black balled these wretches out of society.” Gracious God! can it be supposed that thy Almighty Providence intended to proscribe these victims of fraud and power, from the pale of society, because thou hast denied them the delicacy of an European complexion? Is their color, Mr. Speaker, the mark of Divine vengeance, or is it only the flimsy pretext upon which we attempt to justify our treatment of them? Arrogant and presumptuous is it this to make the dispensations of Providence subservient to the purposes of iniquity, and every slight diversity in the works of nature the apology for oppression. Thus acts the intemperate bigot in religion. He persecutes every dissenter from his creed, in the name of God, and even rears the horrid fabric of an inquisition upon heavenly foundations.

I like not these holy arguments. They are as convenient for the tyrant as the patriot—the enemy as the friend of mankind. Contemplate this subject through the calm medium of philosophy, and then to know that these shackled wretches are men as well as we are, spring from the same common parent, and endued with equal faculties of mind and body, is to know enough to make us disdain to torn casuists on their complexion to the destruction of their rights. The beauty of complexion is mere matter of taste, and varies indifferent countries, nay, even in the same; and shall we dare to set up this vague, indeterminate, weathercock standard, as the criterion by which shall be decided on what complexions the rights of human nature are conferred, and to what they are denied by the great ordinances of the Deity? As if the Ruler of the Universe had made the darkness of a skin, the flatness of a nose, or the wideness of a mouth, which are only deformities or beauties as the undulating tribunal of taste shall determine the indication of his wrath.

Mr. Speaker, It is pitiable to reflect on the mistaken light in which this unfortunate generation are viewed by the people in general. Hardly do they deign to rank them in the order of beings above the mere animal that grazes the field of its owner. That an humble, dusky, unlettered wretch that drags the chain of bondage through the weary round of life, with no other privilege but that of existing for another’s benefit should have been intended by heaven for their equal they will not believe. But let me appeal to the intelligent mind, and ask, in what respect they are our inferiors? Though they have never been taught to tread the paths of science, or embellish human life by literary acquirements; tho’ they cannot soar into the regions of taste and sentiment, or explore the scenes of philosophical research, is it to be inferred that they want the power, if the yoke of slavery did not check each aspiring effort and clog the springs of action? Let the kind hand of an assiduous care mature their powers, let the genius of freedom excite to manly thought and liberal investigation, we should not then be found to monopolize the vigor of fancy, the delicacy of taste, or the solidity of scientific endowments. Born with hearts as susceptible of virtuous impressions as our own, and with minds as capable of benefitting by improvement, they are in all respects our equals by nature; and he who thinks otherwise has never reflected, that talents however great may perish unnoticed and unknown, unless auspicious circumstances conspire to draw them forth, and animate their exertions in the round of knowledge. As well might you expect to see the bubbling fountain gush from the burning sands of Arabia, as that the inspiration of genius or the enthusiastic glow of sentiment should rouse the mind which has yielded its elasticity to habitual subjection. Thus the ignorance and the vices of these wretches are solely the result of situation, and therefore no evidence of their inferiority. Like the flower whose culture has been neglected, and perishes amidst permitted weeds ere it opens it blossom to the Spring, they only prove the imbecility of human nature unassisted and oppressed. Well has Cowper said—

            ‘’Tis liberty alone which gives the flower

            Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume,

            And we are weeds without it.’

The following communication from a christian, a philanthropist, and a gentleman, we insert with pleasure. The language is energetic, occasionally severe, but we hold not ourself answerable for its severity. The circumstances of the case justify it. Cruel charges, unsubstantiated by the least shadow of evidence, have been too frequently brought against Abolitionists, and we have a right to demand the proof or a retraction, and if neither is given, he who makes those charge is, to say the least, a traducer of character.

For the Unionist.

To the Editor of the Norwich Courier

SIR—I presume that you will agree with me in the sentiment that the editor of a public journal is under weighty responsibilities, and should suffer nothing to appear in the columns of his publication but with extreme caution. Opinions disseminated through the columns of a newspaper will, to a greater or less degree, influence the opinions of the reading community, and when the editor of a paper advocates any particular doctrine, he doubtless desires that his readers may adhere to the same doctrine. Great care therefore is necessary that a person in your connexion with community should disseminate thro’ that community, precepts which shall bear the test of truth—principles founded upon the strictest rules of justice and sound morality. You sir, I presume, professing to be governed by high and honorable motives, will readily assent to this, and at all times be willing to turn your attention to any thing which may have escaped your pen, and if any one of your readers should be so unfortunate as to differ from you in sentiment, you will, I presume, cheerfully examine the ground of their complaints, to be convinced, or to show some reason for a different course.

I would request of you, sir, to re-peruse an article which appeared under your editorial head, Oct. 23d, in relation to Miss Crandall’s school and the sentiments of the abolitionists. I would ask you to do it calmly and dispassionately— searching for the truth —unbiased by opinions previously expressed, farther than you find reason to be your supporter.

You say, “Although we think that Miss Crandall has a right to continue her school we are by no means friendly to the doctrines which are said to be taught in it; yet these doctrines can never be put down by persecution—they must be met by fair argument, and in such a contest they will prove wholly untenable.” I am glad to find that you have never denied the right of Miss Crandall to teach such a school—it is rather a matter or surprise to me, as it probably is to you, that New-England should contain an enlightened man who would deny that right. I know not what doctrines you have heard to be taught in that school, neither have you seen fit to inform the public. But you have said that dangerous doctrines are taught there that ought to be “put down.” If so, are not you, sir, bound to tell us what these doctrines are, as you wish to enlighten the public all you can—to overthrow these dangerous doctrines, and to free society from their contamination, will you not condescend to meet them by “fair argument,” as “in such a contest” you are confident “they will prove wholly untenable?” I am anxious to see, what I have never yet seen and feat I never shal, the attempt made to “put them down” by “fair argument,” instead of addled eggs, &c.

You say again, “The least that can be said of the Abolition scheme is that it is an insane project—one which no man in the full possession and exercise of his faculties can contemplate as being practicable, or at the present time desirable.” I know, sir, it is very easy for a person, especially when under a little excitement, to go on and make severe accusations against his opponents, but it is quite another thing to show the reason of these accusations. I might say that the editor of the Norwich Courier was governed by passion and prejudice, with as much ease as you charge Abolitionists of insanity; and I doubt not, sir, that I should be able to substantiate my charge as soon as you yours. I have seen similar charges in your paper before, but I have never known of your being more particular. You are satisfied with making a general assertion, why not specify wherein this insanity consists? The leading doctrine of the Abolitionists is that no man has a right to hold his fellow man in bondage a single moment. Is this insane? Is it untrue? Is it a fact that man has a right to rob his fellow man of liberty—of himself? If he has such a right, tell me, sir, who gave him that right, and how long it is to continue. If he has a right to hold him in bondage one moment, how many moments may he have that right? But who are these insane Abolitionists? How long since this spirit of insanity come upon them? They are all around you—men of distinguished worth—of brilliant talents—to whom you, sire, in your highest estimation of yourself, never considered yourself worthy to be called an equal. You accuse them of forwarding a project which is not desirable. Do you pronounce them all hypocrites? No, you dare not, but they are insane, and therefore may be, for aught you know, sincere. But they are men of exemplary piety—men of fervent prayer—of extensive influence in promoting the cause of our Redeemer. You have not been accustomed to pronounce them insane—even now you are ready to quote their opinions upon other subjects and would place more confidence in their judgment than in your own. How happens it that their insanity is confined to this subject alone?

You say, “The agitators appear to have bid adieu to common sense and a regard for the constitution and the laws,” &c. I know not what you call bidding adieu to common sense, but one thing I know, that the leading Abolitionists in our country are the leading men in every other project to benefit the human race—men distinguished for their moral courage, seeking for the approval of God rather than for the favor of man. They have inquired for the path of duty and having ascertained it they have not failed to run in that path. Some, perhaps, might say that common sense in this respect is a disposition to act in a manner most congenial with popular feeling, If this is your definition of the term, I admit that they have ‘bid adieu to common sense,’ but as I understand the term they have most strictly adhered to it.

As for the charge of their disregarding the constitution and the laws, I think it a very grave accusation to be brought against many of the best men of our country. But you, sir, are not the only one who has seen fit to make it—neither are you the only one who has made it without specifying what part of the constitution or what laws they disregard—and I must tell you, sire, that neither you nor all the wholesale accusers who you join can point out a single line of our constitution from which Abolitionists, as such, have departed. “Bid adieu to a regard for the constitution!” It is not true—and I here call upon you, sir, to clear your character from the imputation of falsehood. I would not say, sir, that you intended to assert an untruth, but I do say that you have asserted one, and unless you retract or substantiate it, the charge of falsehood must rest upon you. Is it unconstitutional to assert that it is morally wrong to hold slaves? Does the constitution of a free, republican people forbid that we should speak against chaining the mortal body and degrading the immortal mind? Is it against the constitution of a Christian people to declaim against the cruel system of slavery? —to say that it is contrary to the righteous laws of God—that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel and the precepts of our Savior? Is it a fact that the republicans of the United States hold one sixth of their number in the chains of the veriest despotism—that two millions of our fellow creatures are groaning under worse than Egyptian servitude—that two million of immortal souls are shut out from the light of science and closed to the entrance of one cheering ray from the Sun of Righteousness—and that when a few fearless men stand forth and say that these things are wrong, you, the editor of a public journal, cry out that in so saying they have “bid adieu to a regard for the constitution?” Tell me, sir, if these things are facts? O that you could tell me that they were not facts! But, alas! they are. We must not say that it is wrong to degrade the image of God to a level with the brutes that perish, for it is unconstitutional. Thank God!  we have no such constitution as this! Shame on my countrymen! Shame on any republican asserting such a doctrine! I know the constitution permits the several states to hold slaves if they choose—but no where does it say that we shall not raise our voices against this abominable system. Wherein, then, have Abolitionists “bid adieu to a regard for the constitution?” Will you, sir, point out this treason, or cease longer to make an unfounded accusation?

You say, “That this unprincipled opposition to the labors of the Colonization Society will raise up many warm friends to the latter there is abundant ground to hope.” As “unprincipled,: sir, as these ‘agitators’ may be, I deem it no disparagement to you to say that they are men in the splendor of whose moral qualities you would be hardly visible, and whose names will be breathed with veneration by the virtuous and the good when yours shall have long been forgotten. But I am perfectly willing that you should, if you can, console yourself that by this opposition many warm friends will be raised up to the Colonization Society, but perhaps it may soften future disappointment, to inform you that many of those who have been :warm friends” to that society are flocking around the Abolition standard, and however many ‘warm friends’ the Colonization Society may have, the cause of Abolition must forever stand. AS long as justice reigns in heaven and sin is found on earth, so long will those be found who will exert themselves to hasten the triumph of the former and crush and extirpate the latter, and as sure as God is good so sure will he cause them to prosper.

Again you say, “If the blacks are to be benefitted at all, it can only be accomplished by the aid of the Colonization Society, and their removal to Africa.” O that you had spared the penning of that sentence! What principle do you mean to advocate? Into what would you convert our happy land? What, sir, shall we think of the man, professing to be governed by that religion which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, who tells us that here are two and a half millions of immortal beings among us, degraded and wretched, and if they “are to be benefitted at all” it must be by “their removal to Africa?” What, in the name of God, is the reason they cannot be benefitted here? What but that you and some of your brother editors are so wickedly prejudiced against them that you are determined they shall not be? They can be benefitted here—they will be benefitted here. The number of blacks in this country will never be less than at the present moment—for in the first place we have not the means to make them less, increasing as they do 70,000 per year, and in the second place if we had the means of carrying them to Africa they do not want to go. They must always remain with us unless we serve them as we have served the poor Indians, and though you may continue to assert that they must always remain degraded, yet ever true Christian will rejoice that God in his good providence has ordered it otherwise.

                                                                                                            JUSTICE.

The Unionist December 19, 1833, 1:20, p. 2, column 2

Pensions. ‚The Secretary of War in his Annual Report, says there have been presented for allowance under the pension act of June 7 ^th , 1832, thirty thousand six hundred claims. The whole of these have been examined, and either admitted, rejected or returned to the parties for supplementary action. Twenty-three thousand four hundred and thirty eight certificates have been issued, eleven hundred and eleven claims have been rejected, three hundred returned cases are in the office awaiting or undergoing re-examination, thirteen hundred and fifty one, which are incomplete in their proof, are suspended till these are finished, and four thousand four hundred and twenty five are in the hands of the party for additional evidence or authentication, or in transitu between them and the office.

THE UNIONIST

BROOKLYN, DECEMBER 19, 1833.

Is it safe to obey God?— Startle not at the query, reader, but answer it candidly. Has God commanded us to do any thing which would be unsafe and inexpedient for us to do? If he has, then, painful as it might seem, it is our duty to obey, for surely God will not require an unnecessary sacrifice of any one. But we believe that it is not only always safe to obey the commands of God, but that our safety consists in such obedience alone. We believe that He commands us to do nothing except what is for our best good, and that we are not safe for a moment while we refuse to obey. Should we not therefore obey all the commands of God— now ‑ immediately? We should—the candid and christian reader will echo the reply, “we should!” Well—so much for the sermon, now for the application.

God has commanded— “Undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free.” Not yet, says the colonizationist—the oppressed, though they are happy and contended in their bondage, would so highly resent the gift of liberty and the proffer of kindness and sympathy that they would cut our throats for the gift and burn our dwellings for the proffer. It would not be safe to obey the command of God NOW—wait, and let us leave off sinning by degrees and make a compromise with God that will leave us in our sins a few years longer. Such is, in effect, the reasoning of the apologist for slavery. When will the time come in which men will think it sage and expedient to obey the Supreme Ruler of the Universe?

We have heard complaints made relative to the National Anti-Slavery Convention that their sitting was with closed doors.  This assertion has been repeatedly made in our presence, with apparent exultation in the belief that the statement would injure the cause—and though we do not love to goad the already desperate, truth compels us to assert, that the charge is utterly false. The convention did NOT sit, during any portion of their session, with closed doors. We make this assertion fearlessly—for our informant is one whose veracity is unquestionable—JOHN G. WHITTIER, who was himself Secretary of the convention.

We have no doubt but the formation of the National Society will madden the foes of liberty, and drive them to the more frequent use of their old weapons, vituperation and falsehood, but the cause of truth and justice is onward, onward, and its progress cannot be staid. Check the flow of the ocean-tide, fetter the leaping lightning, hold back the sun from his course of strength, but seek not to impede the march of Emancipation.

THE SPIRIT OF REFORM.

What is the spirit of reform? What is it that has animated and enabled men from time to time to become reformers, not disturbers, but true reformers; and not religious reformers alone, but moral reformers of all descriptions? Has it not been a sense of independence and personal responsibleness, and of superiority to what are usually termed existing circumstances and the spirit of the age?

A very large proportion of the evil which has always existed in society, may be traced to the want of personal independence, and disregard of personal responsibility. We do not mean by independence that fiery essence of pride and selfishness, which is quick to resent a slight or wrong; which is always ready to meet aggression more than half way; and which delights to show itself in rudeness or haughtiness, as its condition may happen to be low or high. For such independence we have little sympathy and less respect, and so far from thinking that there is a want of it in the world, can only lament that there is such a superfluity. By independence we mean another and a far different thing.—We mean the resolution which adopts, and maintains, and obeys its own standard of right and wrong; which refuses to render an unquestioning homage to the voice of the many; which, being based upon principle, is not to be driven to and fro by the popular breath, even should that breath rise into a whirlwind; which acknowledging allegiance to a higher than any mortal authority, will not forfeit it at the behest of any. This is the independence which leaves to a man his own views and convictions, his own conscience, and his own conduct. Without inciting or suffering him to be forward or boisterous, it makes him steadfast and sure. Without obliging him to feel an uncharitable scorn of public opinion, it offers a rule to his admiration and observance which is alone worthy of serious study, and entitled to his faithful submission,—the great rule of right, the solemn law of God. It teaches him to consider himself as responsible for his thoughts and actions, in the first and highest place, not to the multitude, but to his Maker; and in the second place, not to the multitude, but to his own soul. It leads him into a safer, happier, and more glorious path, than the broad, dusty, soiled and soiling road, which is beaten by the multitudinous and crowding world. It sets his feet and his heart at liberty, and breathes into his soul the consciousness of individual existence and value, and the sense of individual duty.

This is the independence, to the want of which may be traced and referred very much of past and existing evil. Not possessing it, men lose themselves, their accountability, their dignity, all that constitutes them men, in the absorbing mass; where they acquire the color, and motions, and tendencies of the mighty vortex which has engulphed them. Instead of uttering a voice of their own, they wait for an acclamation, and then they join in; instead of having opinions of their own, they listen for the prevalent opinions, and then they repeat them; instead of having a morality of their own, a religion of their own, they are content to be just as moral and just as immoral, just as religious and just as irreligious, as other people; taking the tone of the world around them, which is seldom the highest, and imbibing its sentiments, which are not always the purest. They do not test and try opinions by any self-instituted process. They do not examine manners and actions according to a fixed and exalted standard. They trouble themselves with nothing of the kind. They fall in with the great procession, without inquiring whither it is going, upwards or downwards, to a good end or a bad one; it is enough for them that they are going with it. Thus it comes that so many think evil is metamorphosed into good, when they see the multitude practise it, and good is turned into evil, when they see the multitude slight, or forsake, or forbid it. And thus it comes, that the amount of evil is so vastly increased, because there are so many who blindly and carelessly, or cowardly, without using their own eyes to observe, or their own minds to prove, follow the multitude to do it.

But must we be singular? Must we be eccentric? Must we do nothing that others do; say nothing that others say?—Must we be perpetually quarrelling with society about its usages and habits? No. We are to do none of these things. It is best that we should follow the many in all ways which are indifferent; perhaps it is best that we should follow them in some ways which are inconvenient; but we must not follow them to do evil. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” That is the simple commandment. It is very true that singularity and eccentricity, when they come from a causeless, wilful, diseased principle of opposition to general custom and sentiment, are no virtues; but even then they partake no more of the nature of sin, than does a servile acquiescence in general custom and sentiment.—Without doubt, public opinion, on most points, is worthy of respectful attention and examination; but, after you have examined it by the great and permanent light within, after you have weighed it in the balance of truth and the gospel, and found it false and wanting, reject and oppose it, and if your decision is to be called singularity and eccentricity, let it be called so, and, in the name of all that is true and holy, be singular and eccentric. We are not required to dispute with the world step by step; we are not required to be solitary and to forsake the world; we are rather called upon to do all the good we can in it, and receive all the good we can from it. But we are required to recognize a higher authority than the world’s will; to obey a more sacred commandment than the world’s law. We are required to form moral and religious principles of our own, and to regulate our commerce with the world. If we will not do this, we shall do evil; for we shall do whatever the multitude does, and the multitude often does evil. The reason why so many follow a multitude to do evil, is, that they want moral independence, and do not hold themselves individually accountable to their own spirit, or to the Father of Spirits.

Distressing. —The Rochester Daily Advertiser, relates that on the evening of the 28 ^th ult. the house of Mr. Wm. Irvine, in Ulster county, was consumed by fire, with all if contents, and three children, sons of Mr. I. from six to twelve years of age, perished in the flames. The fire broke out after the family had retired to bed, and made such progress before it was discovered, that nothing could be saved from the house, and even the [indecipherable] appeared lying by the bed sides. How it originated is not known, but it took in the second story where the children were sleeping; there were four of them; they were all awakened by the flames, and some of them started for the window, but only the eldest, a lad of 14 about reached it and leaped out; his brothers did not follow, and were lost. Their remains were found the next day in the ruins. Besides the loss to Mr. Irvine of his children, he has been entirely stripped of his effects, and has a daughter who escaped from the flames with simply a blanket around her in very feeble health.

                                                                                    [ Phil. Gaz.

A CARD.

In directing the attention of their readers to the improvements and exertions that have been increasingly made, to elevate the Lady’s Book to that station which it now occupies, the Proprietors have incurred a very considerable expence [sic], which deserves on the subscribers, a suitable punctuality in meeting their engagements. To them, individually, the amount of the subscription is a trifle, but to the proprietors, it is, collectively, of the utmost importance; and it is confidently expected that the early transmission of arrears, will prove to them that their intentions and exertions have not been disregarded or forgotten, by those for whom they have been made.

After the first of January it is the intention of the proprietors to send circulars to all who are arrears one year. Subscribers wishing to avoid the expense of postage, will please make payment before that time.

CAUTION.—All persons are forbid employing John Skinner, a minor; without the consent of the subscriber, who is guardian to the said minor, and will require any person employing said minor to account for his services. The said Skinner is 16 years old of a light complexion and middle size. It is expected said minor was enticed away from the area and employ of the subscriber on the 17 ^th inst. and that he wore away a brown linen jacket, Marseilles vest and striped jean pantaloons.

                                                DANIEL BENNET

Free from Slave Labor.

No. 71 Fulton-street, New York

The subscriber informs those who feel alive to the great evils of Slavery in this favored country, that he has opened a store for the disposal exclusively of the above articles—[unreadable] has at present for sale, Domestic and East India manufactures—Rice, Coffee, Sugar, Molasses and Lemon Syrups &c.

Having procured many of the foregoing with great care and much exertion, he is determined to dispose of them at a very moderate profit, for ready money only.

JOSEPH H. BEALE.

Parley’s Magazine

The work was originally undertaken as an experiment to ascertain how far the public would encourage a magazine exclusively devoted to one object, viz. the intellectual instruction and moral improvement of the rising generation. In order to render the work extensively useful, a large circulation was necessary, and to ensure this, a very low price was indispensable.

Every effort has been made to combine all these points in the Magazine, and we are happy to say that the success of our experiment thus far, is very encouraging. The circulation at present is nearly 15,000; a number entirely beyond that of any similar work ever undertaken in this country. But great as it is, such are the accumulated expenses of the publication, from the number of engravings, and from the care attending it, together with the very low price at which it is afforded, that we need a still more extended circulation to enable us fully to develope [sic] our plan, and bring into activity all the means of rendering the work still more efficient and useful.

The idea of a state of society in which there shall not be an individual, either so ignorant, or so depraved, through the faults of education, as to be blind to his interests, and resist the great end of life, is perhaps a mere chimera, but if it is a point that cannot be reached, it may certainly be approached. But how is this to be done? By an union of heart and hand, among the good and wise, in giving the fullest possible activity and energy, to every instrument which leads to the desired end.

Now, if in your opinion, this work is such an instrument, we suggest, as a means by which you may promote its usefulness, some further recommendation of it to the public attention, and in particular to that of teachers of [indecipherable – students? scholars?] and heads of families. The Work is issued every other week, or in quarterly Parts bound in strong cloth hacks [?? On last word]

The price is one dollar a year—six copies will be sent to any one address for five dollars, or ten copies for eight dollars, as we are willing (that every family may be accommodated) to receive twenty-five subscribers for five. Dollars paid quarterly, remitted in advance to the publishers.             LILLY, WAIT, & CO.

Boston, Mass. Oct. 1833.                                                        14

LYDIA WHITE

No. 42, North Fourth Street,

CONTINUES to give her attention to the sale of goods exclusively, which are exempt from slave labor. She has a supply of domestic fabrics, recently manufactured from cotton, cultivated by remunerated labor, viz; Bleached, unbleached and colored Muslins; Cotton Flannels, Table Diaper; Knitting Cotton, Cords; Plaid; Bed-ticking; Wadding; Cords; Apron and Furniture Check; Plaid; Bed-Ticking; Laps, &c. which she has the satisfaction to offer at lower prices than has heretofore been practicable.

ALSO,

India Book, Mull and Nansook Muslins; Bengals; Seersuckers; Flannels; Worsted; Irish Linens &c. with a variety of other articles.

            Philadelphia, 1833.                                                     14

At a Court of Probate holden at Killingly within and for the District of Killingly on the fifth day of August A.D. 1833

Present THOMAS BACKUS, Esq. Judge.

On motion of Jedediah Leavens Esq. Administrator on the estate of Jedediah Leavens late of said Killingly, deceased, this court doth hereby limit and appoint six months from the first publication of this order for the creditors of said estate to present their claims against said estate to said administrator after he shall have given public notice of this order by publishing the same in a newspaper printed in Brooklyn in the County of Windham, and posting the same on the public sign post in the East Parish in said town of Killingly.

Certified from Record

                        DAVID CHASE, Clerk.

STRAY STEER.

NOTICE.‑Broke into the enclosure of the subscriber, on or about the 24^th day of September 1833, a red yearling steer. The owner is requested to prove property, pay charges and take said steer away.

                                    STILLMAN BOSWORTH.

Woodstock, October 8^th, 1833

14

ANECDOTE.—The following anecdote is related in the London New Monthly Magazine for last month.

In that inglorious attack on Buenos Ayres, where our brave soldiers were disgraced by a recreant general, the negroes, slaves as they were, joined the inhabitants to expel the invaders. On this signal occasion, the city decreed a public expression of their gratitude to the negroes, in a sort of triumph, and at the same time awarded the freedom of eighty of their leaders. One of them having shown his claims to the boon, declared that to obtain his freedom had all his life formed the proud object of his wishes; his claim was indisputable; yet now however, to the amazement of the judges, he refused his proffered freedom! The reason he alleged was a singular refinement of heartfelt sensibility: ‘My kind mistress,’ said the negro, ‘once wealthy, has fallen into misfortunes in her infirm old age. I work to maintain her, and at intervals of leisure she leans on my arm to take the evening air. I will not be tempted to abandon her; and I renounce the hope of freedom that she may know she possesses a slave who will never quit her side.'

NOTICE.

The sale of the real estate of Ephraim Ingals, Esq. late of Pomfret deceased, stands adjourned to the 25^th day of December next at 12 o’clock.

                                    GEORGE SHARPE.

Pomfret, Arlington Society     Nov. 18                                                 17

NOTICE.

CAME into the enclosure of the subscriber in Plainfield, on or about the 1 ^st inst., a Red Roan mare Colt, 2 years old, light mane and tail with one white hind foot. The owner is desired to prove property, pay charges and take her away.             ANSON JOHNSON.

Plainfield, October 9 ^th 1833.                                                              10-

TEMPERANCE & FREE LABOR GROCERY.

WILLIAM GREY, & Co. have opened a store for the sale of Groceries of the above description. They have on hand Coffee, Rice, Sugar, &c. all of which they warrant free from the contamination of ‘slave labor.’—They respectfully invite their friends of color and others to give them a call at No. 33, Sullivan-st.

New York, August, 1833.

BROOKLYN ACADEMY.

The Winter Term of this institution commences on Wednesday, the 13 ^th of Nov. next. Tuition and instructors will remain the same as during the year past.

                                                J.F. NORTON, Principal.

Brooklyn, Oct. 31, 1833                                                          13.

WOOL, LEATHER AND HIDES.

For sale by BENSON & CHACE, No 12 Westminster-street, Providence, R.I.

Graham Boarding-House.

A BOARDING-HOUSE is established at the corner of Cedar-street and Broadway, nearly opposite the City Hotel, conducted on the principles of Temperance recommended in the lectures of Mr. Graham, and extending to diet and regimen as well as beverage. Transient boarders from the country can be accommodated.                                                         New York.

ANTI-SLAVERY PUBLICATIONS

FOR sale by P.A. BELL, No. 73, Chamber-street, Garrison’s works entire, consisting of ‘Thoughts on African Colonization,’ and Addresses delivered before the People of Color. ‘The Sin of Slavery,’ by Professor Wright; Ivimey’s Lectures, (English edition)—Paxton’s Letters on Slavery—Prejudice Vincible, by Charles Stuart, of England—A scarce Anti-Slavery work, entitled ‘The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable,’ by the Rev. Geo. Bourne,—&c. &c.

New York, 1833.

TO THE MEMORY OF CHARLES B. STORRS,

Late President of Western Reserve College.

BY JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER.

‘He fell a martyr to the interests of his colored brethren. For many months did that might man of God apply his discriminating and gigantic mind to the subject of Slavery and its Remedy; and, when his soul cou’d no longer contain his holy indignation against the upholders and apologists of this unrighteous system, he gave vent to his aching heart, and poured forth his clear throughs and holy feelings in such deep and soul-entrancing eloquence, that other men, who he would fain in his humble modesty acknowledge his superiors, sat at his feet and looked up as children to a parent.’— Correspondent of the ‘Liberator,’ 16 ^th of 11 ^th Mo. 1833.

Thou hast fallen in thine armor—
   Thou martyr of the Lord!—
With thy last breath crying—'Onward!'
   And thy hand upon the sword.
The haughty heart derideth,
   And the sinful lip reviles,
But the blessing of the perishing
   Around thy pillow smiles!

When to our cup of trembling
   The added drop is given—
And the long-suspended thunder
   Falls terribly from Heaven,—
When a new and fearful freedom
   Is proffered of the Lord
To the slow-consuming Famine—
   The Pestilence and Sword!—

When the refuges of Falsehood
   Shall be swept away in wrath,
And the temple shall be shaken,
   With its idol, to the earth, —
Shall not thy words of warning
   Be all remembered then?—
And thy now unheeded message
   Burn in the hearts of men? —

Oppression's hand may scatter
   Its nettles on thy tomb,
And even Christian bosoms
   Deny thy memory room;—
For lying lips shall torture
   Thy mercy into crime,
And the slanderer shall flourish
   As the bay-tree for a time.

But where the South-wind lingers
   On Carolina's pines,—
Or falls the careless sunbeam
   Down Georgia's golden mines;—
Where now beneath his burthen
   The toiling slave is driven;—
Where now a tyrant's mockery
   Is offered unto Heaven;—

Where Mammon hath its altars
   Wet o'er with human blood,
And pride and lust debases
   The workmanship of God,—
There shall thy praise be spoken,
   Redeemed from Falsehood's ban,
When the fetters shall be broken,
   And the slave shall be a man!

Joy to thy spirit, brother!—
   A thousand hearts are warm,—
A thousand kindred bosoms
   Are baring to the storm.
What though red-handed Violence
   With secret Fraud combine?
The wall of fire is round us,—
   Our Present Help was thine.

Lo, the waking up of nations,
   From Slavery's fatal sleep;—
The murmur of a universe,—
   Deep calling unto deep!—
Joy to thy spirit, brother!—
   On every wind of heaven
The onward cheer and summons
   OF FREEDOM’S SOUL is given!

Glory to God forever!—
   Beyond the despot's will
The soul of Freedom liveth
   Imperishable still.
The words which thou hast uttered
   Are of that soul a part,
And the good seed thou hast scattered
   Is springing from the heart.

In the evil days before us,
   And the trials yet to come—
In the shadow of the prison,
   Or the cruel martyrdom—
We will think of thee, O Brother!
   And thy sainted name shall be
In the blessing of the captive,
   And the anthem of the free.

The following communication from a christian, a philanthropist, and a gentleman, we insert with pleasure. The language is energetic, occasionally severe, but we hold not ourself answerable for its severity. The circumstances of the case justify it. Cruel charges, unsubstantiated by the least shadow of evidence, have been too frequently brought against Abolitionists, and we have a right to demand the proof or a retraction, and if neither is given, he who makes those charge is, to say the least, a traducer of character.

For the Unionist.

To the Editor of the Norwich Courier

SIR—I presume that you will agree with me in the sentiment that the editor of a public journal is under weighty responsibilities, and should suffer nothing to appear in the columns of his publication but with extreme caution. Opinions disseminated through the columns of a newspaper will, to a greater or less degree, influence the opinions of the reading community, and when the editor of a paper advocates any particular doctrine, he doubtless desires that his readers may adhere to the same doctrine. Great care therefore is necessary that a person in your connexion with community should disseminate thro’ that community, precepts which shall bear the test of truth—principles founded upon the strictest rules of justice and sound morality. You sir, I presume, professing to be governed by high and honorable motives, will readily assent to this, and at all times be willing to turn your attention to any thing which may have escaped your pen, and if any one of your readers should be so unfortunate as to differ from you in sentiment, you will, I presume, cheerfully examine the ground of their complaints, to be convinced, or to show some reason for a different course.

I would request of you, sir, to re-peruse an article which appeared under your editorial head, Oct. 23d, in relation to Miss Crandall’s school and the sentiments of the abolitionists. I would ask you to do it calmly and dispassionately— searching for the truth —unbiased by opinions previously expressed, farther than you find reason to be your supporter.

You say, “Although we think that Miss Crandall has a right to continue her school we are by no means friendly to the doctrines which are said to be taught in it; yet these doctrines can never be put down by persecution—they must be met by fair argument, and in such a contest they will prove wholly untenable.” I am glad to find that you have never denied the right of Miss Crandall to teach such a school—it is rather a matter or surprise to me, as it probably is to you, that New-England should contain an enlightened man who would deny that right. I know not what doctrines you have heard to be taught in that school, neither have you seen fit to inform the public. But you have said that dangerous doctrines are taught there that ought to be “put down.” If so, are not you, sir, bound to tell us what these doctrines are, as you wish to enlighten the public all you can—to overthrow these dangerous doctrines, and to free society from their contamination, will you not condescend to meet them by “fair argument,” as “in such a contest” you are confident “they will prove wholly untenable?” I am anxious to see, what I have never yet seen and feat I never shal, the attempt made to “put them down” by “fair argument,” instead of addled eggs, &c.

You say again, “The least that can be said of the Abolition scheme is that it is an insane project—one which no man in the full possession and exercise of his faculties can contemplate as being practicable, or at the present time desirable.” I know, sir, it is very easy for a person, especially when under a little excitement, to go on and make severe accusations against his opponents, but it is quite another thing to show the reason of these accusations. I might say that the editor of the Norwich Courier was governed by passion and prejudice, with as much ease as you charge Abolitionists of insanity; and I doubt not, sir, that I should be able to substantiate my charge as soon as you yours. I have seen similar charges in your paper before, but I have never known of your being more particular. You are satisfied with making a general assertion, why not specify wherein this insanity consists? The leading doctrine of the Abolitionists is that no man has a right to hold his fellow man in bondage a single moment. Is this insane? Is it untrue? Is it a fact that man has a right to rob his fellow man of liberty—of himself? If he has such a right, tell me, sir, who gave him that right, and how long it is to continue. If he has a right to hold him in bondage one moment, how many moments may he have that right? But who are these insane Abolitionists? How long since this spirit of insanity come upon them? They are all around you—men of distinguished worth—of brilliant talents—to whom you, sire, in your highest estimation of yourself, never considered yourself worthy to be called an equal. You accuse them of forwarding a project which is not desirable. Do you pronounce them all hypocrites? No, you dare not, but they are insane, and therefore may be, for aught you know, sincere. But they are men of exemplary piety—men of fervent prayer—of extensive influence in promoting the cause of our Redeemer. You have not been accustomed to pronounce them insane—even now you are ready to quote their opinions upon other subjects and would place more confidence in their judgment than in your own. How happens it that their insanity is confined to this subject alone?

You say, “The agitators appear to have bid adieu to common sense and a regard for the constitution and the laws,” &c. I know not what you call bidding adieu to common sense, but one thing I know, that the leading Abolitionists in our country are the leading men in every other project to benefit the human race—men distinguished for their moral courage, seeking for the approval of God rather than for the favor of man. They have inquired for the path of duty and having ascertained it they have not failed to run in that path. Some, perhaps, might say that common sense in this respect is a disposition to act in a manner most congenial with popular feeling, If this is your definition of the term, I admit that they have ‘bid adieu to common sense,’ but as I understand the term they have most strictly adhered to it.

As for the charge of their disregarding the constitution and the laws, I think it a very grave accusation to be brought against many of the best men of our country. But you, sir, are not the only one who has seen fit to make it—neither are you the only one who has made it without specifying what part of the constitution or what laws they disregard—and I must tell you, sire, that neither you nor all the wholesale accusers who you join can point out a single line of our constitution from which Abolitionists, as such, have departed. “Bid adieu to a regard for the constitution!” It is not true—and I here call upon you, sir, to clear your character from the imputation of falsehood. I would not say, sir, that you intended to assert an untruth, but I do say that you have asserted one, and unless you retract or substantiate it, the charge of falsehood must rest upon you. Is it unconstitutional to assert that it is morally wrong to hold slaves? Does the constitution of a free, republican people forbid that we should speak against chaining the mortal body and degrading the immortal mind? Is it against the constitution of a Christian people to declaim against the cruel system of slavery? —to say that it is contrary to the righteous laws of God—that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel and the precepts of our Savior? Is it a fact that the republicans of the United States hold one sixth of their number in the chains of the verist despotism—that two millions of our fellow creatures are groaning under worse than Egyptian servitude—that two million of immortal souls are shut out from the light of science and closed to the entrance of one cheering ray from the Sun of Righteousness—and that when a few fearless men stand forth and say that these things are wrong, you, the editor of a public journal, cry out that in so saying they have “bid adieu to a regard for the constitution?” Tell me, sir, if these things are facts? O that you could tell me that they were not facts! But, alas! they are. We must not say that it is wrong to degrade the image of God to a level with the brutes that perish, for it is unconstitutional. Thank God!  we have no such constitution as this! Shame on my countrymen! Shame on any republican asserting such a doctrine! I know the constitution permits the several states to hold slaves if they choose—but no where does it say that we shall not raise our voices against this abominable system. Wherein, then, have Abolitionists “bid adieu to a regard for the constitution?” Will you, sir, point out this treason, or cease longer to make an unfounded accusation?

You say, “That this unprincipled opposition to the labors of the Colonization Society will raise up many warm friends to the latter there is abundant ground to hope.” As “unprincipled," sir, as these ‘agitators’ may be, I deem it no disparagement to you to say that they are men in the splendor of whose moral qualities you would be hardly visible, and whose names will be breathed with veneration by the virtuous and the good when yours shall have long been forgotten. But I am perfectly willing that you should, if you can, console yourself that by this opposition many warm friends will be raised up to the Colonization Society, but perhaps it may soften future disappointment, to inform you that many of those who have been "warm friends” to that society are flocking around the Abolition standard, and however many ‘warm friends’ the Colonization Society may have, the cause of Abolition must forever stand. As long as justice reigns in heaven and sin is found on earth, so long will those be found who will exert themselves to hasten the triumph of the former and crush and extirpate the latter, and as sure as God is good so sure will he cause them to prosper.

Again you say, “If the blacks are to be benefitted at all, it can only be accomplished by the aid of the Colonization Society, and their removal to Africa.” O that you had spared the penning of that sentence! What principle do you mean to advocate? Into what would you convert our happy land? What, sir, shall we think of the man, professing to be governed by that religion which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, who tells us that here are two and a half millions of immortal beings among us, degraded and wretched, and if they “are to be benefitted at all” it must be by “their removal to Africa?” What, in the name of God, is the reason they cannot be benefitted here? What but that you and some of your brother editors are so wickedly prejudiced against them that you are determined they shall not be? They can be benefitted here—they will be benefitted here. The number of blacks in this country will never be less than at the present moment—for in the first place we have not the means to make them less, increasing as they do 70,000 per year, and in the second place if we had the means of carrying them to Africa they do not want to go. They must always remain with us unless we serve them as we have served the poor Indians, and though you may continue to assert that they must always remain degraded, yet every true Christian will rejoice that God in his good providence has ordered it otherwise.

                                                                                                            JUSTICE.

SIXTH REPORT OF THE AMERICAN TEMPERANCE SOCIETY ,

Continued

IV. Laws which authorize the licensing of men to traffic in ardent spirit, violate the first principles of political economy, and are highly injurious to the wealth of a nation.

The wealth of a nation consists of the wealth of all the individuals that compose it. The sources of wealth are labor, land, and capital. The last is indeed the product of the two former; but as it may be used to increase their value, it is considered by writers on political economy, as one of the original sources of national wealth. Whatever lessons either of these, or their productiveness when employed upon each other, lessens the wealth of the country. Capital may be employed in two ways; either to produce new capital, or merely to afford gratification, and in the production of that gratification he consumed, without repealing its value. The first may be called capital, and the last expenditure. These will of course bear inverse proportions to each other. If the first be large, the last must be small, and vice versa. Without any change of the amount of wealth, capital will be increased by the lessened by the increase of expenditure. Although the manner of dividing makes no difference with the present amount of national wealth, it makes great difference with the future amount; as it alters materially the sources of producing it, the means of an equal, or increased reproduction.

For instance, a man fond of noise and excited agreeably by the hearing of it, pays a dollar for gunpowder, and touches fire to it. He occasions an entire loss of that amount of property. Although the powder maker and the merchant, may both have received their pay, if it has not benefitted the man, to him it has been a total loss; and if the sale of it was more profitable than would have been the sale of some useful article, it has been an entire loss to the community. And if by the explosion the man is burnt, partially loses his reason, is taken off a time from business, and confined by sickness to his bed, must have nurses, physicians, &c. the loss is still increased. And if he never recovers fully his health, or reason, suffers his social affections and moral sensibility, becomes less faithful in the education of his children, and they are more exposed to temptation and ruin, and he is never again as able or willing to be habitually employed in productive labor, the nation loses equal to the amount of all these put together. And if his example leads other men to spend, and to suffer in the same way, the loss is still farther increased; and so on, through all its effects.

And even though the powder maker and the merchant have made enormous profit, this does not prevent the loss to the community; any more than the profit of lottery gamblers, or counterfeiters of the public coin, prevents loss to the community. Nor does it meet the case, to say that the property changes hands. This is not true. The man who sold the powder made a profit of only a part even of the money which the other man paid for it; while he lost not only the whole, but vastly more. The whole of the original cost was only a small part of the loss to the buyer, and for the nation. The merchant gained nothing of the time, and other numerous expenses, which the buyer lost; nor does he in any way remunerate the community for that loss.

Suppose that man, instead of buying the powder, had bought a pair of shoes; and that the tanner and the shoemaker had gained in this case, what the powder-maker and the merchant gained in the other; and that by the use of the shoes, though they were finally worn out, the man gained twice as much as he gave for them; without any loss of health, or reason, social affection, or moral susceptibility; and without any of the consequent evils.—Who cannot see that it would have increased his wealth, and that of the nation, without injury to any, and have promoted the benefit of all.

This illustrates the principle with regard to ardent spirit. A man buys a quantity of it, and drinks it; when he would be, as the case with every man, in all respects better without it. It is to him an entire loss. The merchant may have made a profit of one quarter of the cost, but the buyer loses the whole; and he loses the time employed in obtaining and drinking it. He loses, also, and the community loses, equal to all its deteriorating effects upon his body and mind, his children, and all who come under his influence. His land becomes less productive. The capital of course produced by this land and labor is diminished; and thus the means are diminished of future reproduction. And by the increase of expenditure in proportion to the capital, it is still farther diminished, till to meet the increasingly disproportionate expenses, the whole is often taken, and the means of future reproduction are entirely exhausted. And if there is no seed to sow, there is of course no future harvest. This is but a simple history of what is taking in thousands of cases continually; and of what is the tendency of the traffic in ardent spirit from beginning to end. It lessens the productiveness of land and labor, and of course diminishes the amount of capital; while in proportion, it increases the expenditure, and thus in both ways is constantly exhausting the means of future production. And this is its tendency, in all its bearing, in proportion to the quantity used, from the man who takes only his glass, to the man who takes his quart a day. It is a palpable and gross violation of all correct principles of political economy; and from beginning to end, tends to diminish all the sources of national wealth.

Wilberforce Prize Essay.

A NEW AND IMPORTANT SUGGESTION.

CHRISTIAN SLAVERY.

Another Reformation in the Church must be attempted.

“Attempt great things—expect great things.” (The voice of the departed. [sic no close parentheses]

IN consequence of the light poured on the public, and the church, by the spirited exertions of philanthropic individuals, a great change, in relation to intoxicating liquors, has been produced. The eye, heart, and hand of christian faith looks, prays, and acts for its completion.

But another reformation is needed in the church. It must be as separate from slavery, as from intemperance. The nation groans under the burden and misery and guilt of both these sins. It is the solemn duty of the church to clear itself from both these tremendous crimes. This is not addressed to the world, for the world legalizes the traffic in rum, and in the bodies and souls of men. But it is addressed to the children of God, who, if they know and do their duty, can have no possible connection with either of these trades. If increasing light has shown that christians ought not to buy and sell ardent spirits, much more it is believed, will increasing light show that christians ought not to buy human beings.

The Rev John Newton, even after he became pious, transported Africans in chains across the Atlantic, to be sold with their posterity into slavery. Could he have been a true christian, and have no upbraidings of conscience while so engaged? Yes. How is it possible? It was legal, and, at that time, honorable, and his mind was not enlightened.—Afterwards when it was he lamented his error. So there are in our country those who buy and sell their fellow beings, who, if their minds were enlightened, would lament and relinquish it.

A few years ago, a man, whose whole daily earnings were required by his family, set up forty nights to run a distillery for forty dollars, which he gave to build a house of worship.—How could he think that money obtained by changing the bread of the poor, into the liquid fire of death, acceptable to God? Because his mind was in darkness. Would he do it now? No. Neither would the church now receive it. Why? Because the light of the temperance reformation has burst forth.

Christians! who have promised supreme obedience to Him, that tasted death for every man,: and more for the rich man, who, in a superb dress, rides in a superb carriage, to a superb church, to worship in superb style, than for the poor African, who pulls cotton in the “fields of Alabama, and naked as in the hour of birth, trembles under the blasts of mid winter”—on you is this call for a reformation in the church of that God, who declares himself no respector [sic] of persons.—Why do you exclude the dealer in ardent spirits from the communion table, and invite to it the dealer in human flesh? This could not, would not be, if there had been half so much effort made to show the utter abominations of christian slavery, as there has been to show the abominations of christian drunkenness. Whatever maybe the event of slavery and intemperance in the world a sufficiency of light will show, and cause to be removed these shocking deformities of the christian church. One denomination has already raised thousands of dollars to assist their brethren in becoming free from the deep stains of this awful sin. When will other denominations be equally sincere and active to cleanse themselves from this pollution? The answer is plain. When they are as conscientious and as much enlightened.

To have light poured on this subject as its importance demands, it is proposed to raise fifty dollars, as a premium for the best essay on this deeply interesting subject. When the church is pure, we may then expect the smiles and approbation of heaven on our now almost divided land. And oh! May none refuse their mite to reward the close application of time and talents to this most vitally important theme; for it is believed the temperance reformation commenced in this way.

Donations will be received by the Editors of the Genius of Temperance, and the Editor of the Emancipator, 126, Nassau street. A part of the money has already been raised by a few ladies in Massachusetts. It is hoped that others, who are opposed to slavery in the church of Christ, will speedily forward enough to make it up to $50, when the sum will be given to him who shall show most conclusively to the christian church and to christian ministers, their duty to “Break every yoke.” The essays which shall be written for the prize, are to be judged, and the premium awarded, by ________

[N.B.—The blank will be filled, when the money is subscribed.]

AT a Court of Probate holden at Plainfield within and for the District of Plainfield, on the 1 ^st day of October A.D. 1833, Present, JOSEPH EATON ESQ., Judge.

Then Mr. Daniel Gordon, Administrator on the estate of Mr. John Gordon late of Plainfield within said district, deceased, having represented said estate insolvent, and given notice all concerned, to appear before this Court the present day, at 9 o’clock, A.M. to be heard relative to the appointment of Commissioners, and no one appearing, This Court doth appoint Messrs. Daniel Wheeler and William Dyer of said Plainfield, Commissioners, to examine and adjust the claims of the creditors of said estate; and also doth decree, that six months be allowed them to exhibit their claims to said Commissioners, after they shall have given public notice of this order by advertising the same in a news-paper published in Brooklyn and by posting a copy thereof on a public sign post in said town of Plainfield.

            Certified from Record.

   Attest, JOHN F. GORDON, Clerk.

AT a Court of Probate holden at Windham within and for the district of Windham, on the 11 ^th day of November A.D. 1833.

Present, C.F. CLEVELAND, Esq. Judge [sic re. spelling of Cleveland]

Upon the petition of Philip Pearl, Jr. of Hampton, in the county of Windham, shewing to this court that he is Guardian of Harriet A. Utley, of Hampton, within said district, minor; that said minor is the owner of real estate situated in said Hampton, viz.—about thirty acres of land, being that part of the farm of her father, Capt. Thomas Utley, late of said Hampton deceased, which was set to said minor, in the distribution of said estate, valued at about five hundred dollars—that it would be for the interest of said minor that said land should be sold and the avails thereof put on interest or applied for her education and advancement in life, praying for liberty to sell said property, for the purposes aforesaid, as per petition on file.

It is ordered by this Court, That said Guardian give notice of said application, by causing the same to be published in one of the newspapers printed in Brooklyn, in the county of Windham, three weeks successively, at least six weeks before the hearing; and that said petition will be heard at the Probate Office in said district on the first 2d Monday of February next, at 9 o’clock A.M.

                        Certified from Record,

17                                            THOMAS GRAY, Clerk.

THE subscribers having been appointed by the Hon. Court of Probate for the district of Woodstock, Commissioners on the estate of Luther Wells Lyon; an insolvent debtor, of said Woodstock, hereby give notice that we will meet at the house of George Bowen of said Woodstock, on the 2 ^nd Mondays of November and April next, at 9 o’clock A. M. on each of said days, to receive examine and adjust the claims of creditors against s’d estate. Six months from the first publication of this order, are limited by said Court of Probate, for the creditors of said estate, to present their claims, or be debarred a recovery according to law.

                                                EZRA CHILD,    Commis-

                                                WM. PRICE.                 sioners.

Woodstock Oct. 7, 1833                                                                     12

AT a Court of Probate holden at Windham, within and for the district of Windham, on the 11 ^th day of November A.D. 1833,

Present, C.F. CLEVELAND, Esq., Judge. [sic spelling of Cleveland]

Upon the petition of Philip Pearl, Jr. of Hampton, in the county of Windham, shewing to this court that he is Guardian of Henry T. Utley, of Hampton within said district, minor; that said minor is the owner of real estate situated in said Hampton, viz.—about twenty acres of land with part of a dwelling house; being that part of the farm of his father, Tho’s. Utley, late of said Hampton, deceased, which was set to said minor in the distribution of said estate, valued at about six hundred dollars.—that it would be for the interest of said minor that said real estate should be sold and the avails thereof put on interest or applied for his education and advancement in life—praying for liberty to sell said property for the purposes aforesaid, as per petition on file.

It is ordered by this Court, That said Guardian give notice of said application, by causing the same to be published in one of the newspapers printed in Brooklyn in the county of Windham three weeks successively, at least six weeks before the hearing; and that said petition will be heard at the Probate Office in said district on the 2d Monday of February next, at nine o’clock A.M.

                        Certified from Record,

                                    THOS. GRAY, Clerk.

FOR SALE,

AT THIS OFFICE, A FEW copies of Mrs. Child’s “Appeal in behalf of that class of Americans called Africans”.

THE UNIONIST.

BROOKLYN, AUGUST 8, 1833.

The Advertiser has taken us to task quite severely, for what, with his moral accuracy, he calls our “false pretences” or “gross inconsistency.” The irresistible reasoning, by which he arrives at a conclusion so unfavorable to us, deserves a passing notice. After quoting from our prospectus, a sentence showing our disapprobation of the dominant party in our last Legislature, he goes on with the confident air of a man who thinks he cannot be mistaken, “what is this but an acknowledged preference for, and a devotion to a political party?” How conclusive! Because we disapprove one political party, we must necessarily—not merely approve, but be devoted to another. Because we have expressed a hope that one party will not reign long, “it follows” that we shall endeavor to transfer the rule to another. Admirable logic!

To the Advertiser’s assertion that the paper originated in party feeling and from unworthy motives, we answer, (first asking by the way, who probably knows our motives best, we or the Advertiser,) that it matters little to what motives the establishment of the Unionist is attributable, so long as its course is fair, upright and consistent with its professions. If the Advertiser will pursue such a course, we will promise to say nothing about the motives which induced its change from the “bitter hostility to President Jackson and his friends” which it manifested “for nearly five years,” to a course and character diametrically opposite. We will not even hint that the disinterested Advertiser which resolves to “continue firm and unflinching in the pursuance of its duty, so long as it has one reader left,” was bought up by the Jackson party.

But it is said that we are not consistent with our professions. We will not take it upon us to say whether, in making this charge, the Advertiser man has exposed his incapacity to comprehend the plain import of language, or has shown a disposition, wilfully to pervert the truth. One of the two is evident. That we do not possess experience “in getting up independent papers,” headed with professions at variance with our intended practice, or in any other species of deception, which would enable us to impose upon the public and yet escape suspicion, we freely confess; nor is it our desire at present to avail ourselves of the superior experience in such matters of any of our editorial brethren. When we engage in an enterprise which requires that kind of experience, we shall doubtless call in the assistance of such of our acquaintance as are best versed in the mystery of making promises to be “revoked.” But that we are incompetent to the easy task of telling the truth, (for we consider it easy, whatever the Advertiser may think of it,) in plain, intelligible language, we are unwilling yet to admit. We refer any candid man, to our prospectus, and the leading article of our first number, for evidence that we have spoken intelligibly; and to the whole of that sheet, and of this also, for proof that, so far as we can be judged by our acts, what we said was truth that we have been consistent with our professions. We ask our readers to compare with the evidence thus collected, the leading article and several other pieces in the last Advertiser, and say if that paper has not misrepresented us. We have never represented ourselves as indifferent or neutral on the questions moral or political, at present agitating the community, nor are we so. We have opinions which we shall defend to the extent of our poor ability, for their defence this paper was established. In our leading article last week, we alluded to the fact that “the majority had no organ of communication,” as one reason why some gentlemen opposed in sentiment to the Advertiser, had put in operation this press, one object of which would be, to counteract the effect of the Advertiser’s unfair course. Now does not this show clearly, that in charging us as guilty of inconsistency because we oppose the measures he advocates, the Advertiser editor brings against us a groundless accusation.

But it will perhaps be said, we are pledged to no party. And so we are. Can the Advertiser see no difference between opposing his party and supporting another? Cannot this paper be made the organ of the majority, and yet be the exclusive organ of no party? If he will lay his finger on the passage in our paper in which we advocate any party as such, or in any way depart from our expressed design of canvassing the claims of men and the propriety of measures on their own merits, then will we acknowledge our offence, and humbly ask forgiveness and promise amendment, nor will we “revoke our promise” before the week’s end, even should he tell his readers we have made it.

While we thus openly declare that we are not indifferent on the subjects which have been noticed in our paper, we still adhere to our avowal, that we shall discuss them and give our opinions upon them, without reference to the circumstances that this or that party holds sentiments similar to, or differing from ours, we shall also admit properly written communications against, as well as in favor of our views. If this will not constitute our paper as independent one, we acknowledge our ignorance of the meaning of the term.

When the Advertiser detects us departing from this course, he may then complain of us, as we have done of him, for being one sided, and may call ours a “counterfeit independent paper.” And when we perceive him pursuing a course like this, we will acknowledge his right to the praise of genuine independence. But till then we shall consider ourselves justified in adhering to our original assertion, that the want of fairness and independence in the Advertiser, led to the establishment at this time, of another paper.

THE PEOPLE’S MAGAZINE

THIS work is published twice a month, & is furnished to subscribers at $1 a year. It contains a large mass of information, and is designed as an amusing and instructive miscellany for families. Each number is illustrated by a number of beautiful engravings on wood, illustrative of some object of interest, some incident in history, or some scene described in the work. The publishers have the satisfaction to state that the number of subscribers is now about 15,000; and while about 200 journals in the United States have expressed their approbation of it, we know of no instance in which an unfavorable opinion has been expressed.

We state these circumstances, in the hope of extending the interest in a work, which is calculated to be of extensive utility. It is among the cheapest periodicals of the United States.

The price of this Magazine is one dollar a year—six copies for $5—20 copies for fifteen dollars—or twenty-five quarterly parts for five dollars. Payment in all cases to be made in advance.

                                                                        Nov. 27                                    18

NOTICE.

ALL persons who have unsettled accounts with the subscriber, will please call and settle the same, on or before the first day of January next.

GILES S. BATES.

Killingly Nov. 20,1833.

INSURANCE

Daniel P. Tyler, Agent for the AETNA INSURANCE OFFICE, will insure all Insurable property on reasonable terms.

            Brooklyn 29 ^th July, 1833.                                            1

“We copy the following from the Brooklyn Advertiser. We thank our brother for showing up his neighbor so handsomely.”

{continuous reading, new quoted paragraph} “”A GOOD ONE.—The editors of the Unionist, ask their readers to excuse their “ample notice of the Norwich Courier,” and add, “we never hesitate to do battle with any one who is worthy of our notice.” It therefore seems that the Unionist editors are sensible of the fact that an object worthy of their notice is unworthy the notice of their readers; else why do they ask their readers to excuse them? And what is still more amusing, the Unionist intimates that the Courier is worthy of its notice, when the Courier only week before last, sent the Unionist a budging, (and as we think, with a sore head,) at the same time declaring that is, (the Courier) had no spare room to devote to any further notice of the Unionist! The would-be independent editors, should, in the first place, be sure than an opponent will notice them, and then they can talk about condescending to notice that opponent, with a better grace.””

“The Editor of the Taunton Whig says that his wife is a “very elegant and accomplished lady"— We, the People.

Good! The man is in his senses.—Such a husband is worth having—isn’t he, girls?—“Unionist”

We doubt whether the Unionist man is in his senses, to print a paper with such a name without a wife! Shame, Burleigh!”

The same article appears in the Vermont Centinel 28 March 1834, with one small change: the proper name of "Burleigh" is eliminated.

“The Editor of the Taunton Whig says that his wife is a “very elegant and accomplished lady— We, the People.

Good! The man is in his senses.—Such a husband is worth having—isn’t he, girls?—“ Unionist”

We doubt whether the “Unionist” man is in his senses, to print a paper with such a name without a wife! Shame!

THE UNIONIST

PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY MORNING,

POLITICAL.

———

From Dymond’s Essays on Political Rights and Obligations

II.

“POLITICAL POWER IS RIGHTLY EXERCISED ONLY WHEN IT SUBSERVES THE WELFARE OF COMMUNITY”

This proposition is consequent of the truth of the last. The community which has the right to withhold power, delegates it, of course, for its own advantage. If in any case its advantage is not consulted, then the object for which it was delegated is frustrated—or in simple words, the measure which does not promote the public welfare is not right. It matters nothing whether the community have delegated specifically so much power for such and such purposes: the power, being possessed, entails the obligation. Whether a sovereign derives absolute authority for a year, the principles of their duty are the same. The obligation to employ it only for the public good, is just as real and just as great in one case as in the other. The Russian and the Turk have the same right to require that the power of their rulers shall be so employed, as the Englishman or American. They may not be able to assert this right, but that does not affect its existence nor the ruler’s duty,—nor his responsibility to that Almighty Being before whom he must give an account of his stewardship. These reasonings, if they needed confirmation, derive it from the fact that the Deity imperatively requires us, according to our opportunities, to do good to man.

But, how ready soever men are to admit the truth of this proposition as a proposition, it is very commonly disregarded in practice; and a vast variety of motives and objects direct the conduct of governments which have no connection with the public weal. Some pretensions of consulting the public weal are, indeed, usual. It is not to be supposed that when public officers are pursuing their own schemes and interests, they will tell the people that they disregarded theirs. When we look over the history of a christian nation, it is found that a large proportion of these measures which are most prominent in it, had little tendency to subserve, and did not subserve the public good. In practice it is very often forgotten for what purpose governments are instituted. If a man were to look over twenty treaties, he would probably find that half of them had very little to do with the welfare of the respective communities. He might find a great deal about Charles’ rights, and Frederick’s honor, and Louis’ possessions, and Francis’ interests,—as if the proper subjects of international arrangements were those which respected rulers rather than communities. If a man looks over the state papers which inform him of the origin of a war, he will probably fund that they agitate questions about Most Christian and Most Catholic Kings, and High Mightinesses, and Imperial Majesties,—questions, however, in which Frenchmen, and Spaniards, and Dutch, and Austrians, are very little interested or concerned, or at any rate much less interested than they are in avoiding the quarrel.

Governments commonly trouble themselves unnecessarily and too much with the politics of other nations. A prince should turn his back towards other countries and his face towards his own,—just as the proper place of a landholder is upon his own estates and not upon his neighbor’s. If governments were wise, it would ere long be found, that a great portion of the endless and wearisome succession of treaties, and remonstrances, and embassies, and alliances, and memorials, and subsidies, might be dispensed with, with so little inconvenience, and so much benefit, that the world would wonder to think to what futile ends they had been busying and how needlessly they had been injuring themselves.

No doubt, the immoral and irrational system of international politics which generally obtains, makes the path of one government more difficult than it would otherwise be; and yet it is probable that the most efficacious way of inducing another government to attend to its proper business, would be to attend to our own. It is not sufficiently considered, nor indeed is it sufficiently known, how powerful is the influence of uprightness and candor in conciliating the good officers of other men. Overreaching and chicanery in one person, induce overreaching and chicanery in another. Men distrust those whom they perceive to be unworthy of confidence. Real integrity is not without its being vouched in the hearts of others; and they who maintain it are treated with confidence, because it is seen that confidence can be safely reposed. Besides, he who busies himself with the politics of foreign countries, like the busy bodies in a petty community does not fail to offend. In the last century, our own country was so much of a busy body, and had involved itself in such a multitude of treaties and alliances, that it was found, I believe, quite impossible to fulfil one without, by that very act, violating another. This, of course, would offend. In private life that man passes through the world with the least annoyance and the greatest satisfaction, who confines his attention to its proper business, that is, generally, to his own: and who can tell why the experience of nations should in this case by different from that of private men? In a rectified state of international affairs, half a dozen princes on a continent would have little more occasion to meddle with one another than half a dozen neighbors in a street.

But indeed, Communities frequently contribute to their own injury. If governors are ambitious, or resentful, or proud, so, often, are the people;—and the public good has often been sacrificed by the public, with astonishing preposterousness, to jealousy or vexation. Some merchants are angry at the loss of a branch of trade; they urge the government to interfere; memorials and remonstrances follow to the state of whom they complain;—and so, by that process of exasperation which is quite natural when people think that high language and a high attitude is politic, the nations soon begin to fight. The merchants applaud the spirit of their rulers,—while in one year they lose more by war than they would have lost by the want of the trade for twenty; and before peace returns, the nation has lost more than it would have lost by the continuance of the evil for twenty centuries. Peace at length arrives, and the government begins to devise means of repairing the mischiefs of the war. Both government and people reflect very complacently on the wisdom of their measures,—forgetting that their conduct is only that of a man who wantonly fractures his own leg with a club, and then boasts to his neighbors how dexterously he limps to a surgeon.

Present expedients for present occasions, rather than a wide embracing and far-seeing policy, is the great characteristic of European politics. We are hucksters who cannot resist the temptation of a present sixpence, rather than merchants who wait for their profits for the return of a fleet. Si quaeris monumentum, circumspice. [If you are looking for a monument, look around.] Look at the condition of either of the continental nations, and consider what it might have been if even a short line of princes had attended to their proper business,—had directed their solicitude to the improvement of the moral and social and political condition of the people. Who has been more successful in this huckster policy than France? And what is France, and what are the French people at the present hour?—Why, as it respects real welfare they are not merely surpassed, they are left at an immeasurable distance, by a people who sprung up but as yesterday,—by a people whose land, within the memory of our grand-fathers, was almost a wilderness, long since France boasted of her greatness. Such results have a cause. It is not possible that systems of policy can be good, of which the effects are so bad. I speak not of particular measures or of individual acts of ill policy,—these are not likely to be the result of the condition of man,—but of the whole international system,—a system of irritability, and haughtiness, and temporary expedients; a system of most unphilosophical principles, and from which christianity is practically almost excluded. Here is the evidence of fact before us. We know what a sickening detail the history of Europe is. And it is obvious to remark, that the system which has given rise to such a history must be vicious and mistaken in its fundamental principles. The same class of history will continue to after generations unless these principles are changed,—unless philosophy and christianity obtain a greater influence in the practice of government; unless, in a word, governments are content to do their proper business, and to leave that which is not their business, undone.

When such principles are acted upon we may reasonably expect a rapid advancement in the whole condition of the world. Domestic measures which are now postponed to the more stirring occupations of legislators, will be found to be of incomparably greater importance than they. A wise code of criminal law will be found to be of more consequence and interest than the acquisition of a million square miles of territory;—A judicious encouragement of general education will be of more value than all the “glory” that has been acquired from the days of Alfred till now. Of moral legislation, however it will be our after business to speak; Meanwhile the lover of mankind has some reason for gratulation in perceiving indications that governments will hereafter direct their attention more to the objects for which they are invested with power. The statesmen who promotes this improvement will be what many statesmen have been called —a great man. That government only is great which promotes the prosperity of its own people; and that people only are prosperous, who are wise and happy.

The Farmers are coming. —Extract of a letter from a respectable source, to the editor of the National Gazette (Philadelphia).

“LANCASTER, 22d Feb. 1834.

We have this day celebrated the birthday of the Father of our Country, by holding a meeting in favor of a restoration of the Federal Deposites. It was the largest and most respectable ever held in this county. We got between two and three thousand signers to our memorials to Congress. It was held without distinction of parties. The presiding officers and committee men were principally of the Jackson party.”