ber of the labouring class of society, each active individual labourer is considered as incumbered with his share of the old, the young, and the infirm, which his labour must support besides maintaining himself. But when we view labourers, or any other class, as individuals, we see that the burden of supporting the weak is not laid thus equally upon the strong. We see strong and healthy labourers, in the vigour of manhood, unincumbered with an equal proportion of the weak and infirm. If such a labourer, so circumstanced, could only support himself, if he could lay up nothing by his industry, the weak and the infirm, and those whom they encumber, could not exist. Therefore, in a country where the price of labour stands precisely at its natural point, where it supports, and only supports the labourers as a class, a young, healthy labourer, who only labours for himself, will be able to rise above his poverty. He will be able to lay up each year, as much as he would have to expend in supporting the young, the old, the sick, and the unfortunate, if he bore his share of these burdens. With good management, the savings of one year become a helping fund the next; the use of which, added to the income of his labour, quickens his pace from the vale of poverty, and in a few years he finds himself among the substantial property-holders of the country.

In further proof of the position that slave labour is expensive, I would ask, where has slavery principally centred? In the most fertile countries, and in southern climates, which grow the most profitable productions. The reason is, that slavery is a tax that poor soils and cold climates cannot endure. The cost of cultivating an unproductive soil with slaves, is more than the productions of the soil will bring in return. A lazy, negligent, wasteful slave, upon a cold, sterile, ungrateful soil, instead of producing any thing for the support of his master, would starve himself. But cold countries and comparatively unproductive soils are cultivated with free labour to great advantage. Switzerland, Scotland, and New England, are striking examples. The freedom

Lastly, let me particularly remind the farmer, that the economy, industry and good husbandry of labourers, are not more effectual in increasing the population of a country, than they are in enhancing the price of lands. The price of land is every where affected by the character and number of agricultural labourers upon it. Land without labourers, is good for nothing. It might as well be water, as the most fertile soil. It is the labourers upon the sandy plains of Rhode Island that make them bear a higher price than the fertile bottoms of the Mississippi. The difference in the price of land in old and new countries, is mainly owing to the circumstances, that the former are filled with labourers and the latter not. Some suppose it is the presence of those who consume the produce of the soil that raises the price of the land. But it is the presence of labourers. The produce of the soil may be consumed any where, but a man must be upon the soil in order to cultivate it. For example, our flour bears about the same price, whether those who consume it reside in the country, in Baltimore or in London. Let all the people of Frederick county suddenly substitute a different bread stuff in the place of wheat, and if the rest of the world continued to make use of wheat for bread, the price of our wheat would experience no perceptible change. The price of wheat remaining the same, the price of the land which produces it would also remain the same. But let all the labourers leave Frederick county, and let it become impossible to supply their places for half a century, and our lands would be worth no more than lands of the same quality and advantage in a new

country. So clear it is, that it is the presence of labour to till the land, which gives it its chief value.

But the price of land is affected by the quality of the labourers, as well as the number in the country. If the labourers are so negligent, idle and wasteful, that they consume as much, in value, as they cause the land to produce, the land is still of no profit to the owner. The value of the land is regulated by the value of the surplus produce which it yields after deducting the support of the labourers. A man's farm, therefore, may be of no value from three causes. First, that it is situated in a new country, where there is no labour to cultivate it, or where the quantity of land so far exceeds the quantity of labour in the country that every man who chooses, can find land enough to cultivate without paying any thing for the use of it. In this state of things, land, like air and water every where, is one of the common elements. There is more than enough for every body in the country to use as they please, and therefore nobody pays for the use of it. Secondly, a man's farm may be of no value, because the quality of the soil is so indifferent, that the labour to cultivate it is worth as much in the market, as the produce which it yields. If a farm is so poor that it takes twenty dollars' worth of labour, at the market price of labour, to raise twenty dollars' worth of produce, at the market price of produce, the farm can hardly be said to have any value. True, the owner may labour upon his farm, and thus procure a living. But he lives, strictly speaking, not upon the income of his farm, but upon the income of his labour. His farm pays him no more for his labour than his neighbour, who cultivates richer land, is willing to pay for the same labour. It follows, thirdly, from what has been already said, that a rich soil, in a country where there are labourers enough, may produce no income to the owner, because the labourers are so idle, wasteful, and negligent, that they consume as much in value as they raise. This course of reasoning is fully sustained by the low price of the most fertile land in all new countries where la

bour is scarce; the high price of comparatively poor land at the north, where the labouring classes are the most industrious, economical and thrifty, and for the depreciated price of first-rate lands in Maryland, where the labourers are idle, and wasteful, and unfaithful, because they are slaves.

But it is time to conclude an argument, which the public are not prepared to believe. The period has not yet arrived, for the American public to give full credence to any part of the truth on the subject of slavery. But if slavery continues, that period will come. Our form of government, our whole policy in every particular, with the exception of African slavery, is calculated to fill the Union with as dense a population as ever existed in any country. The limit of population is the means of sustaining life. These means are the most fully developed, and produce their utmost effect in free governments, where every citizen is left in the full enjoyment of his rights, and where he is permitted to push his way by the exercise of all his talents, skill and strength. When, from these causes, the United States shall teem with an overflowing population; when, as frequently happens in all populous countries, some change in national affairs shall suddenly throw the poor free labourers out of emploment; when poverty and want, hunger and cold, shall excite them to frenzy, and drive them to desperation; when to this shall be added the aggravating circumstance, that in order to sustain the system of African slavery, millions of the American poor are expelled the farmer's field, where it is their birthright to labour, that they may live; then will be the time, for truth to burst upon a nation, which thought to reconcile the conflicting powers of the moral universe: a nation which continued to worship slavery as a household goddess, after it had constituted liberty the presiding divinity over church and state.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE MIDDLE STATES.

The cessation of slavery in the state of New York on the anniversary of our

national independence in the present year, having become a subject of public notoriety, it will probably be interesting to some of our readers, to see an account of the progress of emancipation in the middle and eastern states, and of the laws enacted there for the melioration and extinction of slavery.

The first that attracts our notice is Pennsylvania. The legislature of that state, by an act, dated the 1st of March, 1780, entitled an act for the gradual abolition of slavery, directed, that all servitude for life, or slavery of children, in consequenee of the slavery of their mothers, in case of children born within the state, after the passing of the act, should be utterly taken away, extinguished, and for ever abolished. But such negro or mulatto children, born within the state after the passing of the act, as would have been slaves in case the law in question had not been made, were liable to be held to service, as bound children or servants were, until they attained the age of

28 years.

All slaves, who were such at the time of passing the act, were required to be registered in books provided for the purpose in the city or county, before the first of November, then next ensuing; and none to be deemed slaves, or servants till 31 years, unless thus recorded. To prevent the evasion of this law, it was provided, that no negro or mulatto should be held to service by indenture for a longer time than seven years, unless the person so bound, was at the commencement of the term under 21 years of age; in which case, an obligation to serve till 28, but no longer, was declared valid.

The tenth section contained a proviso, excluding from the benefit of the law, the domestic slaves of members

of congress, foreign ministers, and sojourners not becoming resident within the state; limiting the slaves of the last description of holders, to a period of six months. In a few years it was found that several evasions were practised, particularly one deduced from the proviso in the tenth section.

Slaves were brought into the state and held nearly, but not quite six months, then removed, for a few minutes, beyond the line of the state, and brought back to remain another term of a little less than six months.

A supplementary and explanatory act was therefore passed in 1788, by which the evasion of a semi-annual visit to an adjoining state was prevented. By this supplement, the removal of slaves beyond the bounds of the state was prohibited. The African slave trade was also interdicted under severe penalties; and some other salutary regulations adopted in favour of the coloured race.

About the year 1818, it was discovered that a number of attempts had been made to carry off from Philadelphia, and the adjacent country, free coloured persons under the character of fugitive slaves. The law of congress respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,* by the ample powers

*The third and fourth section of that law are as follow:

That when a person held to labour in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the north west or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts

conferred upon the aldermen and justices of the peace, afforded means for unprincipled dealers in human flesh, to add the semblances of law to the realities of rapine. Free persons were taken by warrant, carried before an alderman or magistrate judged fit for such business, and there claimed as a fugitive slave. That officer, if disposed to favour the applicant, might grant, and there was reason to suppose, that some of them did grant,

of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled.

That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labour, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall harbour or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labour, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or either of them.

upon very doubtful testimony, a warrant for the removal of the alleged fugitive to the state from which he was said to have eloped.

This law, in its practical operation, vas nothing less than granting to an officer, whose jurisdiction in other cases, was limited to claims of not more than one hundred dollars, the power to pronounce any coloured person a slave, if claimed as such in the absence of counter testimony. A coloured person could be taken up in Philadelphia, brought before an alderman in the evening, claimed by a stranger, with another stranger for witness, adjudged a slave, delivered to the claimant, and before morning removed beyond the bounds of the state. This avenue to oppression, and the reality of the evils resulting from it, claiming the attention of the legislature, a law was enacted, dated 27th of March, 1820, increasing the penalty upon the forcible or fraudulent abduction of coloured persons, and prohibiting aldermen and justices of the peace under a penalty of five hundred dollars, from executing the trust devolved upon them by the general government.

During the session of 1825—26, a deputation from the legislature of Maryland attended at Harrisburg, with a view of procuring a law to facilitate the recovery of fugitive slaves. In consequence of whose application a bill was introduced and finally enacted, of which the following is a

summary.

Any person who shall by force or fraud, carry away any negro or mulatto beyond the limits of the commonwealth, with a design of holding such negro or mulatto as a slave or servant for any time, or of causing it

to be done, or who shall cause or abet in such removal, shall be adjudged guilty of a felony, and forfeit a sum of not less than five hundred, nor more than two thousand dollars, and suffer an imprisonment at hard labour, of not less than seven, nor more than twenty-one years.

A similar penalty is prescribed for knowingly selling or buying a negro or mulatto with design to cause his or her removal out of the state, to be held as a slave or servant for any term whatever.

When a person held to labour or service in any other state, shall escape into this, the claimant, or his agent or attorney, constituted in writing, may procure the arrest of such fugitive, upon a warrant of a prescribed form, returnable to a judge of the proper county. But no warrant is to be issued for the arrest of a fugitive from labour, upon the application of an agent or attorney, unless the applicant shall, in addition to his own oath or affirmation, produce the affidavit of the claimant, taken before a proper officer, in the state where he resides, with the certificate of the prothonotary or clerk of the court of record; which affidavit must state the name, age and description of the fugitive.

The judge, before whom the fugitive shall be brought, is required to afford reasonable time for the production of testimony, but not to receive in evidence on the hearing of the case, the oath of the owner, or other person interested. If the claim shall be supported to the satisfaction of the judge, he is bouud to give a certificate, which is a warrant for the removal of the fugitive.

Aldermen and justices of the peace

are, as in the law of 1820, forbidden, under a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars, to give a certificate authorizing the removal of the fugitive from the state.*

The next in order of time is the state of Massachusetts.

Slavery was introduced there soon after the settlement of the country, and tolerated until the ratification of

*

By the constitution of the United States, (Art. 6, sec. 2,) that constitution, and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land; any thing in the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence the provision above noticed may be supposed altogether nugatory.

This constitutional article, however, will be subject to legal construction. It has been a' question, whether congress can confer jurisdiction on the courts and officers of the state governments, and in several of the state courts decided in the negative. In the Supreme Court of the United States it is held, that no part of the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, can, consistently with the constitution, be delegated to the state tribunals; (Wheaton's Reports, Vol. 5, p. 69,) and the opinion, that congress cannot confer jurisdiction upon any courts but such as exist under the constitution and laws of the United States, has been delivered from the bench of the same tribunal, (Ibid, 27.) It, therefore, appears very questionable, whether the law of congress for the recovery of fugitive slaves could be legally executed by the officers of the state governments, unless authorized by an act of the local legislature. (See also Constitution of the United States, Art. 3, Sect. 2, p. 1.) The validity, however, of the restriction in Pennsylvania, does not depend on a difficult legal or constitutional question. No authority, conferred by the general government upon the officers of the state, is denied or annulled, but those officers are merely prohibited from exercising that authority.