Newspaper Page Text
FRISTS!) FCBLISHT.D, ^
DAILY, . BY SlJOWDEtf * THOWrrOMT. 4SD rson t;ie cccstrt,) 6s TI'EAPAYS) thyrsday ahd Drift Pwn.%*—cmmtrttDWiOig_ 1 IIUSDAY, JUNE 7, 1827. [Fro’n the ('incinnatti Gazette.] j ry^We are indebted to a correspondent for ihi Mowing s-nsihle, luminous and tonsperate - (lisrussiou of a most ihlfrr.til.If subject, "a « a careful perusal of i. to reapers of etrry description. Our frirmKof .he ouoos. tion will fia.O in it nothin.; to g.ve .hem offence, and much that deserves their serious constuera THh. VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS. The resolutions.adorned by the legislature o Vireii*i at their las* session, in relation to the right of the General Government to make in ternal improvements, and to apportion the c u tics i-i imports, with a view to protect and en courage manufactM.es,are calculated l;,awakf" the attention of tffose portions of the Union fa vorable to the “American System. i hat le gislature have passed thre* resolutions on this subject. The first two deny the right of con gress to make internal improvements within the limits of the States, and “especially of V ir einia ” except such m are authorised by the consti tution the third denies the right of congress to lav and collect duties and taxes to be applied to any other objects than such as are authorised by the constitution. These resolutions deny what, we presume, has never been asserted. The advocates or in ternal improvements have always contended that they were authorised by the constitution. In regard to the power to construct internal im provements, of a national character and of na tional utility, we only remark, that if this pow * cr is not possessed bv the General Government, there is a great dt feet in the constitution - That such a power ought to exist in that go vernment, seems to be a dictate oflhe pla.nfsi reason; because such works ought to be pro jr, inland modified hv th* national will, and more particularly, beca. e they can only be ex ecuted by the national resources. It is much to be *>;( thataiiia neuter has been tines- ^ lioned so as *o paralise its exertion. The power, however, to make internal itn-1 prove men ts, though very important, is not so imperiously necessary to the national inceprn d. nee and prosperity, as that of laying duties for the protection of our own incusuv, ol our ow n manufactures. The power to lay duties j • was yielded up hv the States in the federal con stitution. Thev, therefort, cannot afford the necessary protection. To Congress the powers are given “to regulate commerce,” “to lay and collect duties,” “to provide for the general wel tn.e of the United Slates.” If, under these pow ers, Congress cannot modify the duties with a view to the encouragement of manufactures in out own country, we have, by our constitu-, (ion, relinquished one of those means used anil j practiced by aH civilized nations for the promo tion of iheu independence and the prosperity of the people. But, although the right has tor some time been questioned, bv individual poli ticians oflhe South, the bold ground ^Legisla tive protest against the power,is of recent date llow is this Southern policy, these, legislative proceedings against the power of the General Government io protect American manufactures, to he reconciled with the following facts? 1st. That the right of laving duties on im ports, for the protection and encouragement of manufactures,was claimed and exercised by the first congress which sat under the constitution, and in the first act laying duties passed in 1789. 2d. That duties have been laid and appor tioned with the same view, trom the commence ment of the federal government to this day. 3d. That where adequate duties have been thus laid, the effect has been, ultimately, to af ford the articles thus cherished in a greater a •' bundance, as cheap or cheaper, and oi oetter quality. The verily of these facts can be established beyond all doubt. As to the first fact, that the power was claim ed. It appears, by the laws ol Congress, that at the first session,”“An act for laying duties on gomls, wares, and merchandise-*, imported into the United States,” was passed, with a pream ble in the following words: “Whereas it is ne cessary, for the suppport ol government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and > the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and mer chandises imported.” Here was the recogni tion, in the most unequivocal terms by Lon gress, of the very principle against which V u ginia now protests. And what gives weight to its authority as a correct principle, is, that this act was passed be men of the first standing in the Union, many of whom had participated in the formation ol the Constitution, and under the administration of Washington, the father of his country, and he a Virginian 1 he principle was not introduced casually, nor without dis cussion. Numerous extracts, recently publish ed, of the debates, show that it was urged in de bate on the bill, and no intimation has been made that it was then denied. As to the second fact, that the principle has been regularly acted on. It appears that in the before mentioned act, a discriminating and higher duty wasJaid on goods imported in ves sels not of the U. States, with the view “to en courage” the building American vessels At the same session, and with the same view, an act was passed imposing a tonnage du ty on vessels—on American vessels, 6 cents per ton* on American built teasels, owned bv foreigners, 30 cehts prr ail other eessrls, 30 cents P-V""'. same- subject Congress has legislated," f802 ing the same principle, »n 1790, 17.9, '8AmonB« o.hcr articles, the manufacture of mhth h*.h« he." from time tu ftmemteour aged hy duties, ' glass, ness, carriages, hats, p 1 ticles thus Another of the 'cotton. This encouraged, is “•*> waJ ma(i(. s0 cheap in In description o g ,hat the household manufac SSSEsSswrtS had also the skill to manufacture lha*kl'*fdJ * consulting the domestic interest ol the peop*e,C|heS|genefal welfare of the country, and not‘the revenue only, the government dcteimin , to av SO high a duty, as greatly to d,scour, age their importation, and to , , protect’1, the home manufacture. In™ cl thev supposed the firs, cos, of the cotton goods to be much higher than it really was, k then they levied a high-duty on that supposed | As to the third fact.-there .s the m ' umpbant evidence of the success which has ai 3-d the efforts of Gov eminent to su^tn sev eral branches of manufacture Cfn History pro duce anv parallel to the rapidity w.th which . cur Navy ami marine grew up alter the mea ! ures .:ken by Government to give a preference j to the building and use of our own vessels A e they not equal if not superior to those of apy 1 other country? The articles of boots, shoes, sad dles harness, carriages, hats, paper, alihoug i we will not claim for them a superiority, ye there is an abundant supply, and of good and substantial quality. Window -glass, one or the protected articles, is now sold by retail foi a bout one half of what was the wholesale price before the protecting duties were laid. t a recollect how the counters and shelves ot oui merchants wtre loaded previous to the tariff ol 1816 with the cotton goods called India cottons or huir.hums. We recollect also, that as-soon as the supply then on hand was consumed, that ! description of goods ceased to make its appeal j nncc The-cotiou factories tlien began' to mul | tiply in the Eastern States. The prices of then fabrics were at first high, but the effected the protecting duties, so in*reased the number ol factories and the competition, that the pi.res I were reduced, and the supply too’1 exceeded | the demand; and at this clay we have the most j abundant supply of superior quality, and ol a i ceedjngly cheap cotton cloths—nay we export I ^considerable quantity.and come in successful ! competition win. foreign fabiics in other couu ' tries So that ihc millions of dollars wc annu ally expend, for plain while,striped, and check j ed cotton cloths, are now received hy our own I citizens And can it he a subject ol regret to an enlightened American, that his fellow citi zens of the South enjoy the profits of raising. Sc i I tie cVtt on't ha t' cl o U.e shim'self and llil' I am 1!y ? It :<= also worthy of remark that the same erv which has now been raised against the woollen bill, was raised against the duly laid in 1816 on coarse cottons. The cry was, that the poorer classes of the people used these go*>ds, and it would bf a tax on t he poor;—bout he effect is, a cheaper supply of better cotton cloths to both poor and rich. Seeing then that the facts vve have stated are of indubitable verity, haw is it to be accounted far that Virginia, now denounces and protests against a policy, which has hcen coeval with the government—which has been uniformly pursued—a policy which has redounded to the safeiy, to the wealth, and to the general welfare of the nation? She denounces the policy as be ing “unconstitutional, unwise, unjust, unequal and oppressive ” This to. be sure is a very broad denunciation for the present rulers of the “ancient dominion” to use against the policy, which has not only been sanctioned, but recom-. i mended by the most illustrious citizens she ev i er could boast—her Washingt -n, her Jefferson, j her Madison, and her Munroe, who Have ad minist* red the executive department of the Fed j tral Government for thirty-two, out of thirty j seven years of i's existence. These worthies i have all, in the most explicit manner, given their sanction to the policy of protecting duties; 1 wherefore then this extraordinary solicitude, at this time, so stifle, and to check the spirit oi manulacluring industry? How can we discriminate between the prin ciple of protecting and encouraging, “by du ties,” the building of ships, ftmiv that of pro tecting and encouraging the manufacture of cloth, the manufacture of sugar, or rhe rats'ing I of cotton? When the higher tonnage du*y on ! foreign vessels was laid, its acknowledged ob • ject was to protect and encourage the building, i or the'manufacture of shipping at home. At i that time it was perfertly well known,that great ! profits would accrue to the ship builders, ship j owners, and seamen, & that those profits would I principally result to 'he Eastern section of the ' Union Hut m those clays of pure patriotism, ! the test of public measures was different with [ the politicians of the ancient dominion. The j test of a measure the i, was its general utility— 1 will it redound to the interest of the American familv? will it promote the general welfare? & not whether it will result more to the benefit of one state titan another Had the contracted policy, now contended for by the South,been adopted at that day,and had no protecting duty been laid to encourage our own shipping, how many millions on • millions ! of dollars must we have paid, for" the transpor taiion of our exports and imports, which have been savea to the nation? Should we not have been incomparably weaker both as to our naval power, and our marine for the merchant ser vice? Should we have been able in 1812 to hoist the banner of “free trade and sailor’s rights,” and to leach the mistress of the ocean that she should not with impunity violate our neutral maritime rights? When, at a subsequent day, a much higher duty was proposed to be laid for the protection of sugar to be manufactured in the south, it was equally well known, that the people of the east could not participate in the immediate profits of making sugar—their climate and their soil forbade it. Yet the protecting duty was laid, and the southern planters enjoy the sretiona! benefit. The duty on spirits can only operate for the benefit of the grain-;gro«iogstate* Penn sylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, In<l«M, «'"d ! for the present reap the profits of the pr , duties on spirits. The duty on raw cotton op erates to the benefit nf llir cotton Pl,n.? ?V •. ! thee is no doubt that if tobacco should be col-, tivated in any foreign country, so as o the tobacco of Virginia anti Maryland, t ie p - j ters o£those states would readily perceive . nojicy of 3 protecting duty on that artic.e. The question as to what degree of pro ; it would he proper to extend to the manu ac tures of the country,ha3 often been agitated, and it is a fact well known to those who are ac quainted with that branch of our policy, tna the South has generally been opposed, or yiel - ed a reluctant assent to the piotection given, j It is also a fact well known, that that reluctance , or opposition, has in the progress t,f our gov- j ernmeot. been constantly increasing, and id >t , the politicians of “the Ancitnt Dominion have taken ihe lead. But the lolul denial of the rigid, is a doctrine new in the history of our govern mem. , . i Now, when these facts or the settled and in creasing opposition of the south to the P°>,r.V 0 protecting the domestic mtiiiulactures ol then recent denial of the right—are contrasted with j the before mentioned facts of the acknowledge | right by the first congress, and by the framers ol the constitution, of the ^mtinuod practice o tho government to give that protection,and the successful result of that policy—we are reluct antly driven to inquire fur the cause. * he ef fects we have seen and felt in the opposition ol the Southern states to the policy of internal im provements and domestic manufactures V or every effect there is an appropriate cause. Does this paralizing division in our councils result from interests really different, or only from an imaginary difference of interests? This inquiry necessarily leads to some con siderations of extreme delicacy. But as no sense of delicacy can supersede the necessity ol a Physician’s searching out and finding tlu rause'of the disease he would cure, so, also, it is equally necessary, (the delicacy of the inves tigation notwithstanding) for the people to un derstand the cause of a* division so unpropitious to efli> ient government and to their natural prosperity. Let us then, with an honest eftort to arrive at truth from a candid exposition offacts, fearless ly view this question Does not the difference of opinion between the states which are exten sively slavemdders, and. the n«n slaveholding states, result from the difference ol the labor force of those sections of the union? The citizens generally in-those states do not labor themselves They arc fed, clothed and sustained, bv the labor of their slaves.. A state which holds slaves extensively, never ran he a manufacturing state, except in a small degree—because the masters cannot submit to labor, and the slaves cannot he trusted with such important concerns, nor inspired with that degret of emulation necessary to arrive at ex cellence in any art, and consequently nccgssaiy Such a suite cannoi then-fore participate,but in a small degree, in the immediate benefits of manufacturing establishments. In’proportion as domestic manufactures suc ceed, and the use of any domestic article super sedes the use of th'c foreign, the revenue arising from imposts must decline. This deficiency of reienue we shall be ena bled to supply just in the proportion which the whole cost'of the article saved to the nation (by being manufactured at home) bears to the small amount of duty lost to the treasury. * This supply must ultimately come in by means of internal taxes. But, although the family of the states will he abundantly abie to render this supply (even by direct taxes) the slave holding states will have to pay a greater proportion of it than if it were paid by duties. The impost ;s paid by the enn cumer, and the immense sla\c population of the Soutli consume tnueh less of the articles upon which duties are paid, than the labelling classes of the free stales,;consequently the South pays a smaller part of the duties. And in addition to this, it is only when direct taxes operate, that the slave holding states render the quid pro quo for the extra power they have in the government, in consequence of adding three-fifths of their slaves to their free population, to make up their koerul numbers. 1'hese positions, It is presumed cannot be. con troverted, and they make out a case of apparent interest in the S >ulhern states to lie opposed to the progress of domestic manufactures. But then a question arises in regard to that interest, is it not of a pecuniary character only, and wholly sectional? If this sectional interest in the South, opposed to the piotection and encou ragement of domestic manufactures, is in lact opposed not only to other and greater sectional interests, but tp “the general welfare of the U nited States,” then tiiat opposition ought to he surrendered upon the altar of unionScpattiotism. It would seem to be superfluous, at this day, to reiterate the numerous and unanswerable ar gument.* which have been urged to prove that it is the interest of this nation to foster by pro tection and encouragement its manufacturing industry. The continued and successful legis lation of the general government for thirty-seven years, places this policy beyond the necessity of argument to support it. But as the “signs ot the times” clearly indicate that our southern brethren, not content with being protected in the profits resulting from the labor of their slaves—are combining their efforts to compel their fellow citizens of the eastern and middle sections, to suspend their manufacturing indus try, for the purpose of still swelling the profits of slave labor—if becomes the imperious duty of the eastern and middle sections to resist those combinations, and to sustain those who are (or sustaining theirbest interests, internal improve ments and domestic manufactures. PENN. From the Boston Patriot. ON THE COLONIAL TBAUE QUESTION, No. 1. To the Right Hon. Charles Casmno' First lard of the Treasury, and Prime Minister of Great Britain. SIR: At a moment of your elevation to the most powerful official station which a subject can occupy in the British empire, it may seem presumptuous for an obscure and anonymous foreigner to address you. Jle does it, howev trbn a subject of importance to both coun* tries; and in regard to which, you must al ter your policy and your tone, or your undisputed ascendancy in the British Councils will he rather a matter ol son«>w titan joy o friends of liberal principles in this counjry. When you lately laid before the House ol Commons a portion of the correspondence e twren yourseif and Mr. Gallatin, a mem ei o Parliament asked vou if that correspondence was final. You. answered that “ you presumed iU was, for that you had had tht last word. In ordinary parlance, a man is said to have the last word in a discussion, who either wea ries out his opponent by pertinacity of re,) ), or ! silences him by gening the better of the ail ment. Vou would not wisli to- tx^ understood as claiming to have bad the last word, in the first sense, and you certainly will not assuincj io.be the judge of your own argument, in in*** second. You will 'recollect, that, in your last letter to Mr. Gallaliu, you said, “ you would not allow yourself to be drawn again into a dis cussion of tonics, already more than sufficient!) debated.” You meant by this remark, to inti mate to Mr Gallatin in a polite manner,(and it is barely polite,) that you would not continue the correspondence on this subject \ou cou ‘ not suppose, after this intimation,that Mr.Ga - latiti \vouId permit himself to pursue the dis cussion Whether, in such a mode ol closing a diplomatic correspondence, you i an be said to have had the last word, in a manner proper to boast of in Parliament, I leave to those skill ed in diplomatic courtesy to say. Had Mr. GtHlatin attached as much conse quence, as you appear to do, to the simple fact of “having the last word,” I apprehend )our last letter would have lurnished him abundant materials for an answer.—He mi^ht have madi you a rejoinder, which, if I mistake no*, would have suggested to you the expediency ol a “few more* lost words. What Mr. Gallatin did not think it compat ible with his dignity or rather with the dignity of h'ts government, to do, may come without impropriety from an obscure individual If'.lun is a foundation of truth and reason in my sug gestions, you are too liberal to undervalue thci.t on account oftheir humble source. You commence your“ lust words” with a mis statement (unintentional of course) of fact.— You say “ Mr Gallatin complains that ike act or Parliament of 1825, was nut officially commu nicated to the government ut the United States. Starling with this mistake of the premises, you go on, through eight or nine of the short para graphs into which your recent diplomatic pa pers are cut up, to show that this supposed com plaint is groundless. Mr. Gallatin simply stated the/nr/ that the act of Parliament of 1825 was not officially communicated to the American government; lie stated it, not by way of complaint, but by way of argument. He at goes, that it was natural enough that the American govern ment should not have fullv apprehended the hearing of this act on the colonial question be cause that question was the subject matter of a negotiation suspended in 1824,.with the under standing that it should be renewed It was natu ral, therefore, that the American government should not have understood the act of Parlia ment of Julyvl825,as abruptly breaking off that negotiation, because in that rase, the act’would probably have been communicated officially, as the substitute for the promised retie wal ofthe nc gociation. This is Mr. Gallatin’s argument.You may think it good or bad To me it appears very cogent. At all eyents, it is no complaint. This, however, is of minor consequence. In the manner in which you show this supposed complaint to be unreasonable, you will, I fear, be found to have fallen into some errors, which, however pardonable in the man of genius and the be lesprit, do but little credit to the man of business or the statesman. You say, “it is perfectly true that it was nrn communicated, nor has ii been the habit of the two governments to communicate, reciprocally to each other acts of their respective legisla tures.” Now, sir, this is more trifle than you will per haps be pleased to learn The governments do not reciprocally communicate to each other acts of their respective legisl itures. That is, the British government does not communicate its acts to the American government. But as an American citizen, I take great pleasure in in forming you, Uiat, by the courtesy of the Ame rican government, a copy of all its public pointed documents is irgularly communicated to each foreign minister, consequently to the British minister. If you should not think the practice worthy of being imitated, you will at least, I hopr, not again, by implication, deny its existence, >n the part oF this government. But I attach no great moment even to this erroneous statement, al though it is worth your attention, as another instance of the danger of dealing in gratuitous generalities. But, if your general remark was incorrect,, I fear your spreial instance will be deemed still more unfortunate. It is as follows; I quote it at length, that it may not seem- to do you injustice: The act of Congress of 1823—an act the pro visions of which specially affected Great Bri tain—was not officially communicated, either to the King's Minister at Washington, or to His Majes ty’s Government, hy the American Minister re sident at this Court. So far from any such communication being made, or any voluntary explanation of the hearing of that act being offered, it was not till after repeated and pre.1 s ing inquiries,, that Ilis Majesty’s Minister at Washington succeeded in obtaining from the American Secretary of State, the true construc tion of the most important clause of that act, the clause in which the United States claimed that their trade to the British West India co lonies should be put on the same footing with the trade to the same colonies from‘elsewhere;’ and learnt, to his great astonishment,’that un der that word ‘elsewhere,* was intended to be signified, not only the other dependencies of Great Britain, but the “Mother Country ilself.’ Had this statement been made in debate,ei ther in the British House of Commons, or the American House of Representatives, it would hav# been pronounced by all present, acquaint ed with the subject, a most singular tissue of gross ignorance and strange misstatements. It cannot be divided in such a way, (hat any sin gle proposition in it 01 any connection of pro positions, can be shown to contain a shadow of truth. I-am not, of course, guilty of the rude ness of charging you with an intentional breach of veracity. But if I do not convince all, who will honor me so far as to read this letter, that you h,ave treated this important subject In a most su pcrficial ami imanner, T will consent to bear my p<7r^on of the disgrace, which your statement if true, would throw upon the American side of the controversy. You ‘ say,” “the act of Congress of 1823, (an act the provisions of which specially affected Great Britain,) was not officially communicat ed, either to the King’s Minister at Washing, ton, or to his Majesty's government by the Ame rican Minister resident at this court.” This, sir, is your statement. Now hear that of Mr. Adams’, then Secretary of State, and now President of the U. S. in his letter to Mr. Rush of July 23, 1823,.a document which, as appears from your observations in the House of Commons when you laid a portion of the ’correspondence before that body,you must have seen. Mr Adams says— “ The act of Congress of ls» March, 1833, was introduced into the Senate, by their < o,n miut e of foreign relations, at an early period of the late session. While it Vas in discussion beffrre the committee ol the Senate, Mr. C an mng, (British Minister at Washington,) to WHOM A COPY OF TUB BILL HAD BKKN C *J CATfD. made some written remrvks upon it. which were immediately submitted to the consideration cj ♦ the commit!et. So.much for the first matter of fact in rout statement. But now comes the other portion, relative to the word “elsewhere;” and I confer I dare not in courtesy, give a name to the man ner in which vou treat that subject. Me. Adams says, “The tiill import of the term ‘elsewhere’ in the second, third, and fifth' sections of the act. which formed the principal subject of these n marks, (of Mr. S. Canning, the British Minis ter.) w as deliberately examined 4»nd settled, as well in Senate, as upon a consultation by the President w ith the members of the Adminis tration, and was explicitly made known to Mr. Canning! , Now-sir where do you stand with the asser tion, that this act was not Communicated to the British Minister* not an explanation offer ed of its bearing? But this topic is too grave to be left here The English Editors, who reproach Mr. Cal latin with prolixity, although your letter con siderably exceeds his in length, may take the same exception to my correspondence, should it fall under their eye. To meet their objec tion, at least in part, I shall pursue the subject in another letter. Mean time, I have the honour to be, w ith the highest consideration, sir, your most obedi ent, and most humble servant. . AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ISLAND OF GUERNSEY. Ludicrous Description of its.Aristocracy. Guernsey is the very model of an island aris tocratical as we are in England, they heat us hollow in this particular. There are ihrrr'clast es in Guernsey—the Sixties, the Forties, and the people of no account, or the noughts, if one must descrjbe them at all. The Sixties are the original syitlers, the nobility as it were, the an cient families, and like the great people in most places, they are for'the most part the most nar row minded and stupid, the worst educated, and the least prosperous persons in the island, i lie Forties come next, they are the people of yes terday, the lerrae filii, and among them in.iy be found the most wealthy and the most enterpris ing persons in the island. But the Sixties will not associate with them. Many of the Forties, the children of rich nu n,* receive the best edu cation in England, and are received in the best English society; but when they return to Guern sey they are refused admission into the assembly rooms, and cut up by the Lilliputian Aristocra cy as an inferior cast. I now come to the dis tinctions. It is the proud distinction ol the Sixties to be entitled to carry two candles in the Lnierns, by which they see their way through their filthy streets and narrow lanes at night.— Thr Forties are permitted tocarrvbut one can dle in their lanterns; but as for the zeroes, or nobodies, I do not know whether they are privi ledgrd to cany a light or not,—they may be permitted farthing rush-lights, but I can speak with no certainty on this head. Certaiuly, on the night of a drum, (a Guernsey party of a very hundrum charac’er, so called,) it is a great and glorious thing, to see the beacons of wor shipful pedestrians blazing, the ensigns ef an cient race shining about the streets and alleys, not flashing and flitting at the rapid undignified rate of lamps borne by a rattling Ivondcn car- i riage, but proceeding at the staid, decorous pare ol a maid of all work, in red cloak, mar shalling her sixty, master or mistress, the way that he or she should deign (o go. These lan terns are the armorial bearings ol Guernsey no bility The dual light of their moulds is their proud blazonry The contrast is verv striking indeed between the high bearing of a lantern with two candles, at.d the humble go by the ground carriage of one with a solitary mould* and if it were not for seeing the Sixties in the day time shorn of their tallowy beams, one would conceive a high respect for them from tin exclusive plurality of their lights. But look at them in broad day; cut them off from thiii i-|!* rerns and they art* poor benighted creatures; they are as bright a& glow-worms by night, nut very maggots by day. The Sixties are f«»r most part poor creatures, but their lanterns are of a goodly bigness, and the two candles therein are proportioned to their roomy receptacles—• The Forties, though restricted to one ligh' though groaning under the tyranny of Sixty as cendency, and declared incapable of holding two candles in one lantern, are allowed to go 10 any reasonable size in their lanterns, and I do not observe that they differ in Magnitude front those of the Sixties. Indeed, it is a point prudence with the Forties not to attempt :o ag grandize their lantern, for such an ambition would but render the invidious unity of the can dle the more glaring. [London Magazine Knowledge produces mildness of sp*££ 1 mildness, a good character; a good character wealth; wealth, if virtuous actions attend i-; happiness. ' Extra Baggage.—A Frenchman, wishing • take stage lor Buffalo, was asked by the dri'« if he had any extra baggage. Extra gage!!—What you call dat? I have no bag gage but my tree trunks, %five dogs, and'' black girl!."—[N.Y.paper.