The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-28 00:00:00

it. It will not be saved by mutual recriminations,
or by debates in Congress on topics like that of the
power of Congress over the territories, topics on
which the opinions of parties have become dog-
matic ; it cannot be saved by proving secession to be
illegal or unconstitutional, since persons bent on
it have got beyond all concern for legality—nor,
by discussing the right of coercion ; for the practical
question will become this—whether secedin g
States have a right to coerce the remaining ones to
acquiesce in a dissolution; nor would a Union pre-
served by the sword be worth preserving. Con-
gressional compromises also will not save the
Union ; on this important point we quote his
reasons verbally—" I know indeed, that tra-
dition favours this form of remedy; But it is
essential to its success, in any case, that there
be found a . preponderating mass of citizens,
so far neutral on the issue which separates
parties that they can intervene, strike down clash-
Thg weapons, and compel an accommodation.
Moderate concessions are not customarily asked by
a force with its guns in battery ; nor are liberal
concessions apt to be given by an opposing force
not less confident of its own right and its own
strength. I think, also, that there is a prevailing
conviction that legislatiTe compromises which
sacrifice honestly cherished prbeiples, while they
anticipate future exigencies evei if they do not
assume extra constitutional powers, ,:re less sure
to avert imminent evils than they are c rtain to,.
produce ultimately even greater dangers. _lndeed,
Mr. President, I think it will be wise to disi.'ard
two prevalent ideas or prejudices, namely, first i
that the Union is to be saved by somebody in par-
ti.a.s. - s-.-A sananilly, that it is to be saved by
some cunning and insincere compact of pacification."
Mr. SEWARD would certainly appear to have all
American experience on his side ; for the Missouri
compromise,and the Fugitive Slave Law compromise,
and others, less or greater, between slavery and
freedom, have been but the occasion of increased
bitterness on the part of the outwitted North, and
of attempts at further extension of political power
on the part of the South.
Mr. SEWARD strongly holds, however, that the
right of Secession is inadmissible. It was not tole-
rated by JEFFERSON in 'lhe face of war with Eng-
land, when some of the New England politicians
set np the principle, and if inadmissible in one case,
it is necessarily so in all others. " I fully admit,"
he says, "the originality, the sovereignty, and the in-
dependence of the several states within their sphere.
But I hold the Federal Government to be equally
original, sovereign, and independent within its
sphere. The Union can be dissolved, not by seces-
sion, with or without armed force, bat only by the
voluntary consent of the people of the United
States, collected in the manner prescribed by the
constitution of the United States." His view is
that after the present excitement has cooled down,
" When the angry excitement of the hour shall
have subsided, and calmness once more shall have
resumed its aceustomed sway over the public mind,
then, and not until then—one, two, or three years
hence—l should cheerfully advise a convention of
the people to be assembled, in pursuance of the con-
stitution, to consider and decide whether any and
1 what amendments of the organic national law
ought to be made."
Nor is Mr. SEWARD backward in indicating
generally what he thinks might be proposed as
amendments of the constitution, which should be
fair between the contending parties, and give some
hope of permanent satisfaction. He acknowledges
the principle of the extradition of the fugitive from
slavery. No doubt it was on that principle that
the slave states first entered into the Union ; but we
conceive the principle to be the curse and bane of
the free states. If they cannot form a Union with-
out it, they had better separate. A fugitive from
slavery zs, to all intents and purposes, a political
refugee; he ought not, by all the laws of nations,
to be dealt with on other grounds. He flees from
a political constitution under which he cannot
have the freedom to which he aspires ; he was no
party to the infernal oppression which uses him
as a beast of burden in cultivating cotton, sugar,
rice, or tobacco ; he has the same right to flee as
Poles, Hungarians, or Neapolitans have had—
indeed, infinitely stronger reason, if not stronger
right, to do so ; and in amending the constitution, if
the Northern " Sovereign States" took counsel
with their "sovereign" dignity and their future
position in the world, they would strike out that
accursed compromise inserted in the constitution,
which declares that " persons held to labour by
the laws of one State" shall be delivered
up if they escape into another. Indeed,
as has often been urged, though the meaning
of the clause was well known when presented,
yet as the word " slave" was firmly repudiated, it
might be fairly argued that the escaped slave was
not a " person" held to labour. The claim on him
is made as on a chattel, a property, not a person.
If the idea of person be introduced, the slaveholder
might be asked to produce the proof that the per-
son had ever acted as such—had ever made any
agreement to work on any such conditions, as the
humblest person would make with the claiming
party. If the Union be dissolved, the Northern
States will not be slow to find out that negroes
are persons, and the Southern States to discover
that their slaves will be free by crossing a portion
much nearer than that of Canada.

We regret therefore to find Mr. SEWARD appeal-
ing to the constitution as a satisfactory basis of
action in this style—" So far the abstract question,
whether, by the constitution of the United States,
the bondsman, who is made such by the laws of a
State, is still a man or only property, I answer
that, within that State, its laws on that subject are
supreme ; that when he has escaped from that State
into another, the constitution regards him as a bonds-
man who may not, by any law or regulation of
that State, be discharged from its service, but shall
be delivered up, on claim, to the party to whom his
service is due." He acknowledges, indeed, that
the Fugitive Slave Law is too bad—he would
amend, not abolish it, but would also repeal the
personal liberty acts of the Northern States.
This is what he means when he says, " While ,
prudence and justice would combine in
persuading you to modify the acts of Con- il
gress on that subject, so as not to oblige pri-
vate persons to assist in their execution, and to
protect freemen from being, by the abuse of the
laws, carried into slavery, I agree that all laws
of the States, whether free States or slave States,
which relate to this class of persons, or any others
recently coming from or resident in other States,
and which laws contravene the Censtitution of
the United States, or any law of Congress passed
in conformity thereto, ought to be repealed."
He is willing to vote for an amendment of the
Constitution, which shall make it impossible for
Congress ever to abolish slavery in any of the
States which have legalised it. We thought, how-
ever, that Congress had not now that power.
Certainly the free States havo always declared
themselves, hitherto, free from the guilt of
slavery on this particular ground. On one
point he seems, however, to speak very
.
decidedly, "I think," he says, "that Con-
gress has migive and sovereign authority to