Correction of the Article on the Southern

Caucus. (March Number.)

In the article on the Southern Caucus in our March number, we find the following: "On casting an eye over the Constitution we find no such express terms,' (reserving powers not delegated to the general government, to the States, or to the people respectively.") This should have been differently expressed as follows: "On casting an eye over the Constitution we find no express terms, reserving specific powers to the people or the States," &c. And again, (page 225,) it is said, "We do not find by the express terms of the instrument a reservation of rights respectively to the States and to the people;" which should have been, "We do not find by the express terms of the instrument a reservation of specific powers to the States," &c.

The amendments of the Constitution distinctly and in express terms declare as follows: "Art. XI. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"Art. XII. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The real exception to what was intended to be conveyed, to wit, that no specific rights or powers are delegated to the States or the people, are in the appointment of militia officers; and the apparent exceptions are in the asserting of certain rights, as that of bearing arms, assembling, petitioning, &c., which it is provided shall not be infringed.

The authors of the Manifesto contended that the power over the territories was not conferred by the Constitution upon the general government, and was therefore by the XIIth amendment reserved to the States respectively or to the people. They then, confounding the States with the people, argued that citizens of Southern States had the power to carry what property they chose into the territories.

The author of the article had in his mind the fact that no powers of government-no specific rights, such as could be exercised by the general government, (with the exception named,) were reserved to the States, or to the people, individually. He did not properly nor fully express his own meaning, and the omission of the word specific conveys a wholly false impression of it. For, it is clear, that the XIIth amendment does not reserve any

power, to any one State, or person, over things common to all the States: what is reserved to the States respectively must be within the limits of each State and its separate territory. And what is reserved to "the people," or in other words to individuals, (in the meaning of the amendment,) cannot be out of the sphere of an individual; nor can be predicated of what is

common to THE PEOPLE as a nation.

If the national territory belongs to the States "respectively," it does not belong to the States collectively. If it belongs to the States respectively, (or separately,) it does not belong to the people, or to individuals, either respectively or collectively. But if it is the national property, then it belongs neither to the States respectively or collectively, nor to the people individually; but to the people of the United States," in their national capacity, as organized under the Constitution.

Now, as they are, the XIth amendment declares, that nothing in the Constitution shall disparage rights retained by the people: much less then can it disparage national rights retained by the nation as a whole, and necessary to its existence. Such a right is that of full sovereignty over the national territories, and the power of legislating in them for the good of the whole.

The Article on California.

In the last number of the Review, (for April,) it is stated in the article entitled "California," that the new territories of the Union were gained by fair purchase" from Mexico. As it sometimes happens that the original author of an article in the Review is not responsible for everything in it, the MS. being sometimes submitted to several critical hands for revisal, it is usual for the editor in such cases to assume the entire responsibility of the article; the name of the first author being, of course, not communicated to the public, unless by his own desire. It happened, however, that the original authorship of the article on California was known by some few of our subscribers, and the writer, unwilling to father that part of it for which others were responsible, announced through the daily papers that he was not the author of the sentiment above noticed, not however giving his name. This announcement was of course intended only for those few subscribess in New York who happened to know of the authorship.

The announcement made in this formal style, gave rise, incidentally, to much argu

ment, as to the soundness of the doctrine which | our original author was so impatient of having laid at his door. It may, therefore, seem not improper to say a few words to our friends in justification.

The expression "fair purchase" is perhaps too strong; it should perhaps have been "lawful purchase," or some other expression, signifying a regular purchase and sale.

The doctrine maintained by the Review, since November, 1847, is, that no territory, consistently with the theory of our government, can be wrested from, or conquered from, a neighbor; and that if territory is so wrested, (unless under a plea of indemnity, when our neighbors have undertaken a piratical expedition against us, and their territory is properly confiscated to pay the cost they have put us to, by unjustly invading us, or harassing our border,) it is in direct violation of the spirit of free government, as we understand it.

It has been argued, in various articles, since that time, that a deliberate scheme of conquest, for the augmentation of territory, was no better than a system of land piracy, and that the Senate of the United States could not, consistently with their office as the guardians of State rights, ratify any piratical treaties; that if they did so, they would destroy the government by setting up a precedent in direct opposition to every principle of liberty and humanity.

The editor believes that the arguments given in the Review against "rights of conquest," refusing them admission among the category of "rights," and maintaining that a system of such rights could not be established without subverting all the "rights of the individual," as well as of "State sovereignties," appeared first of all in the journal of which he is the editor. These arguments were afterward repeated and echoed, (or originated,) by other public journals all over the Union, and became the common property of the Peace party.

The editor cannot therefore be charged with having "justified the war" in any instance, though he may be with having justified our present title to New Mexico and California. The editor holds that these countries, at least the rocks and soil of them, were purchased by the administration from Mexico. That the sale was wholly forced upon Mexico, he is not prepared to admit, but insists that the territory was not acquired by conquest.

Our readers will remember that the war party, with the administration at their head, set out with a full intention, openly expressed, of "absorbing" Mexico. That the first step of this process of absorption was the conquest of the country beyond the Neuces. That Mexico was to pay us for the trouble and expense we had incurred in robbing her of her territory. We were to be " indemnified" by Mexico for the cost of pirating her land; which was as though a robber should charge a householder the cost

of his pistols and burglars' tools, after robbing him.

Had Mexico been notoriously the aggressor, and our war a war of self defense, we might indeed have forced an " indemnification," and she, God willing, should have paid the cost of war. But the case was different. We were

the aggressors, and had Mexico been strong enough, the justice of nations would have justified her in forcing an indemnification.

Now what were the facts. The administration, driven by public opinion and the want of money to put a sudden end to the war, as the only means of saving it from the execrations of its own party, concluded a peace-bargain with Mexico, in which it was stipulated that, for the sum of fifteen millions, Mexico should give up her right of ownership and sovereignty over certain territories then held to be of very little value; and many persons, after gathering what information they could from their geographies, thought that the territories were bought at too high a price. Instead, therefore, of exacting costs of war, our government paid for the war, bought supplies from the Mexican people, and finally paid for the territory itself, at a dear bargain;for such it undoubtedly will prove, and has begun to prove, to this nation. Has any man the face to call this a conquest?

Let us look for a moment at the circum

stances. First. Would the administration have offered to buy the territory if the war had been at an end, and Mexico ready to lay down her arms? On the contrary, Mexico was ready to continue the war indefinitely, and not only insisted upon remuneration for the territory, but upon a certain protocol, making conditions for her own citizens in the territories. Mexico did not regard herself, and did not treat, as a conquered nation. She considered that it was better to sell the territory with the reservation of the rights of the citizens inhabiting it, than to continue the war. And our government considered that it was better to buy the territory, and give up all the claims for which the war was ostensibly begun, and to bear all losses, although the war had inflicted comparatively little injury upon Mexico, nay, had perhaps brought as much into her country as it had cost her in actual value; that it was better to do this, and suspend all designs of conquest, than to continue the war another month. In our view, therefore, Mexico had much the advantage of us in this affair; which, as we were the aggressors, seems to be proper enough; for we are not of those who cry, "our country; right or wrong" to aid one's country to do wrong, being only to aid its ruin; and what good patriot would assist in ruining his country?

To repeat the argument in brief, had not Mexico been in a condition to continue the war, either our government would not have re

nounced the claims for which it was begun, much less have paid for the territory, and endeavored to secure the rights of their inhabitants by the protocol. Or-Mexico being quite broken-it renounced the idea of conquest, and made a voluntary purchase in the usual manner between equals. The treaty, with its protocol, was a compromise. Mexico wanted money, and we wanted land. Public opinion would not suffer our government to wrest the land; and Mexico, knowing this, and being willing to continue the war in her desultory manner, made a tolerable bargain. This was the victory of the peace party over the war party. If other persons, wiser and better informed, think differently, they have their opinion. That the bargain was a fair one, in every sense, we will not urge, but that we paid far more than the territory is worth to us, nay, that the advantages that we then saw in it were equal to the money expended in and guarantied to Mexico, we insist we have a right to think. The recent discovery of the gold mines only makes the bargain a worse one for ourselves; for, to support the army of emigrants in California, an annual outlay will be needed of at least fifty millions of the floating property of the nation, while the total annual yield of the mines, at the best esti

| mate that we have seen, will not exceed twenty-five millions of dollars, or half the amount; our new acquisitions will therefore cost us annually a sum nearly equal to the revenue of the United States. Mexico certainly lost nothing by the exchange.

To our occasional Contributors.

Our correspondents will confer a real favor by sending us fair copies, and not the original and sole MS. of their works. If an article is worth anything, it is worth the trouble of a fair copy. Not intending the least discourtesy to our occasional contributors, we yet find it necessary to say, in general, that time is not so cheap a commodity that we can conscientiously employ it in doing up and directing rejected copies of verses and short essays, to save authors the trouble of making fair transcripts of their own works. We hope, therefore, that no offense will be taken, if, in future, we fail to comply with the usual injunction, "to return the MS. if it be not used," unless it is too long to have been copied without considerable labor. A fair copy is also a favor to the printer and proof-reader, for which they are always grateful.

Nineveh and its Remains, with an Account of a Visit to the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan, and the Yezidis, or Devil Worshippers, and an Inquiry into the Manners and Arts of the Ancient Assyrians. By AUSTEN HENRY LAYARD, Esq., D. C. L. 2 vols. 8vo. New York. G. P. Putnam.

The publication of this work in England has attracted the attention so largely of the public and the press, that it is only necessary for us to announce the issue of this American edition in a style every way creditable, not only to the enterprise of the publisher, but to the press of the country.

Of the merits of the work itself it is impossible for us to speak worthily in a brief notice. The wonderful discovery of Dr. Layard is one of the remarkable circumstances of the age, and must intensely interest every intelligent mind. Whilst with the minute detail of his persevering exhumation of those palaces and

temples of a forgotten race, with their curious sculptures, he has given us such graphic pictures of Arab life, and such an interesting account of that most interesting remnant of a race, the Chaldean Christians, as would of themselves have made one of the most remarkable books of the day. Indeed, we think some of his descriptions in this way are unequalled by anything we have read. We would particularly instance his visit to the great Shammar tribe. Several descriptions in this chapter convey such vivid pictures to the mind's eye of that probably most picturesque of all scenes, a large Arab encampment, or migration with its flocks, herds, and camels, that they seem more like the colorings of canvass. We need say no more, for no reader of books can voluntarily omit this one.

The second volume having just been issued, we have not had time to examine it as yet, but are extremely eager to see what Mr. Layard makes of the various inscriptions he has found.