For The Liberty Press

Mat 5th, 1848. I recently ntimated to you the purpose of noticing the Expounder's article published in your paper of the 28th April. I uow fülfil that intimation ; not for tho mere purpose of controversy - nor to set the Expounder right with reference to the Abolitionists or the Liberty party, their purposes nd principies. On this latter point you have already been sufficiently explicit. But haviog been led, from occnsional reading, to consider that paper, not only rpputable, in point of talent, but somewhat more democratie than many of the papers of his party, I deem the article desemng of notice, from tho fact that the editor expresses sat.isfnction at those ihings which lie predicates of your editorial, which shows I must have been mistaken in my previously formed opiuions; or that I am unforlunate, in not fully understanding the Expounder's meaning. Hs commences by saying: " We are glad to see that the principies of AntiSlavery are undergoing some modification." Now, waiving the absurdity of supposing that " principies" - Anti-Slavery, or any other - can chnnge, or become modified - and allowing for the sake of argument, that " Anti-Slavery principies" could cliange or become modified - what must be the change or modification, which they must undergo, if any ! Why of course they must become less Anti-Slavery. or actually jra-Slavery ; less republican and democratie, and more Jespotic or arbitray : For I give the Expounder credit for too much discernment as well as talent, to suppose for a moment, he will pretend that American Slavery, any more than Kussian despotism, is democratie. To suppose he will take the ground that despotism over one million, is any different, as a matter of principie, from that exercisd over one hundred millions- But what is it of which the Expounder is glad ? Why one of the thing which seem to be a subject of rejoicing, is, that he assumes the Liberty party " no longer advocate the doctrine that Congress has the power to abolish the Slave trade between the States." This thei %n subject of grntulation with " The Democratie Expounder! !" Were it true of the Liberty party, it shouLd clothe the Expounder with sackcloth, and the Liberty party with shame ind confusión of fiice. But I am forced, however reluctantly, to the conclusión, that the Expounder adapta tho principie of which he seeins so emunored Let us then, very briefly examine the proposition. The chiuse of the U. S. Constitution on this subject s in Art. 1, Sc. 8, clause 3 - " Congress sliall have power to regúlate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." It will at once be seen, thero is not the slight est modification or restricdon, or reservation, in the power granted. And until very recently, tliere has never been a pretence, that Congress was in iny marmer limited in reference to the slave trade any more than any other commerce. Na} , Congress has from the very foundation of our government, actcd upon the principie, and with the unanimous consent of the nalion, that the wholo subject of foreign, iiiter-State and Indian trade and comraerco united in the general Government. UnJer the clause above cjnoted, Congress passed an act abolishing the African slave trade. Why ! Because it was an inhuman foreign commerce. And l ask any man acquainted with the subject, if the horror of the " middle passage," are more inhuman than thé can Slave trade 1 Again, Congress abolished the African slave trade because the wliolo system of Slavery, foreign and domestic, was anti-republican, antidemocratic, and anti-christian. Is the American Slare trade, in any regpect, less anti-republican, anti-democratic or anti-christian, than the Africun 1 And who has ever thought of questioning the legitímate power of Congress in this matter ? But Congress has also.under the same clause regulated the inter-State slave trade. In 1820, Congress passed a law proliibiting under severe penalties, the inter-State slave trade in vessels of less than forty tons burthen. And that article is yet in force. Now, I suppose it will be somewhat difficult for the Expounder to convince himself, much less others, that if Congress may prohibit the slave trade in one, they may in all classes of vessels - if coastwise, then land-wise. And I shall not stop here lo prove that if Congress have power to regúlate they have the whole power over the subject. Tliia was settled by the embargo and non-intercourse acts of 1808 and 1809. Nay, it was sternly settled in the so called ' Missouri compromise," For if Congress may prohibit Slavery itself North of 36 1-2 degrees of North latitude, I suppose they may prohibit Slavery, a fortiori, the Slave trade, North of 26 1-2 degrees of North latitude. In other words North of the Gulf of Nexico. This article, having already grown to too great dimensions, I shall be compelled to defer to a future occasion, some notice of other