A Disclosure--The People Of The Union Taxed To Catch Runaway...

Our readers wil] remember, that the discussion in Committee of the Whole on the lndian Appropriation bill, was nol reported in the Washington papers. During the debate, Mr. Giddings moved to strike out the item of twothousand dollars for the benefit of the Florida Indians. A brief report of his remarles on the occasion, isgiven by David Lee Child. He said he had made the motion to cali the attention of the Congress and the Country to the object of this appropriation. He called on the clerk to read the article in the treaty by which the United States stipulated to pay this sum to the Indians - and thenext article, containing a stipulation on the part of the Indians to perform certain services in return, which was as ibllows: "The chiefs and warriors aforesaid, for themselves and their tribes stipulate to be active and vigilant in preventing the retrealing to, or passing through, the district of country assigned them, of anysconding slaves or fugitives from justice: and further agree to use all necessary exertions to apprehend and deliverthe same to Ihe agent, who shall receive orders to compénsate them agreeably to the trouble and expense incurred." The treaty containing this stipulalion was formed in the year 1823. It disclosesthehumilitatingfact, thatthe Government of the United States has been appropriating annually lor years past monies of the public trensury, to pay the respectable iraternity of slave catchers1. A man who loses his horse must get him him back at his own expense. The slaveholder who loses his slave, emplöys the Government to catch him, and makesthe whole Union, pnymaster. Mr. Giddingsremarked thatinthis way, this subject of Southern slavery, is, year alter year, forced upon the consideration of members here. In this way the Government is annually interfering wilh slavery, to support it. In this way they I are annually laking money from the i pockets of the Northern laborer. and payingit over to Southern Indians topay for catching slaves. He denied the constitutional power of the Government thus to interfere. Resistance to the unconstitutional and shatneful appropriations of money, for such purposes, was denounced as "abolition." He should like to see the menaber of Congress that would come out boldly, anddefendthemas right. Mr. Levy hoped the item would be struck out,but for a very different reason,trom tnat ot the gentleman frorn Ohio. These Indians had been engaed in hostilities against the United States, and tlie violation of this article, was one of the causes ihat led to hostüüies in Florida] lt was avcry just and even proper sfipulation,whichthe Government hadtherighl and power to enter into; and one whick the hidians tcere bound to perform. "Mr. Giddings.- This sir, is the very point which I wish to see discussed. I am anxious to understand the gentlemen on this plain doctrine. For tlie first time on this floor, it is now avowed and proclaimed. The right of the Government to tax the laborera of the North to catch runaway slaves, is now for once, and the first time, distinctly put forih in a plain and ntelligïblé form. I eny it in the most explicit manner. And the issue is thus -placed in a clear manner before the country."Mr. Giddings was mistaken. No report oflhis discmsion was ever permilied to appear in a Washington paper: - nor have we seenany report hy a single Washington correspondent, except by David Lee Child. People of the free States! what say you? Are you willing that your papers should blindfold you? Here is a plain demonstration of the fact, that a portion of your taxes ispaid to negro-huntera - and here too is a distinct, ernphatic avowal, in the Hall of Congress, that it is right and proper that you should be thus ta.xed. - What would you think, if the Govrrnment should appoint sentinels along all the borders of the free States, to sound the alarm for runavays,and give hot pursuit;ana slioukl approprmíe monies every yeai out of the public treasury for their support? But it would bo no-worse, than the stipulation in the treaty abovereferred to: in principie, it would be identical with it. Do your party papers teil you of these things? Not a word. Their relations to the slaveholders forbid. The issue on this subject which Mr. Giddings thoughi would be placed belbre the country, was never mentioned by the papers at Washington, which profess to record the debates and action of Congress! Think of that! Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, undertook to play the usual game, by attempting to brow-beat and school Mr. Giddings, but he met for once with a signal discomfiture. We cannot deny our readers the pleasure of the spicy conversation which took place between the two gentlemen. "Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, said that he would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio to wait until he got into the other end of the capitol, and when'a treaty was submitted for approval, his argumentwouid tiien De relevant. Mr. Giddings said he was in the habit of acting at such times as lus own judgment dictatcd. He carne here for that purpose, nnd not to put himself under the surveillance of any man. When hedesired the gentleman's advice, he would inform hini. Mr. Dromgoole said hc had not advised the gentleman. Mr. Giddings. No sir, he has not advised, lie has only sii-ggesled his opinions as to the cpurse which I should pursue in the discharge of my duties.here. While that gentleman's opinions are confined to the government of his own conduct, (said Mr. Giddings,) I have nothing to do with them. But when he attempts to control my acts, I say to hinV'hands oiF," talk toyour saves, but do not attempt to act iheoverseer here." Th is is dècidedly good. Jf the nonslaveholding members of the House would adopt the same decisive tone,it would tama somewhat the arrogance of these men. -