Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says:  “We have disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against the tyranny of your (the English) ministry.  But in contending for the birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel for the bondage of others, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country, as honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us.”

In the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan’s motion to lay a tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said:  “He was no advocate for a system of slavery.”  Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said:  “He never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave.”  Mr. Southard said:  “Not revenue, but an expression of the national sentiment is the principal object.”  Mr. Smilie—­“I rejoice that the word (slave) is not in the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who would not suffer it to become a part of it.”  Mr. Alston, of N. Carolina—­“In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade altogether.  Then this House will be unanimous.  No one will object to our exercising our full constitutional powers.”  National Intelligencer, Jan. 24, 1806.

These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their testimony comments to make it intelligible—­their names are their endorsers, and their strong words their own interpreters.  We waive all comments.  Our readers are of age.  Whosoever hath ears to hear, let him HEAR.  And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators and sages, who dared and perilled all under the burdens, and in the heat of the day that tried men’s souls—­then “neither will he be persuaded though THEY rose from the dead.”

Some of the points established by this testimony are—­The universal expectation that Congress, state legislatures, seminaries of learning, churches, ministers of religion, and public sentiment widely embodied in abolition societies, would act against slavery, calling forth the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion that would abolish the system throughout the Union.  In a word, that free speech and a free press would be wielded against it without ceasing and without restriction.  Full well did the South know, not only that the national government would probably legislate against slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national policy to be pursued on the subject—­had committed itself before the world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction—­that the nation had established by solemn ordinance a memorable