In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia, Hon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of Washington city, with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an elaborate opinion, from which the following is an extract:  “Nor is there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional legislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT.  Congress is responsible to the States, and to the people for that legislation.  It is in truth the legislation of the states over a district placed under their control FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, not for that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is involved, and necessary to the general advantage.”—­[Life of Pinkney, p. 612.]

This profound legal opinion asserts, 1st, that Congressional legislation over the District, is “the legislation of the states and the people.” (not of two states, and a mere fraction of the people;) 2d.  “Over a District placed under their control,” i.e. under the control of all the States, not of two twenty-sixths of them. 3d.  That it was thus put under their control “for THEIR OWN benefit.” 4th.  It asserts that the design of this exclusive control of Congress over the District was “not for the benefit of the District,” except as that is connected with, and a means of promoting the general advantage.  If this is the case with the District, which is directly concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia, which are but indirectly interested.  The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of ’89, an extract from which has been given on a preceding page, lays down the same principle; that though any matter “may be a local affair, yet if it involves national EXPENSE or SAFETY, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the government.”—­Cong.  Reg. vol. 1. p. 310.

But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this “good faith implied.”  Mr. Clay’s resolution aptly illustrates the principle, that error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with itself:  For if it would be a violation of “good faith” to Maryland and Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be equally a violation for Congress to do it with the consent, or even at the unanimous petition of the people of the District:  yet for years it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the District demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as their local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there, carry out the will of the citizens.  But now new light has broken in!  The optics of Mr. Clay have pierced the millstone with a deeper insight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed!  Congress