33D CONG....2D SESS.

in the moon! I stood at my desk when the gentleman delivered his speech, as I am here now,

"With bended bow, and quiver full of arrows," ready to "shoot at folly as it flies," whether to the green cheese of the moon, or to the sweet potatoes of Georgia!

The honorable gentleman is adroit in his effort to escape the consequences of the issues he had the temerity to present to this House. I shall bring him back to them in due time, after disposing of the outside matters he has introduced. I quoted him as saying "the South asks nothing,' and he charges me, therefore, with "putting words It is due in his mouth which he did not utter!" that I should give the gentleman the benefit of his language as published in his first speech as revised He said: by himself.

"But when did we ever come up and-ask any aid from the Government of the United States? The constant prayer of the South to you has been to stay your hands. All that we ask of you is, keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all that the South asks, and we do not get even that."

Now, sir, may I not ask whether the gentleman's complaint has not for its foundation a mere quibble? The substance of his charge is, that the free States have been robbing the South. In what manner has this alleged plunder been perpetrated through the General Government? Let us briefly

examine.

Have we robbed you through our tariff laws? In 1816, Mr. Calhoun was the advocate of a protective tariff. The free States never demanded protection until,under the system proposed by the South, they had been induced to invest, in permanent manufactories, buildings, and machinery, their capital. Then they claimed that, in good faith, the system should be continued. In 1824-'28 the system was advocated by southern statesmen, such as Jackson, Benton, Eaton, Richard M. Besides, sir, every branch Johnson, and others. of southern industry has been as fully protected by all our tariff laws as those of the free States. There is no injustice in this branch of Federal legislation. If there is, I challenge the gentleman to show it.

Have we robbed you through our improvement laws? I assert, without the fear of contradiction from any source, that in all the bills that have ever passed Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, the slave States have received a much greater amount from the National Treasury, according to their Federal representation, than the free States. Such was the case last session. It is so now. In the future, you will not complain if, in this branch of legislation, we say, "keep your hands out of our nockets!"

Have we robbed you in expenditures for acquiring additional territory? On a former occasion I asserted that the free States had never asked for the acquisition of new territories, and attributed to southern demands all the acquisitions since the organization of the Government, to wit: Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, Utah, and New Mexico, and the Mesilla valley. These annexations, the result of southern influence, including the war with Mexico, (the fruit of annexation,) cost the Federal Government more than two hundred millions of dollars, and furnished a legitimate item in reply to the charge of robbery.

The gentleman goes into an elaborate calculation to prove that a portion of this territory is in northern latitudes. The truth of this proposition does not affect my point. The acquisitions are all the result of southern demands upon the Federal Government, the purpose being to strengthen the political power of slavery, which has always been successful. The repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the admission of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, consummate this policy of the slave States; because our national history shows that no free State has ever yet been formed from territory from which slavery had not been positively excluded by law.

Have we robbed you through the postal arrange-
ments of the General Government? Look, sir, into
the last page of the President's message and ac-
We
companying documents upon our desks.
have here the figures of an annual robbery. The
figures stand thus:

Slave States, cost of mail transportation........$2,087,225
Slave States, postages, &c., paid..........

Deficit..

..........

1,487,984

$599,241

Free States, cost of mail transportation, &c..... 2.381,877 .$2,011,179 Overpaid.......

taxes.

look no higher in our aspirations for honor, than do the Boulless brutes? Shall we disavow the similitude of our Maker, and disgrace the very name of man? Tell it not to the world. Let not such an aspersion and reproach rest upon our name. I have heard of nations whose honor could be satisfied with gold, that glittering dust which is so precious in the eyes of some; but never did I expect to live to see the day when the Executive of this country should announce that our honor was such a loathsome, beastly thing, that it could not be satisfied with any achievements in arms, however brilliant and glorious, but must feed on earth, gross, vile dirt; and require even a prostrate foe to be robbed of mountain rocks and desert plains. I have no such notions of honor; and I have quite as little opinion of that policy which would spend fifty or a hundred millions of dollars in compelling the Mexicans to take fifteen or twenty millions for New Mexico and California, on the score of public interest."

Mr. Chairman, further back in the gentleman's "record," which is to "stand as it is made up,' I find wholesome suggestions from him, pertinent to his present proposition to take Cuba. In vol. 16, page 950, of the Congressional Globe, his record shows that he said to the American people, from his desk in this Hall:

"We can only properly enlarge by voluntary accessions, and should only attempt to act upon our neighbors by setting them a good example."

Again, he repudiates filibustering for other nations' territories:

"Fields of blood and carnage may make men brave and heroic, but seldom tend to make nations either good, virtuous, or great."

Still further back in the pages of the gentleman's "record," by which he abides, "dead or ing Texas. On the 25th January, 1845, (Congressional Globe, vol. 14, page 190,) he is reported as alive," he spoke well on the proposition of annex. follows:

"Much as he regarded the luster of the lone star,' (and he would let it gleam on,) he admired the brilliant galaxy of the present Confederacy of our glorious old twenty-six States, as they now existed, more. And rather than that star, shooting from its orbit and coming into ours, should produce confusion, he should say let it gleam on alone, and remain where it was."

It will be remembered that during the pendency of the Mexican war the question was raised here, whether we should exact from Mexico any of her territory as a condition of peace. On the 22d of January, 1847, (Cong. Globe, vol. 17, p. 240,) he offered in this House the following resolution:

"Be it therefore resolved by the Senate and House of Rep. resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the present war with Mexico is not waged with a view to conquest,' or the dismemberment of that Republic by the acquisition of any portion of her territory."

And prior to this resolve (June 16, 1846, Cong. Globe, vol. 15, p. 982) he denounced acquisitions of territory:

"As to the objects of the war, he inquired what it was the intention of the Administration to do? Was it to pursue the conquest of Mexico? Was it that our soldiers might revel in the halls of the Montezumas? Was it that we might acquire the Californias and all the mining districts as well as the capital of Mexico itself? If so, he was opposed to it. He declared himself, in advance, in favor of peace so soon as peace could be honorably obtained."

The gentleman's pertinacity against acquisitions of territory was most remarkable. His was the firmness of the "noblest Roman of them all." On the 12th of February, 1847, (Cong. Globe, vol. 17, p. 401,) he said, in reference to conquests and the war with Mexico:

"If there were any other object, it was for the direct and settled purpose of conquest; and that be believed to have been its main object. He declared himself opposed to the conquest and dismemberment of Mexico, either for the expenses of the war or for the satisfaction of indemnity of our citizens."

He wants Cuba now. He would have our Government violate or abrogate our solemn treaty with Spain, and turn out its reckless adventurers and speculators to aid the "oppressed Cubans!" Mr. Chairman, there never lived a greater tyrant than Santa Anna. Our war with his Government closed with the treaty by which we acquired the rich mines of California and the vast Territories of Utah and New Mexico. How ran the current of the gentleman's sympathies for the "oppressed" of tyranny then? What were his views of an extension of our domain? On the 19th of February, 1849, (Cong. Globe, vol. 20, p. 557,) the following resolution was submitted to this House by one of its members from my own State, [Mr. Schenck:]

"That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and instructed to enter forthwith into negotiations with the Government of the Republic of Mixico for the surrender to said Republic of all the terrilorics known as New Mexico and Upper California, or 60 much

33D CONG....2D SESS.

thereof as lies west of the Rio Grande, of any title thereto which was acquired by the United States under the fifth article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, made and concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 24 day of February, A. D. 1848," &c.

The vote stood as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Ashmun, Cranston, Crowel, Fisher, Giddings, Henry, Horace Mann, Palfrey, Schenck, Stephens, and Toombs-11."

But, sir, I must leave the gentleman voting with his "Abolition" friends, and pass from this branch of his "record.' Necessity does not require further explorations. said, on the 14th December, when I interrogated him on the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso, that I had confidence in him as a constitutional lawyer. I repeat it now, in connection with the question of our power to annex territories. On the 25th January, 1845, (Cong. Globe, vol. 14, page 190,) Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, thus defines his position:

"He denied that the Constitution gives to Congress any power, ether expressed or implied, to acquire foreign territory; or to the treaty making power the right to acquire territory for the purpose of extending the Union. He affirmed that the power given to Congress to admit new States was limited to the then territory of the Union."

Now, sir, I dismiss the points of the gentle man's last speech, and I leave the "record" which be has given us for all time and eternity, too. I cannot learn from it in what way we can annex Cuba, if he acquires it, either by purchase or by filibustering, without violating the Constitution both he and I have sworn to support. Glancing thus hastily over its pages to learn wisdom on the great points of our power to annex territories, and then to exclude slavery from them, one might very naturally say:

"Man's a strange animal, and makes use

Of his own nature, and the various arts,
And likes particularly to produce

integrity and ability forbade me from supposing that he had willfully violated the Constitution he had sworn to support; and I assumed that he agreed with me that Congress had power to legislate for the exclusion of slavery from Territories. He did not dispute the assumption. Sir, I shall hold him to the point I established. He is a distinguished leader among southern members. His admissions have not been denied on this floor by southern members. Two months have elapsed, and no southern newspaper that I have seen has denied their correctness. I have, therefore, the right now to assume-and shall assume that the South, and especially members from the State of Georgia, unite with me, as the gentleman did, in acknowledging the constitutional right of Congress to exclude slavery from all the Territories of the Federal Government.

Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia. I have seen the liberality of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] in extending, on being interrupted, the privilege to explain and to answer. He knows well enough that on the floor I have never sought to intrude on the time or attention of any one; but from reference having been made to Georgia, I ask him to allow me the privilege of speaking briefly on this subject.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have much to say and but little time. If the gentleman repudiates the positions of his colleague, he can say so in a word, and place himself right on the record.

Mr. BAILEY. I wish to say that I not only repudiate that position of my colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS,] but a great many other positions of

his.

[Mr. BAILEY proceeded to define his position at length, stating that he believed the people of Georgia also repudiated the positions of his colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS.] Mr. B.'s speech will be found on pages 327-330.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On this branch of the subject I have no longer any controversy with the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS.] We seem to have come together on the great question which underlies the whole difficulty, the constitutional power of Congress to exclude slavery from Territories. He joins me, too, in denouncing the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty," as asserted by the friends of the Nebraska bill. If the gentleman [Mr. BAILEY] joins issue with us, I transfer his colleague [Mr. STEPHENS] to him. They may have their contest before the people of Georgia.

Mr. SEWARD, of Georgia. I ask the gentle

man to allow me a moment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you indorse the positions of your colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS?]

Mr. SEWARD. No sir; I do not.

Some new experiments to show his—parts!" He presented an argument, in favor of taking Cuba, to the people of Ohio, which it is proper I should notice in leaving the subject. He suggests that we are now required to pay heavy duties at Havana, under the laws of Spain, on Ohio produce, which would not be required if the island was annexed. I wish to say to the gentleman, that whatever may be the code of national or individual morals in Georgia, in Ohio we regard American faith as higher than the profits on flour, and principle dearer to us than the value of pork! The Ohio farmer will not consent to cut the throat, or shoot out the brains of a Spanish subject in Cuba, on the gentleman's promise that he shall make two shillings more of profit on his pig! Mr. Chairman, I propose now to go back to the original issues which the gentleman presented in his first speech. They involved: 1, the constitutionality; 2, the expediency of excluding slavery from our national Territories by an act of Congress. I have no desire to discuss self-evident propositions, or those that are admitted by my adversary. Slavery is the antagonist of liberty. In the abstract, it is admitted to be a wrong, hence remarks on this point are needless. Upon the question of the power of Congress over Territories, under the Constitution, there has been ground for dispute; but on the 14th of December the gentleman certainly united in my repudiation of the doctrine that we should give to the people of a Territory unlimited sovereignty. He de-solving the Union since the repeal of the Missouri nounced what is termed "squatter sovereignty," thereby making an issue with those who aided him to pass the Nebraska bill, and not with me. On these points I pass him over to those who went for that bill on the ground that it secured to the people of the Territories the right of self-perpetuated, it shall not be for the purpose of exgovernment, and the privilege of "regulating all their affairs in their own way."

I held that Congress had constitutional power to exclude slavery, and sought to fortify myself by the action of our great statesmen, as well as the opinion of the gentleman. To be sure, sir, he was rather twistical in the course of my cross-examination, and said that he had never expressed an opinion on this point, either here or before his constituents. I resorted, then, to that "record," and proved that he had exercised the power, and voted-in the Texas resolutions-to deprive the people of a Territory of the right to hold slaves, and to withhold from them the privilege of tolerating slavery under any State constitution they might adopt. My high estimate of the gentleman's

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then I turn him over to you also. Fight it out in Georgia. I carry on no controversy with your colleague further than we may disagree.

Mr. SEWARD here expressed his regret that his colleague [Mr. STEPHENS] had not defined his position more promptly, and proceeded to define his own position, closing with the remark that in a particular contingency in reference to the right of slavery in Territories, &c., he was willing to see this Government rent asunder.

Mr. CAMPBELL. All these threats of dis

compromise have become, in the free States, "stale, flat, and unprofitable!" They do not frighten anybody. Much as our people may have loved the Union, they have pretty generally made up their minds for the future, if this Union is to be

tending slavery into free Territories. Southern gentlemen may stick a pin there!

I have no design to interfere in any contest these honorable gentlemen from Georgia may get up among themselves. They may regulate their domestic institution in their own way," and I will look on with entire complacency. The honorable gentleman to whom I reply, [Mr. STEPHENS,] has substantially indorsed my positions as to the constitutional power of Congress to exclude slavery from Territories. I have proved by his "record" that we have no power to sustain his proposition to annex Cuba, as he now proposes, without violating the Constitution we have solemnly sworn to support.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Mississippi. If the gentle

Ho. OF REPS.

man denies the power of Congress to annex Cuba, I ask him to explain his resolution of last session for the annexation of the Canadas, &c.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman from Mis, sissippi cannot involve me in an inconsistency. My record, here and at home, is straightforward for the promotion of freedom, without proposing to violate the Constitution, or the rights of the South. The resolution to which he alludes, submitted by me at the last session, simply authorized negotiations to be opened, to as certain on what terms we might acquire the British Provinces in North America, in an honest and peaceful way. It merely presented the inquiry, "What do you ask for them?" without committing Congress to an agreement to pay the price that might be demanded, or to annexation. It was a resolution of inquiry merely. Besides, Mr. Chairman, I thought that, inasmuch as the slave States had so often found power under the Constitution to annex the Territories of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, Utah, New Mexico, and the Messilla valley-wading through rivers of blood, and expending millions upon millions from the National Treasury to accomplish their purposes-and are even now willing to have a war with Spain for the acquisition of Cuba, to increase the slave power of the Union, we, of the free States, might venture to make an honest, quiet, and peaceful inquiry as to the terms upon which we might extend our area of freedom northward. Mr. Jefferson declared the acquisition of Louisiana to be an act The beyond the powers of the Constitution. gentleman from Georgia agreed with him, as I' have shown. The acquisition of Louisiana was justified only, on that principle known as the higher law" of national necessity. Every acquisition since that finds no other authority than in the principles of that "higher law." My position is, that if the Constitution justifies acquisitions southward for slavery, it justifies them northward for freedom! If the slave States act upon a principle of "higher law" than the Constitution, the free States (being equal copartners in the firm known as "The Union") have a right to adopt it as the rule of their action. And, Mr. Chairman, I intend to assert that right. The Constitution was formed with an implied understanding that no additional territory was to be annexed, and no new slave States admitted into this Union. The spirit of the instrument has oftentimes been violated by the friends of slavery; their "strict construction" arguments are only advanced when they fear the onward march of freedom.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen apply the taunt of "Abolitionist" on this floor, and seek to effect their purposes by engendering prejudices. For my own part, I have to say that I have always hitherto been a Whig. Now, that the Whig party seems to have been numbered with the "things that were and are not," and the faithless Democracy has gone down below the point to which it is supposed the arm of resurrection can reach, I shall prefer to have my position known, now and hereafter, by the principles I may avow. I shall hold myself independent of every political organization which would interfere with the progress of justice, or put in jeopardy the great cause of American liberty. On this troublesome question of slavery I fortify my position by the opinions of southern statesmen-of Georgia politicians

Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia. Name them.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Your patriots of 1776, of the day that tried men's souls-the first colonists of Georgia-those who fought for our liberties. And, recently, your colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS,] who seems to have played the part of the flying trusting to the fleetness of his horse for safety. Parthian, throwing his arrow at his antagonist, then But the gentleman has left his record behind him. On the 25th of January, 1845, he is thus reported:

"As a southern man and Georgian, he protested against the correspondence of the Secretary of State on this subject. The institution of slavery was a domestic one, and the Secretary of State sought to make it a national one. He objected to calling on this Government to strengthen the institution of slavery,”

Your institution of slavery is local. We deny the right of the free States, or of the General Government, to abolish or interfere with it, in the States where it is tolerated, and we deny your right to authorize its extension or its support

33D CONG....1ST SESS.

through the power of the Federal Government, either by direct or indirect means. The Constitution confers no power on this subject, except for the reclamation of your fugitive slaves, and I regard any law to carry out that power, which denies the right of jury trial, not only as unjust, but practically inefficient.

[At this point a running discussion took place between Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia, and Mr. CAMPBELL, in reference to trial by jury in the case of fugitive slaves.]

Mr. CAMPBELL. I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the consideration of the only point presented by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] in his first speech, on which we appear to be at issue. That is, the expediency of extending slavery, the comparative merits of free and slave labor, and the relative prosperity of free and slave States. The responsibility of such a comparison does not rest upon me, and I remind the House that the gentleman invited the investigation in his first speech, and followed it up vigorously in his last. I pursue it in no sectional or unkind spirit, but solely with a view to present fairly such facts as should direct us in legislation for the establishment of institutions in our unsettled Territories.

It may be well, sir, to ascertain, before we provide for the increase of slave States or promote he interest of slave labor, the number of American citizens who have a substantial interest in slavery. The census shows the number of whites in the slave States to be 6,222,418. Number of slaveholders..... Number owning less than five slaves...

.347,525. ..174,503

Slave States..... ........17.23 per cent. Free States.............. 4.12 per cent.

Number owning five and more slaves......... .173,022

It is a fact worthy of attention, that whilst the whole country is constantly being disturbed by this institution, there are, of the 20,000,000, only 173,000 who own five slaves or more. In the slave States alone, the number of persons who do not own a single slave is 5,874,893; whilst the number of slaveholders is only 347,525. These figures prove either that a large majority of the people of the slave States are opposed to holding slaves on a principle, or agree with me, that even there free labor would be more profitable. The correctness of this conclusion can only be questioned on the ground that the mass are too poor to own even one slave-an assertion which I am not disposed to make.

There are twenty millions of our people, therefore, interested in free labor, and only one third of a million who have property in slaves. Is it wise, is it just, that this interest of the few, which conflicts with the interests of the great mass, as well as the genius of our Government, should be promoted by national legislation? The gentleman assailed the statistical facts which I presented on a former occasion. I shall not now confine my tables to the census returns from Georgia and Ohio. With a purpose to test more fully the merits of free and slave labor, I have carefully compiled tables, drawing the line between the free and slave States. In presenting the results, I refer to the pages of the Compendium of the Census, from which my figures have been taken.

MANUFACTURE, MINING AND MECHANIC ARTS, (page 179.)
Capital Raw Hands Product.
invested. material. employed.
Free States $430,240,051 $465,844,092 950.573 $842,285,058
Slave States, 95,029,879 86,190,639 160,627 165,423,027

$335,210,172 $379,653,453 789,946 $676,862,031

The excess of profit in the free States, it will be seen, is nearly SEVEN HUNDRED MILLIONS OF

DOLLARS.

In connection with our manufacturing establishments much is said about northern slavery. True, sir, we have made slaves of our rivers and our mountain cascades. The Connecticut, and the Merrimack, the Miamis, and all the tributaries of the Mississippi, the mountain streamlets, are made to work in supplying the wants of man. Even now Niagara's cataract, with more power than is contained in the bones and sinews of all the Africans on earth, is being enchained and reduced to servitude by northern energy, for the benefit of

man.

Closely allied to the mechanical interest is the

It is worthy of remark that the State from which ries, is ahead of the average of slave States in the gentleman comes, who institutes these inqui"illiterate" persons, whilst Ohio, the State he selected for comparison, is below the average of the free States.

CRIME-PRISON STATISTICS.

The gentleman goes into the statistics of crime, and claims a successful comparison. The result of his statistics might be answered by the well known fact that offenses are more promptly and severely punished in the free States than in the South. But there are other facts worthy of presentation, connected with the statistics of crime, in the present state of public feeling, in regard to foreign emigration. The census tables prove remarkable facts. The tables of illiterate show that the foreign emigrants of the South are more intelligent than those of the North, and yet the percentage of crime among the foreigners in slave States is double that in the free States. The ratio of white persons imprisoned out of every ten thousand, in the free States, (page 166,) is: Foreign-born........ Native-born..

........5.868 .......1.991

The inference the gentleman would seem todraw that crime is more frequent under a system of free labor than of slave labor, is simply preposterous, "blind dogmatic nonsense!" Much of the crime in the North is perpetrated by convicts sent to our shores from foreign countries. In proof of this, I submit the following extract from the New York Times of December 24:

"Yesterday morning a highly important arrest of twelve convicts, sent to the United States at the expense of the Belgian Government, was effected by Sergeant Bell of the Mayor's office, and officers Newman and Freude.

In the

"During the past two years a large number of English felons have arrived here from Botany Bay, whom the authorities of the Old World liberated from confinement, and paid their passage to this port to get rid of them. course of the past summer, about fifty of these notorious thieves were captured and returned.” ***“Their crimes ranged from petit-larcenies to robberies on the highway,”

HO. OF REPS.

The United States consul at Antwerp recently wrote to Collector Redfield, of the city of New York, as follows:

"It has been discussed in the Legislature of Belgium whether it would not be better to send to the United State all criminals at Government expense, rather than to maintain them at home."

I present these facts for the two-fold purpose of mecting the gentleman's criminal statistics, and of calling the attention of our people to the outrages which foreign Governments are perpetrating in turning loose their cut-throats upon our shores.

PAUPERS.

Native.

The census tables show the following results: Foreign. Total. Slave States......... 16.411......... 4,819......... 21,260 Free States.........50,014.........63,689........113,703 More than three fourths of the paupers in the slave States are native-born; in the free States nearly three fifths are foreign-born. The same general facts I have mentioned in reference to foreign criminals sent to northern cities apply to the pauper statistics.

During the year 1853, there were admitted into two institutions of New York city, (Bellevue hospital and the alms-house,) as stated in the report before me:

Foreigners....

Americans...

.....5,797

........1,236

During the same time the city authorities furnished relief to the "out-door poor:"

Foreigners.................

Americans..........

.30,341

5,050

In this connection I submit a statement of pauperism in 1850, in several of the free States:

Massachusetts

New York

Pennsylvania Rhode Island

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has again pressed upon us his comparison of Georgia and Ohio prosperity, and assails the tables I presented, showing the value of agricultural products of the two States on the basis of New York city prices. He protests against Ohio hay at sixteen dollars per ton, yet I have the Cincinnati prices current, published a few days after he delivered his last speech, showing that it was then selling in that city at seventeen dollars per ton. He is startled, and becomes nervous over the fact, that Ohio hay alone amounts to more than the cotton of Georgia. He complains, too, that I put down his Georgia sweet potatoes at fifty cents per bushel, and claims them to be worth two dollars in New York. His Georgia sweet potatoes are a perishable product, and during the short period they might form an article of commerce, and enter into the exports of Georgia, or into the general consumption of the State, they are not worth more in New York than the rate I affirmed in my former table.

But, sir, I have prepared another table, including every product returned by the census, taking the prices current of New York of the 25th January, which I have preserved to fix the value, which the census does not furnish. To accommodate him I have rated his sweet potatoes at two dollars per bushel, although that figure presents the absurdity of giving Georgia nearly as much credit for her sweet potatoes as for her great staple of cotton. I leave Ohio hay at sixteen dollars, (less than the Cincinnati price, whence it is shipped to southern ports in large quantities.) Whatever sneers the gentleman may have for Ohio hay, and powerful as may be his eloquence in portraying Georgia's success in corn-shucks, it is nevertheless unquestionably true that the quantity of hay produced in Ohio, as returned by the census, estimated at Cincinnati prices, is six millions of dollars ahead of the cotton crop of Georgia estimated at New York city prices! If the census tables are erroneous as to the quantity of products, it is not my fault, for it was the gentleman who commenced this comparison and referred me to these tables. As to his offset of "corn blades," I have only to say, that common sense ought to prove to any mind that Ohio, with fifty millions of bushels of Indian corn, must produce nearly twice the quantity of "shucks," is blades," and