there will be none to the party applying. The bill provides that the threecent piece shall be paid out at the mint, and its branches, in exchange for those and some other varieties of small foreign silver coins current among us, but for no other kinds of coin or bullion. The real value of the quarters, shillings, and sixpenny pieces in circulation, as ascertained at the United States mint, are as follows: This is an average depreciation of near ten per cent. In consequence of the circulation of these pieces at a nominal rate so high above their real value, the quantity multiplied here to an inconvenient extent, taking the place of the sound coin. To remedy this, the post office department and the banks in New-York, refused to receive them for more than 23 cts., 10 cents, and 5 cents respectively. This was less than their real value, and the consequence was that quarters soon became inconveniently scarce: so much so, that the want of them for circulation added an extra value to them, and they were again received at their nominal rate. The banks, many of them, got entirely out of these coins, and were unwilling to go to the expense of sending dollars and bullion to Philadelphia, for coinage, merely to accommodate the public. The vigilance and activity of the late administration, to a considerable extent remedied the inconvenience, and at this moment the national coin in bank and circulation is larger than ever before. It is not New-York, however, that profits by this state of affairs so much as the producing sections, and this more directly in the matter of exchange. Thus when gold is imported from England and remains in bank vaults ready for exportation as soon as the rates of exchange reach 110 per cent. gold becomes a profitable remittance, because it is money as soon as it arrives out. On the other hand, American gold is not money, and must be re-coined there because England does not allow foreign coins to be a legal tender. This requires exchange to rise to 1113 before it can be shipped. The following account of actual shipments of coins shows the effect on exchange. remittance of sovereigns to London will turn out nearly as follows: A Every pound in London has cost $4 91, which is the actual par by shipment, although quoted 110.6 per cent. A shipment of American gold will cost still more, because it is not money in London. It will run as follows: lbs. Oz. dwt. grs. 447 7 16 0 4 12 10,000 eagles melted into thirty bars, Reported worse 1 grs. equal standard 439 Freight, melting, assaying, charges, &c. Thus every pound has cost $493 04, which is called 111 premium. These different rates of exchange result from the different values of the coins remitted. Now, the New-York Exchange market governs that of the whole country. If, therefore, the vaults of the banks are filled with sovereigns, it will be impossible for the planter who has shipped cotton or Maryland tobacco, to get more than 92 for his 60 day bill, because sovereigns, being cash on arrival, can be readily drawn and shipped at 10. If, however, owing to the operation of the mint, no sovereigns can be had, the planter may get at least one per cent. more for his bill, in preference to eagles. That is, he can cause the New-York importer to pay one per cent. more for the bill as a remittance, and this will benefit the producing interest at least $200,000 per annum. Is this to the benefit of the New-York importer, or that of the Maryland planter? Yet Messrs. Pearce & Co. talk about a mint at New-York being a tax upon the country for the benefit of NewYork merchants! It is now nearly ten years since the writer of this, then using the columns of the New-York Herald, urged the necessity for a mint in NewYork. Under date of June 25, 1843, we wrote:- "American gold is in demand at 4 per cent premium, and very little can be procured at all. This is owing to the culpable neglect of the federal government, and the iniquity of politicians, who, while wrangling about a National Bank, have utterly neglected to "regulate the currency," as prescribed by the Constitution. The quantity of specie in this country is sufficient for all its wants, and it is constantly increasing, through the industry of its people, and yet it is in a form which renders it utterly useless for a currency. There are in the city banks here $13,000,000 in specie, all foreign money, and yet a person traveling cannot pick up $500 of national coin. He cannot take foreign gold, because the people are unacquainted with its value. The specie in the banks is of no more use than stones for a currency, because Congress has neglected to provide the means of coining it. There is a mint to be sure, in Philadelphia, but it costs to per cent. in transportation and delay, to have money coined. Who is to lose that money? To coin the foreign money now in this city would cost $65,000, whereas if the mint was in this city it would cost nothing, and a national currency would make its appearance. This want of a mint is one of the most powerful agents in forcing paper into circulation instead of gold. If a man starts for the West to buy produce, he applies for American gold and cannot get it; foreign gold will not pass, and he is forced to take paper; or if he will have gold, he must take it to Philadelphia and stay there until it is coined, a ceremony destructive of all business. All this forms a powerful support to banking, because it prevents the circulation of the "uniform currency" of the Constitution, at the same time that it affords an argument in favor of a bank." Again, of a subsequent date : “ American gold is now at 1 per cent. premium in this market; yet the vaults of the banks are overladeu with foreign gold, of which they would be very glad to be relieved. If the mint were accessible at any reasonable expense, large Binounts would pass into circulation, and be retained in the country, giving greater stability to trade. The gold now remains in the banks waiting to be exported—it is of no use to the people, and a burden to the banks. It can become available only by pushing out bank credits, until a portion of it is forced to go abroad. The location of the mint at Philadelphia seems to have been op purpose to prevent the acquirement of a specie currency. The mint should be at the very portal where gold is adınitted into the country; it would then receive the stamp of nationality.” pass into circulation, and with difficulty find its way out of the country. At New-Orloans, the deposit of foreign gold during the year was larger than at Philadelphia." These facts became apparent from daily observation of the operations of trade; and under the present tariff , the enhanced importations of the precious metals, as well from foreign countries as from the mines of Calisornia, develop an increasing necessity for the mint at the point of concentration. For the year 1849, $6,000,000 arrived at the port of NewYork, per custom-house books, and $8,000,000 estimated in the hands of 220,000 immigrants, making $14,000,000 of foreign coins, of which only $3,500,000 was coined. For want of some place where their strange money may be changed into local currency, these poor immigrants are driven into the hands of brokers, and suffer many impositions in passing their money before they reach their destination at the West. Mr. Cooper, of Pennsyl. vania, would have them all make a pilgrimage to Philadelphia, in order to get their money coined. Mr. Dickinson offers prompt relief, without trouble or expense to them. A mint in New-York throws open its doors and supplies the national coin without a shave. The New-York brokers will gain less, but the immigrants and the West will lose less. The necessity for such relief is estimated in the fact that 45,800 immigrants-each with money to change-arrived in New-York for the month of May alone. At present, if these persons travel into the Western States, with ducats, forins, louis d'ors, sovereigns, &c. &c., which speedily pass into the banks for their notes at a shave, they are by the institutions boxed up and sent down to New-York, for sale to the bullion-brokers, who supply merchants for remittances out of the country. If, instead of this, immigrants can at the mint get the full value of the coins they possess, in eagles, halves and quarters, these, on their arrival West, will pass freely into general circulation, and will very slowly find their way back to exporters of coin. It is only by the location of a mint at the spot where it is required, that the great object for which it is created can be attained; and those who, from a deficient understanding of the subject, combat its proper location from sectional jealousy, are opposing a national currency. FUGITIVE SLAVES. THE right of the citizens of the Southern States, under the Constitution, to the recovery of fugitives from labor in other States, is so clear and so well defined, that even the most hardy free-soiler has not dared to question it. The disunionist party, now gradually forming by the sloughing off from the two old parties, of those corruptions represented on one side by the NewYork Tribune, and on the other by the Evening Post, admit the constitutional obligation, but deny its operation when public sentiment, real or imagined, is against it. That is to say-when it suits these gentlemen no longer to keep a solemn compact, they forthwith repudiate it on moral principles. The Southern States, in this respect, have suffered great wrong at the hands of corrupt Northern Judges. The records of the NewYork Courts, at no distant date, show an instance of outrageous pandering to a fleeting electioneering cry-a popularity hunting judge at the expense of judicial dignity and truth. The decision in the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, by the United States Supreme Court, was a severe blow to the integrity of the Union, by giving color to the hope that the solemn provisions of the Constitution may be evaded. Mr. Clay, in his late speech upon the subject of compromise, refers to the decision, showing the misconceptions which have grown out of it. A distinguished jurist of Pennsylvania, has in the April number of the American Law Journal, commented upon the remarks of Mr. Clay, and shows wherein he has himself fallen into error. We annex the conclusion of the article: "Mr. Clay is undoubtedly correct in declaring the decision, as generally understood, erroneous, and in maintaining the true doctrine that laws passed by the States, in order to assist the General Governmennt as far from being laws repugnant to the Constitution, are rather to be regarded as laws carrying out, enforcing and fulfilling the Constitutional duties which are created by that instrument.' He is also right in declaring that the Court had no right' (in the case before it where the question did not arise) to decide whether the laws of facility were or were not unconstitutional, and that such decision, if made by the Court, would have been extra judicial.' It has ever been so regarded in the Lancaster District of Pensylvania, where, notwithstanding the decision in Prigg vs. Penn'a., so much of the Pennsylvania statute of 1826 as was not in conflict with the rights of the slave-holder under the Constitution and laws of the Union has been constantly enforced until its repeal. The authority of the decision has been confined, as it should be, to the question upon the record-to wit -whether a State could constitutionally pass a law to convert the act of recaption of property by the owner or his agent, into the crime of kidnapping. But we think Mr. Clay is in error in saying that the Supreme Court of the United States have only decided that the laws of impediments are unconstitutional. It is evident that the distinguished Senator, in forming this opinion, has not confined himself to the report of the case. He informs us that he has 'taken the trouble to converse with the Judges themselves;' and it is with great satisfaction that we infer that the error will not be persisted in. This is certainly something gained to the cause of freedom and State rights. But let us see how stands the record. Let the errors be pointed out, and let the authors receive their just meed of censure. Let those who faithfully stood by the Constitution be also known that they may receive the plaudits of a grateful people. " A brief history of the case is necessary to a proper understanding of the subject. In 1826, at the instance of a Committee from the State of Maryland, an act was passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania offering facilities for the arrest and surrender of fugitive slaves to their owners, upon proof of ownership, and giving to the owner, on his application to the State authorities, the aid of the process and the services of the officers of the State, in effecting such arrest and surrender. At the same time, a section was inserted, providing substantially, that, if any person by force shall carry away, or shall by fraud or false pretence seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away, or seduce any negro or mulatto from any part of the State to any other place whatever out of the State, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatever, every such person, &c., shall on conviction, &c., be deemed guilty of felony, and shall forfeit, at the discretion of the Court passing the sentence, a sum not less than $500, nor more than $1000 ; and moreover, shall be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a period not less than seven years nor exceeding twenty-one years. Under this section a citizen of Maryland, named Edward Prigg, who was the agent for the owner of one Margaret Morgan, a fugitive slave, was indicted in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of York County for kidnapping. The only evidence against him, and the only offence committed by him, as found by a special verdict, was, that he had scized a fugilive slave within the limits of Pennsylvania, under full authority from her master, and carried her home to her master in Maryland, where she was held to labor under the laws of that State. Now, to us, it seems plain that this section could not apply to such a case, and could not have been so intended by the Legislature who passed it. There was ample scope for its operation upon persons who carried off negroes and mulattoes who were not slaves. What judgment the Court of original jurisdiction would have pronounced on the special verdict cannot be known, as the Court gave judgment against the defendant, .by agreement of Messrs. Meredith and Nelson, his counsel, with Mr. Johnson, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania --The Supreme Court of the State upon writ of Error, affirmed pro forma the judgment of the Court below; and the defendant Prigg prosecuted his writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no cause of complaint against the jury, for they found the facts according to the truth, and submitted the question of law to the Court. There is no serious ground of complaint against the Court of Oyer and Terminer, for its judgment was pronounced according to the agreement of the parties. But it is not stated that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was rendered, by agreement of the parties, nor ought that Court to have rendered such a judgment as was pronounced, either by consent or otherwise. It is true that the judgment is stated to have been rendered pro forma ; but no such judgment, so seriously and so extensively impairing the rights of citizens of other States, so vitally affecting the reputation of Pennsylvania for integrity and fidelity to the National Constitution, in a case almost too plain for argument, ought to have been rendered upon any terms or in any form. It was due to the character of the Court, and the State, and to the high purposes of justice, that the rights of the slave-holder, in a case so entirely free from diffi, culty or doubt, should have been sustained, at once, by the State Court. Good taste and good faith alike pointed out this as the proper course. But this course was not adopted, and the citizen of Maryland was compelled to seek in the Supreme Court of the United States that justice which had been denied in the State courts. Here an error of an opposite nature occurred. The only ques. tion raised by the record was whether the peaceable recaption of a slave, recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States, could be converted by an act of Staté legislation into the crime of kidnapping. Clearly the Supreme Court should have confined itself to that question. But instead of doing so, some of the Judges traveled far out of the record, discussing and |