over the spread of the principles of
liberty and universal emancipation. The violent attack upon Mr.
Giddings, because he had visited us three poor prisoners in jail, and
offered us the assistance of counsel,--as if the vilest criminals were
not entitled to have counsel to defend them,--is well worthy of notice.
The following is the article referred to.

THE ABOLITION INCENDIARIES.

Those two abolition incendiaries (Giddings and Hale)
threw firebrands yesterday into the two houses of
Congress. The western abolitionist moved a resolution of
inquiry into the transactions now passing in Washington,
which brought on a fierce and fiery debate on the part
of the southern members, in the course of which Mr.
Giddings _was compelled to confess_, on the
cross-questioning of Messrs. Venable and Haskell, _that
he had visited the three piratical kidnappers now
confined in jail, and offered them counsel_. The reply
of Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, was scorching to an intense
degree.

The abolitionist John P. Hale threw a firebrand
resolution into the Senate, calling for additional laws
to compel this city to prevent riots. This also gave
rise to a long and excited debate.

No question was taken, in either house, before they
adjourned. But, in the progress of the discussion in
both houses, some doctrines were uttered which are
calculated to startle the friends of the Union. Giddings
justified the kidnappers, and contended that, though the
act was legally forbidden, it was not morally wrong! Mr.
Toombs brought home the practical consequences of this
doctrine to the member from Ohio in a most impressive
manner.

Hale, of the Senate, whilst he was willing to protect
the abolitionist, expressed himself willing to relax the
laws and weaken the protection which is given to the
slave property in this district! Mr. Davis, of
Massachusetts, held the strange doctrine, that while he
would not disturb the rights of the slave-holders, he
would not cease to discuss those rights! As if Congress
ought to discuss, or to protect a right to discuss, a
domestic institution of the Southern States, with which
they had no right to interfere! Why discuss, when they
cannot act? Why first lay down an abstract principle,
which they intend to violate in practice?

Such fanatics as Giddings and Hale