. ers maintained it. 6 I thirty days, except the twelfth, which was -made to consist of thirty five daysin order "to fill outithe year. We say twelfth, because, the months were then numbered and not named as they are now. During the reign of Julius Caesar, Sorigenes. a celebrated astronomer, discovered, as he thought, that the earth revolved round the sun in three hundred and sixty five days and six hours, and settled it as a principle, thatthe months must be so arrang- ed as to fill up three hundred and sixty five days and six hours, that being the length ofthe year without regard to the moon. “The firstthing to be done was, to bring back the equinox to its proper place in iVIarch; in order t.o do this he put the clock jbrward ; and made the year then passing go through two more months than usual—-because the festival then came two months too soon. The year of fourteen months was called the year of confusion. But besides restoring the equinox to its place, it was necessary to provide for the extra six hours, and as those hours amounted to a day in every four years, he inserted a day in every fourth year, making three hundred and sixty six, the same which we now call our leap year. This was done when Cmsar was appointed dictator and sovereign pontifi‘, about forty five years before the ‘coming of our Lord. This is substantially the same with the calender nmv in use. It made the average length of the years three hundred and sixty five days and a quarter, instead of three hundred and sixty five days as they were before. The extra day was added in February, as it is now. The reason why it is so called is this. Because it leaps a day more in that year than in any common year : for example, this year, the 1st of March will be Saturday ; next year it will leap over Monday and begin on Tuesday, Monday being taken into February to make out the twenty nine days for the month, and three hundred and sixty six for the year.-PortsmouthJour. PROCE EDINGS IN CONGRESS. The discussion, in the House, upon the reception and reference‘ of petitions forthe abolition of Slavery in the District of Colu m- bia has, up to this time, engrossed a large share of the attention of members. From among a number of speeches made upon the occasion, we select the following of Mr. Robertson, of Vir- ginia, which appears to be directed in few words to the true mer- its of the question, in so far as it regards the right of interfe- rence by Congress. The right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia had, so far as he had heard, scarcely been noticed, until adverted to this morning by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Granger.) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Ingersoll.] He did not understand them as affirming the right, nor could he learn precisely upon what ground oth- What didthe petitioners intend by praying for the abolition of slavery? They meant, he presumed, not that the citizens of the District might manumit their slaves, but that Congress should, with or without their consent, emancipate them. None would contend that this could be done without compensating the owners. Such a proceeding would be sim- ply to confiscate their property. Nor could it be taken from them against their consent, although its full value should be paid. The United States had no power under the constitution, to take private property, unless for public use. In proposingto wrest this kind of property from the owner. it was not intend- ed to appropoiate it to the use of the United States. They had no occasion for it. The object was. on the contrary, as proper- ty, to desroy its ,use—to annihilate it. Should the owner even be willing to surrender it for a just compensation, he knew of no rightful authority to apply the public funds to the purchase or emancipation of slaves. He doubted whether the United States could lawfully become a slave holder. It did not vary the case to say the purchase would be made with the benevolent purpose ofemancipaing them If they could purchase, they might hold ; if they could buy, they might sell ; if they could emancipate, they might prescribe. the conditions of emancipation. And what conditions, he rlesiretl to know, was it expected to impose ? He knew of no clause in the constitution, by which the restraints to be laid upon eman- r-ipatizzd sla .~.~.;~, were defined; nor which gave it. power to creme -'.t:.Y5'.ll':;' <.l'I=«'iu».-=. ;ud anomalous class, in addition to that already ‘THE NORXVALK (‘é‘rAZET”'1‘E. ‘- L *1 existing in this District, of persons nominally free-, but politcal- ly slaves. Or was it designed to make them absolutely and re- ally free ? To confer on them all the privileges of citizenship ‘I Were they to be admitted to- the Council Board’! To take their seats in thejury box '1 To be elevated to the Bench ? To be elligible to all the offices of Government’! Were they to be introduced into our social circles ? The Southern People, while they retain their present feelings, wolild never tolerate such a state of society. Those feelings were deeply interwoven in their nature, and would continue to have their influence, pos- sibly, till the Ethiopian should change his skin, or the Leopard his spots. The 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution was re- garded by some as conferring on Congress supreme authority over the District. It was true, it gave it exclusive legislation over the ten miles square, but exclusive was not synonimous with unlimited. It must still legislate within constitutional lim- its. It could no more transcend those limits within the District than beyond it. It had no more power to confiscate the proper- ty of its inhabitants, than to subject them to ex post facto laws, or deprive them of the liberty of speech or the press. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ingersoll-,) had ad- verted to to a clause in the Vir inia Act of Cession. That clause was intened to prevent thegUnited States from acquiring an interest in the soil, or interfering with landed titles. Its lit- eral import might seem, at the first blush, to warrant the con- struction alluded to, because it was confined in terms to land on- ly. But that construction was not warranted by the true spirit of the instrument, or of the Constitution, though the right of the right of the citizens to their lands, was expressly guara'ntied.— But it by no means followed, that all other property was left at the mercy of Congress. The Constitution protected all private property against seizure. unless required for public use. It is not to be believed that Virginia and Maryland would ever have consented to a transfer of their citizens subjecting them to be dis- possessed of their propert.y, or be exiled from their homes, at the will of a Legislature in whose election they had no voice.—- Let us suppose the District had been ceded by States whose in- stitutions did not admit of slavery. , By New ‘York and Penn- sylvania. What would have been thought of a petition from the South to establish slavery within the limits’ of the grant ‘.7 It would have been regarded, as it ought, as asking a violation of law, and a breach of good faith. Yet the same authority which was supposed to warrant the abolition of slavery by Congress, would seem to warrant its establishment ; and the one attempt would be no less a breach of good faith than the other. Mr. R. said, he had not thought it relevant or proper to discuss the general subject of slavery : still less had he considered him- self at liberty to vindicate the right of the slaveliolding States to mould their domestic institutions, in accordance with their own views. He could recognise no authority in Congress to call a- ny State to answer at its bar for the exercise of this undoubted right. He excepted the jurisdiction of the tribunal. He felt bound to oppose the attempt at the threshold. In doing this however, he was very far from desiring to abridge the sacred right of petition. The gentleman from Massachusetss [Mr. Adams] need feel no alarm. That right would not be invaded, or an attempt made to destroy the liberty of speech or of the press.- There was no danger of another Sedition Law. Yet some lim- iis even to the freedom of speech and the press had at all times existed, and seemed essential to the protection of society. One who should council or command another to conimitjmurder, or who should print and circulate slanderous imputations upon character, would scarcely be permitted to plead the liberty of speech or the press in a barof a prosecution. Still less ought such a defence to avail those who would instigate the massacre of a whole community. ‘ Gentlemen had complained of the warmth manifested in this debate by members from the South. Great allowances, he ihoughnoiiglit to be made. if, situated as they were, they could not wholly repress their feelings, or view this subject as calmly as those who inhabit cooler regions, and are more distant. from the scene of danger. but xvliaitever heat might be exhibited on ihis occasion, party at least should not he mingled with ‘It. Considerations of iiifiiiiteiy greaterniagiiittide than the pettyin- terests of party, influenced the people ofthe South. They were contending for the preservation of their propety, for_the securi- ty of their lives. He could confidently appeal to his colleange (Mr. Mason) who came from that section ofthe State In which the new sect had celebrated its orgies in the blood of women
Norwalk Chronicler