In thU paper will be found on orticle from the Jacfcson Gnzelte. commenting on n portion of tiie Report of the Executive Comrnittce at the late anniversary. It is written : n a good spirit, and our readers should pertise i it atlentively. We shall not follow the writei tlirough his attempts to make it appear that the law inflictinL Capital Punishment, and the TariiT, are precitel3 a alagous to thut by which those wlio have once been slaves are ngain rednced to Fervitude by the Pree State?, We hink our readers will discover a wide diÃTerence in the cases comparcd. The wrher does not meet the issue directly, though he travela all around it. That our position niay be rHitlyuiiMcrstood, we say aeain, ) . That (he Lasv of 1793, by which the citizens oftlie Free States ore required to re-enslave those who have Hed f rom slavRry in the tlaveholdinnr States, is contrary to Ilumanity, to Natura! Justice, and to the Revealcd Will of God. 2. Th at svch n Law cnnnol have any Irind'wg force npon thecitizens of the Free State, 3. That every good citizen should, there-fore, entirely disrogard it. We sliall be pleased to have the edÃ¼or meet these positions distinctly and fully. Jf fffat law is nut contrary to justice, humanity, andvjuu & Ã¼oujinajia.", iet turn say so: or ir it be, and it is stil] binding upon us, let him show that the Jaws of men ouht to be obeyed in proference to ihe cotomands of God. â Let him meet the issue, and sny yea or nay . Tfie vvriter eÃ¨ems nstojfished thnt snel n sentiment shonld have been sanctioned by siich a body of men. The Court House was full when the Report waa read, and not a voice was henrd against it. No intelligent pci&on who has examined the subject carefully wil! dissent from it. The doctrine that those laws areto bn disregnrded which contravene natural juslicc, or the injunctions of Revelntion, is not new. It is especia Ily recognized os correct by Blackstone, and Was the justification of our Revolutionary fathers. The writer soys he is "in opposition to the I principie thot public enactmenls should be disj regarded white thcy remain upon the Statu ie Book. The remcdy is repeal. not resistance.'1 There was formerly an enactment in the Statute Book of Babyion, that every person should publicly worship an idol. Had the Editor been a Babylonian cilizen, what wouldlie liavc done upoii his principies? Would lie have worshipped an ido] till he could have obtained n Ãepeal of the Stature? On the Staiuto book of tto Medcs and Persians wos a law that no man shonÃd pray for thirty day?. Would he have stopped praymg for ihirty Ãla3's? The Jewish rulers made a statute that the discipies should not teach Ihe Chrisiian ReligiÃ³n. Had the Editor been one of them, would he have obeyed the rulers, or the comfnnnd of his Savior, who had said to hini, 'Go, teach all nations?;' The Jetvs were once bondmen in Egypt.- There was Ã¡ statute that thc midwives shouldmiirder a paft ol the children as soon os bom. What will our neighbor sny lo that case?- Shduld Ihey havo perpe'trated the murde.-s till the law was repealed? The only difference between that law, and the law of 1793 is, that the midwivcs were commanded to murder certain persons, while we nre eommanded to enslave tliem. Enslavibg a man is perbnps as grcnt a crime ns murdering him. The laws of the UniledStates punish both offcnces with dontli. The editor thinks that the tendency of our doctrinÃ©is to encourage mobs, lyncliings, fcc. This does not foUow from our position. AU wc have said was ihat the law shou!d beregardcd. We lia ve not contended it ehould be redoled by anns.or niobs, or physical force. The two tilines are enliieiy distinct. When i the officer attempts to arrest you, walking awrty from hhn is n dififrent thing from knocking him down. A considerable portion of the Abolitionitts are peace men, and midcrstand the Gospel to prohibit even the defÃ¨nce of human rights by the shedding of human blood, unless in case of persons convicted of crime by due process of Javfr. But if any one ia the sight of God, or irt ihe eye of Reason, has a right to kill n defence of nis righte, the slave has. Hia wrongs are great Ãªnough. We nced not argue vvUhI the Editor of the Gazette ihat it would be ' ( right for tlie slaves (o nssert their Jiberty by arm. He connot deny t without impeaching the memory of his forefathers. wl.o fought ngainst their ov(1 countrympu seven years for I the redress of wrongs a thuUFand times Iess. I We l:nre inserted our neighbor's article in ' ful) . Will he do as much for us?