The great question is, how shall this alteration of the Constitution be brought about? Of course, as long as we assert that it is good enough already, we shall not wish to change it; therefore we must first be convinced of its wicked character, which we hope all our readers are convinced of by this time; but as some of them may not be, we will dwell awhile on this point. No intelligent man will deny that it was the intention of our fathers to sustain Slavery. Mr. Lysander Spooner himself admits it. Sufficient proof exists of this fact to satisfy every reasonable mind. Almost all politicians admit it, certainly all honest ones. No one doubts that our fathers meant to uphold Slavery, when they adopted the Constitution; and the question now with us is, not so much the technical meaning of the Constitution, as its real import. We know that honesty always leads us to decide upon the meaning of an author, by understanding the circumstances under which he wrote. For instance, if an editor speaks of "fighting earnestly" in the approaching campaign; he would be deemed a very dishonest man, who should assert from the authority of this language, that the editor recommended physical fighting, and was in favor of bloodshed; but he would be no more so, it seems to us, than one who knowing what our fathers were debating about, should contend that they did not mean Slaves, because they said "persons held to service." Of course, being partners in the guilt of the transaction, they did not wish to brand themselves with infamy, by inserting the word Slaves, any more than the duellist is willing to term himself a murderer, instead of "a gentleman of honor;" or a lewd woman a harlot, instead of "a lady of pleasure." Intoxication is alluded to, by its victims, in various genteel terms, instead of the plain one--drunkenness; and robbing and stealing on the ocean in time of war is termed by the mild name of privateering. So with all villany. Robbers are only lightening the pockets of their victims; thieves only picking up the crumbs of the rich; and slave-holders are only masters; Slaves, "persons held to service," or "other persons," or something else, to hide the shame of the guilty ones. Go to the South, and you will never hear the word Slave spoken; but it is "my people," "my boy," "my girl," &c. If you go so strictly by names, you might never know by living at the South, that they consider their servants Slaves. What, then, did our fathers mean, by "other persons?" The clause reads as follows: "Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned * * by adding to the whole number of _free_ persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all _other persons_."