Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-01-25

motIvesF II seems Z" his mother was in
the poor house at Exeter" and who was
there to take care of him! And would it
not be for his health and comfort to live in
the genial climate Of the South, instead of
freezing to death, as he might have done,
in the snow drifts of New-Hampshire a.
No matter! An hundred editors have
joined with the editor Of the New-Hamp-
shire Observer in pronouncing the action
to be "A HIeH-HANDED v1LLAINYr'
Amen !! responds the consistent aboli,ioL-
list, and let the brand of infamy be as ex-
tensive as Is the crime
But the relation ITSELF" it is often
said, "can not be sinful, for it is sanc,i, n
ed in the Bible" IA great mistake. if
you mean the slavery defined by the
American code: but let THAI pass lab
olitionists," it is said, "should not con-
denim man, merely for his standing in
the legal relation Of a Shareholder" -
Condemn oil cruelty and oppression"
once said learned and popular New
York city divine, and a favorite and wor-
thy son of New-England, but do not
condemn the simple act of s'areAoldimg."
Well, then, what will you find to con-
denim in the case Of the wandering wight
in New-Hampshire! All you know of
him is that he stood in that relation to the
colored boy; or, more accurately, it was
only suspected that he thus stood, or in-
tended TO stand. There is no account of
his having treated his slave cruelty
There is not shadow of proof or pretence
of any thing Of the kind, unless it be cruel
treatment to hold human being as a
slave. For all that appears. he might
have been the most kind and indulgent OF
all shareholders. No matter for that -
The New-Hampshire editor, with his
hundred copyists and endorsers, have
burnt the BRAND Of lnlamy in his very FORE
head for his "HIGH-HANDED y1LLA1NY,"
and they have done righteously in so do
ing. Whv2 Because he was a STARE
holder! That's all the reason that can
be given. And every other STAKEHOLDER,
sooner or later, must lay bare his own
brow for similar chastisement, or do
works meet for repentance.
mo" says the objector; "for the
Shareholder does not in ordinary cases,
reduce human beings to slavery who
were previously free. He only finds them
slaves and retains them in that condition.
This is a different thing than making
slaves Of t1eemen p
Indeed And how 90 we know that
the Shareholder "Sam did not find 1.-The
colored boy" deprived of his liberty .
Mr.. B. Tor RI Of Sanbornton appears
to have received "a heap Of money" for
him. Of course, he was a Shareholder,
likewise. as much as Sam" who pur-
chased the boy Of him The law of the
state, to be sure, did not sanction it, But
that was no fault of theirs; nor was it
their crime that they were in New-Hamp-
shire. instead Of North Carolina If the
simpl lie fact Of holding a slave who had
been previously held in the same conGi-
ton By somebody else, be sufficient 10 ex-
cuse or justify slaveholding, it does not
appear that " Sam was not as cautious
and serupulous in his morals, as any
slave-holding D. D. in the whole South
But it was "high handed rWGiny," new
ertheless, and the northern presses have,
for once, done their duty, 10 calling things
by their right names
And suppose Sam" had succeeded
in retaining the lad, and had sold him to
somebody else, mo matter which side OF
Mason and Dixon's line-for sucha ques-
ton would never be started, in the court
of conscience,l and suppose the purchaser
had retained him in slavery, well know
ing in what manner be had been obtained.
What verdict, but " h;gh-handed rl!'ainy"
could the New-Hampshlre Observer and
its hundred jurors pronounce upon such d
TRANSACTION? Yetevery STAKEHOLDER knows
that his slaves or their progenitors were
originally kidnapped from Africa. Be-
sides, the American people have declared
that "aH men are born equal, and endow-
ed by their Creator with certain inaIiena-
Bile rights, among which are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" Every
American, therefore, who takes a young
infant and makes it slave, commits the
very act, which the delinquent in New
Hampshire committed, with only this diff
ference: he does not pay ga heap Of mo-
ney " for it To say that the one is
HIGH-HANDED vILLAINY" is to pro-
nounce equal condemnation upon the 9TH
er, or else it is to pronounce the high
handed" hypocrisy and SANDER of the ac-
cusers! The editors in question NAV
select which horn of the dilemma best suits
them.
After all, what meaning can there be
in the distinction which makes it criminal
to begin ens!aving man, and innoc ent to
continue the same course of action O.
Criminal to throw a man into the river.
but perfectly innocent to hold him there
till he browns, or to stand with pitchfork
on the bank, ready to thrust him back, il
ne attempts. to creep out! HIeH-HAND-