The Arkansas banner., 1845-02-05

 {. OF MAN CONDEMNED TO DEATH TOR NE
 GRo sTEAIING.=
 EXECUTIVE DErAnrMENr,
 South Carolina, June 2l, lslt, ]
 S!E-The last post brought me your com munlcation, accompanying the memorial of lhe Prcsbytery of the Free Church of Gas- gow, in behalf of John l.. Brown, convicted in this State of aiding a slave in escaping from her master, and sentenced to be hung in April last, It will be gratifying to YOU, seeing the interest you have taken in the matter, to learn that lshavc pardoned Brown. In con sequence of representations made to me in December last by Judge O'Neall, speaking for himself and the Judges of the Court of Appeals, eommuted his punishment to thir- ty-ninc lashes. Facts, not known to the iu- ry,noT to thejudges, were afterwards brought to ny knowledge, which satisfied me that Brown had na criminal design in what he did; and in the month of March transmitted to him full pardon. was not at all aware at that time of the great interest,talen abroad in behalf of one whose case had never heard mentioned here, except on the occasions re- iefred to; and was astonished to find my sctl overwhelmed soon after with voluminous petitions for his pardon from the non-slave- holding States of this Union; and to perceive thath sentence was commented on, not on i ly by the English newspapers, butt the En- giish House of Lords. The latest, and ltrust last, communication 10 me on the subject, is your memorial.
 The interference of foreigners, or any per sons beyond our boundaries. ill the execution Of the municipal laws of a sovereign State, eYen if in respectful terms, is certainly vio- atlon of all propriety and courtesy; and if carried to any extent, must become wholly intaIerable. pass that by, however. The law under which Brown was convicted. was enacted during our colonial existence. and is emphaically British law. lis alsoa good law pafdoned him, not because l dsap- proved the law. but because did not think he violated 1t. l. would be the most absurd thing in the world to recognise by law system of domestic slavery, and vet allow every one to free, not merely his own slaves. but those of hs neighbor, whenever instigated to do so by his own notions of propriety, his interest, or h.s caprice. What sort of security would we have for property, held on such terms as these? You cannot but perceive, that to permit others 10 take our slaves from us al pleasure with impunity, would amount to a total abolition of slavery. There would be no real difference between this and allowing the slaves To go free themselves Y our Pres bytefy. and all the petitioners for Brown, ana agitators of his case, must have seen the mat ter i'll this light; anditis attributing to as but q small share of common sense to suppose that we would nol take the same view of it ourselves.
 Whether death should be inflicted for such an offence, is another question. We have modified in a great degree the sanguinary code of lev left Us by our British ancestors; bat we have not gone the length to which some philosophers, both here and in your country, would have all Governments to go- ol abolishing the punishment of death Nor do believe the success your Government has met with in cndeayorng to dimish crime by aboIshing this punishment in so many cases, will encourage them to press the mat ter much farther at this time Considering the value of a slave, the facility of seducng him from his owner, the evil influence which frequent seduction might exercise on an nst- tution, the edestruction of which must speedily and ncyitably strike from the roll of civilized States nearly the slave-holding sectlon of this country. as t has already done St. Domingo and Jamaica, and the enhusiasic and reck- less enemies of this institution by whom we are surrounded, 1t seems to me that if any offence affecting property merits death, this is one.
 Your memorial, like all that have been sent 10 me, denounces slavery in the seyerest terms; as s'traversing every law of nature, and violating the most sacred domestic rela- tons, and the primary rights of man.' ' ou and your Presbytery are Christians. You profess to believe, and no doubt do believe, that the laws laid down in the Old and New Testamcnts for the government of man, in his moral, social, and political relations, were all the direct revelation of God himself Docs it never occur to you, that in anathe- matisng slavery, you deny the divine sanc- ton of those laws, and repudiate both Chris and Moses or charge God with downright crime, insregulatiag and perpetuating slavery in the Old Testament, and the most criminal neglect, in not only not abolishing, but not even rePrehending it in the New If these TestameHts come from God, 1t is impossible that slavery can '.fraverse the laws of nature ofvolate the primary rights of man.o What those laws and rights really arc, mankind have not agreed. Btu they are clear to God: and il is hlasPhemous forany of his creatures 10 sei up their notions of them in opposition 10 his immediate and acknowledged Reyela- ton. Nor does our system of slavery out rage the most sacred domestic relations Husbands and wives. parents and children among our slaves. are seldom separated, ex- cept from necessity or crime. The same reasons induce much more frequent separa- lions among the white population, in lhs, and, magine, ii almost every other coun- try.
 But make bold to say that the Presby- terv of the Free Church of Glasgow, and nearly Ill lhe Abolitioaists in every part oi the world n tlenouncing our domestic slave Y. dcnomee tIing ot. #hieh they know absolutely nothine-nay, which does not esea cNi ou weep over the horrors oi fAc NdIifs Pns.aqe. which ba.r ,.ra..3 su