The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1851-07-31

within this State; and ang person broughtI
; into this State as a Stare, contrarv to fhisl
: act, If a slaUe before, shall thereupon cease
to be the property Of the person or persons
so importing or bringing such slave within
the State, and shall De free.
By an act, approved Feb IL, 1901, Con-
gress assumed complete jurisdiction over the
District, and among other things declared
That the laws Of the State of MARYLAND,
as they now exist, shall be and continue in |
force, in that part of the said District which
a was ceeded by it.
The. Maryland Statute of 1796 was in
|, force in 1901, when Congress thus adopted
: it for that part of the District, and 1T is be-
> lieved that it is yet in force in that State.
}. It is unnecessary to remark upon what
! were the laws governing the Virginia portion
of the District, since the whole territory ce-
e ded by that State was retroceded to her a
/ few years since, so that nothing now remains
r of the District except what was ceded by
s Maryland The Virginia law, however,
n passed Dec. II, 1892, was nearly identical
n with that Of Maryland, similarly providing
!. "that all slaves thereafter brought into that
} commonwealth should be free"
n AT the January term 1914 Of the Supreme
), Court of the United States, the case of
d Rhodes vs.. Bell was decided. The case is
If reported in I'd Howard, Rep Page 397.-
Its caption thus reads
q The District of Columbia being still gov
d erned by the laws of Virginia and Maryland,
q. which were in force anterior to the cession,
it is not lawful for an inhabitant of Wash
y ington county (the Maryland portion of the
TO District) to purchase a slave in Alexandria
re county (the Virginia portion of the District
NJ aud bring him into Washington county for
! sale. If he does, the slave will become en-
- titled to his freedom
:, : In this case one Little residing in the Ma
7 ryland part of the District, bought in 1887
= of one Hoff residing in the Virginia part Of
= the District slave, and removed him to the
- Maryland side for sale, and shortly after sold
~ him. About year afterwards the slave
- was sold again, and was still retained il
: slavery at the time of the filing of the bill
" lie claimed his freedom on the ground thai
- he had been brought into the Maryland por
'. ton of the District, for sale, contrary to thu
'ai Maryland Statute Of 1896 and the Act o
rs1 Congress of 1901, and was therefore by thei
az operation free. The .Supreme Court Apo
S. this state Of facts, and after an elaborate ca
:" am nation Of the Tar, unanimously held tia
!. the petitioner pas entitled to has freedom.
nd This case occurred in 1887, and the su
y" preme Court thus declared the law as late a
ors 1874. 1t is evident that if slave coul
not be introduced for sale into the Mary
land part of the District from the State {
-, U,' Virginia, he could not be from any othe
State, Maryland perhaps excepted the Law
the of Maryland, as adopted by Congress, forbid
us ding all such introduction from any quarte
'ees The law thus stood upon the subject of il
PRODUCING slaves for sale, at the time of IL
nei- passage of the Act of 1850.
Ill 1t aetU thus be seen that for the last ftt
II. FIVE gears the Stare trade, Jetlceen the Di
P. trict Of Columbia and the other States, IN
ials ryland perhaps excepted has been prohiL
as ted under the rery same penalty 'chich d
ute la,o Of 1850 prOvides, and that as late
1874, the Supreme Court has SO declared
case originating 1887.
The only parties then possibly aggriev
-, by the law of 1850, are the citizens of NJ
I.ro ryland, because they were the only part
tbo who could previously, by any possibilit
) 90 have introduced slaves into the District
hor sale. We very confidently submit, wheth
80 if Maryland does not think it necessary
:. e demand redress on account Of the act
80. 1850, Mississippi cannot afford to subdue
II grief at measure which does not deprive
l In or her citizens of one seintilla of rig
W. that they had before!
80 But ''the penalty Of freedom" is harp
: 80. "a upon Well, it is no new thing. twas I
'u'" law Maryland, the law Of Virginia, the |
: - Of the District previously; and why has tn
~ the existence of which was almost unnotic
- for so years, and certainly never complain
II - of as an aggression, now become so M
: strous violation of constitutional powt
o,oar It was all right in 1901, was so adjudt
The unanimously by the Supreme Court in H.
,st i and was never disputed until year. since
TORS Why then this modern evaporation?
) the reverted very briefly week or two since
this subject Of penalty. We then s.
10Th ssThere IS . vide distinction between enl
land ling any particular penalty for an offence,
.;.orv the exercise Of legislative power for any
- e er purpose. We regret that this penalt7
l. =. what it is, and would have much prefer
ron. the one provided in the bill reported BY
, fnI committee Of which Mr.. Brown was N,
ict;on Der, but still the distinction IS marked
70 8. and should ever be keptin view, between
effect punishment Of az offence and other leg
NJ ton. Congress can provide hanging
penalty, Jet who would suppose it consl
+ the tionals for Congre o enact that 81 81
prop should be hung Congress may as a pc
limits u deprive tie master Of BIS slave. and
ase q have no right to abolish slavery, or tax
.Ps;r way property Is ah ordinary aCt Of leg
$500