The Plymouth pilot. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1851-1852, 1851-07-16
Plymouth County, Indiana, Wednesday, July 6 1851

talnS principles WHICH III carried out
would place all rights in jeopardy.
Again, this prohibitory clause is calcu-
lated to operate oppressively on the white
inhabitants of our State. No person is
allowed to employ negro or mulatto. or
otherwise encourage them to remain
within our borders. What is implied by
this encouragement here spoken of? Peo-
pie may differ on this point. But may
not the ground be taken; could not the
ground be taken, that every act Of hu-
manity TO prescribed people of color, af-
fords them that encouragement to remain
which the law prohibits. A colored EN-.
igrant dying with hunger receives from
some hospitable white person morsel of
food-another perishing with cold is shell
tered some stormy night-another falling
down sick in the highway is carried to
some neighboring dwelling and taken
care of until he recovers-would not all
these persons who were guilty of such
henevoleuce whose copsciences, were SO
unpliable that they could not send dis
tressed fellow being away unrelieved; !;
would not these be liable to the pains and
penalties Of the law? II seems to me
that to carry out the spirit and design of
the law to the letter, we must close our
doors and hearts against the colored en-
igrant completely. Making no preten-
sion however to legal knowledge, l will
leave this point and occupy ground that
is not disputed. Let us take case that
is clearly supposable. A colored person
settles in the town of Plymouth, and en-
cages in some mechanical employment.
He tells us that he is an old resident of
the State In a few months nearly all
our citizens have had dealings with him.
in some way, shape or manner. Finally,
the discovery is made that he has emf
grated contrary to law. All, therefore
who have had business transactions with
him Of any kind. are liable to the penalty
of the law.
The conclusion then follows, that we
must not employ colored person, or af-
ford him any assistance whatever; unless
he carries the proof in his pocket that he
was resident of our State before the
adoption of the new constitution. Now
all this would not look so bad for de-
spotic government; where no pretension
is made to liberty and equality. But is
there not something humiliating and re-
Voting in the idea that such state of
things should prevail in 2 professedly
Christian nation, in a boasted land of
liberty.
But the plea is urged. that this propo-
sed clause in question is necessary; that
without its adoption our State will be
overrun with negroes and mulattoes-
that disastrous consequences will follow.
&c. These frishtful rumors. might be
terrifying to us under some circumstan
ces. But we happen to recollect. that
there never has been wall between this
State and Kentucky; or between this
State and any other State. Ever since
the first settlement of Indiana, colored
persons, and all persons, whatever might
be their hue, have enjoyed the privilege
of settling within our borders. This
policy, as we all know has not involved
us in ruin nor crippled our prosperity
and there is no more danger in the future
as l know of than there has been in the
past. But admitting for the sake of ar
gument, that there is danger of large
colored emigration, shall we endeavor to
prevent this by oppressive enactments?
Shall we pass law contrary to right, to
justice, to republicanism ard to Christi
anity? Does the emergency require that
we should trample humanity under foot7
Shall we commita positive wrong. in or
der to avert an imaginary evil? Such
doctrine should be frowned upon. There
is no morality nor reason aboutit. 1t is
always expedient to do right, it is never
expedient to do wrong. No nation will
ever lose any thing by granting to their
fellow men those rights, with which
their Creator has endorsed them. On
the other hand no nation will ever gain
any thing by violating the laws of hu-
manity. The path of duty is always the
path of safety. To do evil that good
may come is an old doctrine, but never
has been, and never will be correct rule
OF conduct.
In conclusion, will again bring up
the question at issue. Let us look at
the principle Of this prohibitory clause.
How will it look in our constitution?
How will it sound abroad? lam oppo-
sed to it because it is contrary to other
parts of this same new constitution
contrary to the constitution Of the Uni
ted States-contrary to those republican
principles which we profess to advocate
To x1.k -. ~c k..~
which we should exercise towards man.
kind-lastly, because it is contrary to
that law of God which requires us to do
as we would be done by.
AN INDIANIAN.
{ Plymouth. July 8, 1851.
A county girl eating cream cakes for
a H. has IL al bo, eba