Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-11-25

four cents each. For sale at the TINES OFFICE.
We said a few days since, that we were per-
fectly confident Mr.. Summers could not have
agowed in Petersburg, in general terms, the oPln-
ion that Congress has power to abolish slavery III
the District of Columbia. The South Side De-
mocrat, which asserted that he did avow THAI
opinion, quotes eur remark, and very rightly as
sumes that we did not mean toimpute to 1t an nten-
tional instrumentation. The Democrat then re-
iterates its statement, and says "it Mr. Summers
did not. in his Petersburg speech avow the opinion
in general terms that Congress has power to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, we
(the editor of the DemocraD will vote for him =
but this is on condition, that if he did avow such
an opinion, we (the editor of the Times) will vote
for Johnson. We can make no bargain OF this
kind, for the plain reason, that it the Objection
held good against Mr.. Summers, it would not re
move any one of the many objections to Colonel
Johnson.
But. with due respect to tho Democrat, we
must still! adhere to our belief in the inaccuracy
OF its understanding of Mr.. Summers remark
This belief is based upon the fact that when Mr.
Summers was in Richmond, he referred us to
speech delivered by him in the House OF Dele
gates and himself read from it passage stating
the objections he had to a resolution which was,
sustained by the Democratic side of the House
and which affirmed that ANY ATTEMPT on the part
of Congress TO abolish slavery ia the District OF
Columbia would be a violation OF the constitution
His main objection was, that the resolution de-
MED the authority of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District even if the slave owners Them
selves should petition for the measure. In that
case he argued that Congress, as the local Legs
lature, might pass law for emancipation, and
prohibiting the introduction Of slaves in future;
But he said he was ready to declare that an act
abolishing slavery, without the consent OF the
owners, would be violation of the constitution.
We have not the speech before us as we write.
(the file containing it is not readily Accessibility
but we shall produce extracts from it to sustain
our statement of its positions in regard to this
question Having recently seen, that Mr.
Summers, as long ago as 1886 (only four
wears after the memorable movement Of 1922
did not hold the opinion, broadly stated, that Con-
and knowing too that he denied the general pow
err even to the State Legislature itself; we felt
warranted in saying we were perfectly con1den'
that he could not, in the discussion at Petersburg,
have "avowed the opinion, in general terms, that
Congress has power to abolish slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia" The Democrat itself, in sus-
tanning its recollection of the position taken by
Mr. Summers, fortfes our view of the matter, by
saying: "To sustain this position, he argued that
did the citizens Of the District desire 10 get rid Of
slarery, and Congress had not the power to abolA
ish it, their wishes would inevitably be baked
as if they could not voluntarily emancipate their
slaves, and send them to Liberia or elsewhere. -
We perceive here something of the very idea adj
vanced by Mr. Summers in 1886; which was, as
we have said, that, IF THE PEOPLE OF THE Dis
TRICT SHOULD DESIRE TO GET RID OF SLAVERY,
Congress, as the local Legislature, might carry
out their wishes, not merely by emancipating their
glaves, but by prohibiting the future introduction
of others. At the same time, we repeat, he de-
clared the strongest opinion against the legality Oh
an act of Congress, abolishing slavery against
the consent of the slaveowners of the District
Mr.. Summers has certainly not gone Backward IN
his views on the slavery question, since 1886;
and, when we remember his opinion that the
State Legislature has no power, against the con-
sent of the owners, to emancipate the slaves OF
the Commonwealth we cannot believe that he
has ascribed to Congress hig her power. as the
local Legislature of the District of Columbia.
1t is generally hard matter ''to prove mega
tive" but, in this case, we think, we have reached
the &c d.