Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-08-30
DIR. RoB'T. D. Brown.
Col. Cobb on Challenges.

Col. Cobb on Challenges.
We have been honored by Col Cobb with another
communication the SUBJ ect of challenges. 1t has
been held by duty to do no injustice to an ad-
versary, and really have disposition now, just
upon the close of campaign to open either verbal or
technical discussion with our friend, Col Cobb. We
quite that he has as little to lose as we have
to gain in such controversy. We are apPrlsed OIL
his ability a controversialst, and were the prize
worth the candle should hesitate to cast the
glove in the path of the Colonel But, in the present
instance the issue would swing on point of pub
lie moment, because really we unable to see in
what particular we have erred, except it be verbal
error, and in that, with all due Difference for the sa
gacty of our friend must be permitted to say, that
his distinction too and too small squabbe
We apprised that literary gentlemen extremely
fastidous, and that they sometimes contend for dis
tincton, and thus lose the substance We are for
controlling the substance in this instance, and the hon.
or and the glory of the distinction, cordially yield
to Col. Cobb
What is the point at issue We give it in the Ian
guage of Mr. Harris, embraced in his note to Us, pub
lished in the Standard of last week. Mr. Harris says
81 stated to the audience that the real point in is
sue between was-Whether the slave holder, who
might remove to the new territories acquired from
Mexico with his staUe property acod be PROTECTED there
in its enjoyment asserted that oltOut aacS passed
in pursuance of the constitution, to punish crimtnay
the harboring concealing encing away slaves from
their owners in the territories similar to the laws
existing in Mississippi and most of the other Southern
States-slaves could and would be harbored and
cealed by the nsolvent abotoniss, ree-soilers and
Mexcans in those territories, and the deprived
of their property, without the least chance of legal
dress.' x x 81 called upon the audience, as
well as on opponents, who assert that SLAVERY is
Al
toria condition, by the constitution and laws of the
U. States, to state (any all of them) whether
any law existed in the territories by which it is made
penal to harbor, entce away conceal slave in
said territories from his offered to yield the
stand to any one in the whole audience who would
ASSERT
This is emphatic, and might rest the issue here
believing d. that Mr.. Harris fully sustains our
version of the debate of which Col Cobb complains
If Col c. seeks shelter under the plea that he
publicly named by Mr.. Harris, very well. But the read
ing public will probably think, do, that the plea
is weak one for gentleman of Col. Cobb's dmen.
sions. Mr. HIS language warranted in using the
name of Col Cobb-he was replying to Col. Cobb, his
language pointed and impression is, that he
named Col Cobb. But that we hold as not important
If Col Cobb contends that "save property is protec
ted in N. Mexico and Utah'-and understand him
to assert his construction of Mr.. Harris language
amusing his plea to escape the construction we
placed on it is shallow. Our language was that he
. challenged Mr. Cobb, any of his supporters dis
the question of protection to slave property the
territory of N. Mexico and Utah" Col Cobb, as we
understand him, "asserts that it is Protected Mr.
e Harris says "Col Cobb where is the lao to Pro
TEcT SLAVE PROPERTY in those territories q! Doe.
e Col Cobb meet the issue, and produce the Lao No
he says the challenge cas- Congressman might say
is for "Buncombe." In all kindness, COL Cobb, arr
your communications to this press designed for "Bun
: combe,'' Or they to meet open issue Ifthert
# Law to Protect Slave property in the territories
youcan shoo it. 1t will unpony Mr.. Harris and 20,
will be fairly entitled to ride Don Pedro, the balance
your days. for you know the motto the victor be
e longs the spoils.
Col Cobb by declining to meet the issue openly ant
81 fairly, seeks shelter by saying that condition pre-
/ cedent is attached, that fairly amounts to petit
n principii. How so. We said Mr.. Harris challenges
discuss the question of protection slave property
in the territory of N. Mexico and Utah" He affirm
it. Now you assert that it is protected as we under
IF stand you Where is the "condition precedent +?
You raise it by saying that he throws the issue upo1
is your asserting that there laws protecting thu
STAKEHOLDER in the enjoyment of his property in thos
: territories Now sir, will you say such laws exist
: discovered doctrine among a civilized peope-it il
this: That the STAKEHOLDER is secured in the enioy
~ men ofhs slaves, ,oiout lav protecting him or tt
punish criminaly those who may his slaves off,
No man will suppose that Col Cobb would have hest
tated to rise and say to Mr. Harris IL will meet YOU
and divide time, if any law existed those territorie
e to protect the STAKEHOLDER in the enjoyment of hi
slave property and the fact that he failed to do it,
o evidence that NO SUCH Protection EXISTS, and hi
failure to embody it in his communication to this press
instead of dropping into special pleading warrants u
in concluding that he abandons the ground of protec
ton by Laic. But to silence as we'll as convince NJ
of error, is easy matter 1t is this, Col. Cobb =
e Point to the Law-producc the law which afford
protection andw will vote for you, Colonel If Won
not do it, we shall take it granted that you cannot
and that you DESTROYS speak through the Stan
Q dard to "Buncombe' as you might say Congress
~ man.
If you satisfied that Mr. Harris letter did no
afford us the "reief asked it is strange you shou
have addressed us again, Colonel If you believed hi
t. letter did not sustain u.s. why write us again Were
you fearful the people sooud understand that Mr.
, failed to furnish with the sreliefa asked Tha
would have proved we had done you injustice and it
: your obiect-at least understand you-to MAKE
: appear that were not guarded as "to be fre
from an unintentional Misrepresentation ofyou I'm
Harris letter warranted you in the beliefthat reef
had been withheld, that should have satisfied Won mn
less as we suspect, you had misgivings that the e
PIE IN their common sense auay, would fail to see yvha