The daily union., 1852-08-04

when the House went into Commlttee of the Whole
the state Of the Union. and the civil and diplomatic
appropriation bill taken up. Mr.. John w Howe ad.
dressed the committee al englh political topics The
bill then discussed for the balance Of the days sea-
sion in five minutes speeches various amendments.
Another Ridiculous Charge against General
Pierce Exposed.
The southern whg papers eager for pretexs ex.
cuse their support of Mr.. Stewards candidate. Any
msy foundation will suffice them for senseess clamor
wherewh drown the voice of condemnation for their
open abandonment Of the duties which they have &C.
lodged the present posture OF public affairs imposes
on southern The New Boston libel has just be.
exposed; and now the southern wings cite vote given
by General Pierce in June, 1884, and pretend regard
proof TO sustain charge similar to that based tie
New Boston libel During all this time the southern
wings acting in open and notorious alliance with the
enemies Of the South; and they yet know that the
men who dictated the nomination OF General Scott, who
enjoy his confidence, who regulate his canvass, and who
will shape his administration and dcale his policy in
the of his election holding up the abolition
lists General Scos promise OF power and patronage and
are denouncing General Pierce welded to south
ern interests in order make him obnoxious them
The particular which refer was given on The
|
the House OF Representatives The Missouri Compromise
had adopted than twelve years before that time,
and the abolonists had not then commenced the anti
slavery agitation in Congress The bill on which the voc
was given involved no principle either extending OF lin
ling slavery and placed no limitation on the rights Of
shareholders except that imposed by the law Of Maryland
similar TO laws in other savehoding States, and demanded
by the Shareholders in the Dsic, Of Columbia for their
protection in the enjoyment Of their property Many,
not most, of the ssveholdng States have deemed il
true policy to prohibit the admission Of slaves
from other States. The policy was dictated by the
desire of the ssve-owners themselves. who wished to
limit competition, and prevent the reduction in the price
OF slave labor. The rgh, OF State TO such laws
prominent point in Judge McI.ean's opinion in TIE
of Groves and Slaughter and bis argument favor
OF the right our readers will remember, cited by Mr.
Fillmore in 1s4s, in letter TO James Brooks eeq. which
published by all The southern whig papers, and
deemed perfectly satisfactory notwithstanding MIR. Fill
mores letter the Erie aboliionss and his votes while
member Of Congress. In l796 the State OF Maryland
passed an prohibiting the introduction OF slaves, e1.
cep, by persons removing the State with the boas de
intention Of becoming residents Such persons were a.
lowed 10 bring with them, or Introduce within one year.
such slaves belonged TO them at the time OF then
movsL Slaves introduced in opposition to the law
ceased to be slaves In Is0I after the cession OF ths
District OF Columbia by the States OF Maryland and v
sina, act was passed by Congress which continued
all the Maryland laws which were in force ut The time
Of the cession in that part of the District ceded by her
and continued the laws OF Virginia in that part ceded by
Virginia. OF course, the Maryland law relative to The
introduction Of slaves adopted By Congress a. 10 lh.
par OF the District north Of the Potomac.
In 1884, one Edmund Brooke, a resden, of George.
own, wished have private act passed for his bene.
81, by which he might be permitted 10 introduce two
slaves from Virginia ioto thai portion Of the Distsc, ceded
by Maryland. The slaye-ownes OF the District were in
favor OF the Maryland law and did no, desire any re.
axalion Of it They wished to prevent reduction in the
value OF slave labor by limiting The supply and prevent
ing competition; and al this moment they would resis,
the repeal OF the law Of l7eo. We can find no reason
stated why Mr.. Brooke should have been permitted to
bring his two slaves into the District which would
40, apply with equal force in all other instances,
and require the repeal OF the law Governmsn,
should proceed BY general and not by special legislation
and excsp, in very peculiar cases the operations OF Law
should not be inierered with by private acts exempns
particular individuals from their oseralion. While the
law OF 1926 is the statute. book II ought be con-
piled with, and il il is impoic oppressive should
repealed but Gen. Pierce is responsible for IT'S
continuance than any other person who has been mem
her of Congress since the Ds,r'c, eeded to The
United States, and his responsibility is not TO be com
pared with that Of The Shareholders Of southern States
who have passed similar laws OF The slave owners OF
Maryland, who passed the particular law. or OF the
slave owners Of The District OF Columbia, who DE-
nanded ils execution species OF protection oP
Grating like probisi,ory duty on labor IA The Die
uct. In order TO show The state Of feeling a, The
time. will mention that in ls33-the yer be
fore The vote complained OF by the southern wings The
legislature Of Maryland ncu ased he rig OF the law Of
1896 by repeating lis second sset'n, which permitted the
introduction of slaves by persons wing into he s'a~
with the intention Of becoming residents. thus entirely
prohibiting their importation under any circumstances