Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1852-08-16


taken as an index ofits prosperity, we confess
that We have mistaken their character.
The Republican,, in itsoccount of the discus
sion last Monday. between the Electors for
this district, has the following paragraph -
Here Mr.. Flournoy turned 10 Mr. Marshall
and challenged contradiction. boldly defy ing
him 10 point 10 a single instance, in which Gen.
Pierce had given vote inimical to the rights
ofthe South p
The Republican and Mr.. Flournoy have
changed so much, in their opinions of what Is
"inimical to the rights uf the South. 3" that We
cannot guess what they regard in that light.
a few months ago, they denounced the Com.
promise os the most Ubiquitous, insulting aud
intoleroble wrong to,he Southland those who
favored 1t, in terms equally select. Their great
object now seems TO be. TO establish that Pierce
was more the friend of that measure than Scott,
and that they arc more deslrous 1t should be
adhered To. than the Wings. We cannot,
therefore. say whether the denial of tho right
to stakeholder TO 60 from Virginia, TO the Dis
trict of Columbia with his servants, would be
regarded as indicating an inimical or friendly
feeling for the South. Lest they may have
overlooked this "single instance" we take oc.
casion again to present the rccord-and beg
that they will let us know their opinion in the
premises
An Act authorizing Edmund Brooke to re
move TO the DISTRICT Of Columbia two slaves
owned by him prior 30 his reno, al from Vr-
GINA.
"Bc a. enacted, &c, That Edmund Brooke of
Gcorgetown.,n the District of Columbia, be au-
thorizcd, and permission is hereby granted him,
TO bring from the State Of Virginia into the said
District of Columla,two negro slaves, namely.
John and Alfred, the property of the said
Brooke, and TO have and TO exercise the same
rights of property and of ownership over the
said slaves, as ifthey had been broul ut by the
said Brooke into the said District at the time
Of his removal to the said District of Co.
lnmbia. any law, custom or usage TO the con-
trary notwithstanding. This act shall BIO In
force from lis passage" Approved June 30,
1881 Vide Little and Browns private acts.
p. 900
This bill came up In the House of Reprcsen.
ta,lves juno 18th, 1884, when Mr. Ward
well moved to lay it on the tuble which failed:
tic a1Frmatire-and thereupon the bill passed:
yeas LOG nays az, Franklin Pierce roting IN he
negdttoe-)V Vide II jour, Is; Sess. 23l Con
gress. p 743)
Here we have plain and practical test of
the favor with which the Yankee candidate
ofthe democracy regards the institution of
slavery. and the indulgence he would extend
TO the owners of slave property. SO long as
Mr.. Brooke remained in Virginia, he was so
shielded by the constitution and laws of the
State, that Gen Pierce could not, if he would,
interfere with hlsr gh,so of property-but when
choice or necessity led him to change his resi-
dence, from one slave holding community TO
another, and the strict letter ofthe law, in the
new community afforded Gen. Pierce an oc-
CASTOR for annoying him in the possession and
use OF his property--of making that property
inconvenient, troublesome. and worlhless-he
pounced down upon him, like hungry hawk
upon his prey. Heis one Of forty-sesen who
resolve that Mr. Brooke shall not have the
use and benefit of his his own proper,y-but
shall be separated from it and compelled 10
part with it.
1t is not at all strange, that man who thus
acted in 1884, when there was very little ex
element upon the subject of slavery, should
be found in 1852. regarding the institution an
outrage upon the moral sense of the world
loathing the Fugitive Slave Law--and revolt
ing at the sight of ahuman being in bondage
Nothing short of the most intense antipathy
% the system ofslavery. could have prompted
,im to do an act of such personal injustice
Ind injury. as he attempted by his vote, to in
lict upon Mr.. Brooke. We submit the case