The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1852-09-23
From the Vicksburg Sentinel.
Much to do about Nothing.

/
Scarcely have we disposed of the New Bos.
ton calumny when another horrible disclo-
sure is made to fix upon Gen. Pierce the guilt
of abolitionism. The charge now is, that
when he was member of the House of Rep
resentatives, he voted against bill allowing
one Edmund Brooke, Of Georgetown in the
District of Columbia, to bring into the Dis
trict two slaves from the State of Virginia
Whether he gave such vote or not, we are
not prepared to say, not having the Journals
of Congress before us; but on the suppose
ton that the charge is true, what does it a.
mount to? what is there in it to warrant all
the pious horror which the whig party affect
on the occasion? Let us look at the matter,
not through the distorting medium of parti-
! san passion, but in the sober light of truth.
T We presume that every man knows that
Georgetown, the place of Mr.. Brooke's res
idence, is in that part of the District of Co
lumbia, which was ceded by the State of Ma
ryland. In 1896, the State of Maryland
passed statute in the following words: (See
Dorsey's Laws of Maryland volume 1, chap
ter 81, page 334:)
"That it shall not be lawful, from and af-
ter the passage of this act, to import or bring
into this State, by land or water, any negro,
mulatto or other slave, for sale, OR TO RE-
SIDE WITHIN THIS STATE and any
person brought to this State as slave, con-
trary to this act if slave before, shall there
l upon Immediately cease to be the property
of the person or persons so importing or
bringing such slave within this State, and
shall be free"
Such was the law of Maryland, then and
still slaveholding State. Her right to pass
such law, no man will presume to question.
The object of it was to prevent the increase
Of slaves by immigration, and thus obviate,
in some degree, the dangers to be apprehend-
: ed from an excess of slave population. The
: constitution of our own State expressly con-
: fers upon the Legislature the power to enact
just such law as that of Maryland, when
ever they see proper. (See Amendment OF
February 2, 1916, Hutchinson's Code, page
y 52D
5 On the 9th day of February 1901, Con-
It gress passed an act, the first section of which
q is in the following words: (See U. S. Stat
utes at Large, volume2, chapter Is, PIP. 103
: and 104:)
/ That the laws of the State of Virginia
# as they now exist, shall be and continue in
> force in that part of the District of Colum
= bia, which was coded by the said State to the
United States, and by them accepted for the
- permanent seatof the government; and.tha
the tdacS Of the State of Maryland as heg
!. nOaU erist, shall be and continue an force IN
= that part Of the said District, qc1tich aoas &C.
! ded By that State to the United States, ana
: dy them accepted as aforesaid"
y Here then was are-enactment by Congress
y of the act of Maryland of 1896. At the
1t time Mr.. Brooke presented his petition tc
Congress, the law Of the District prevented
him and all others from bringing slaves there
:, EITHER FOR SALE OR FOR RESI-
d DENCE, under penalty of forfeiting such
J. slaves Whether the law was good one OF
d bad one, is not material 1t had received
. the sanction of slaveholding State; and the
inference, therefore, is, that it was not in
u conflict with Southern interests Under this
state of the law, what did Mr. Brooke ask al
e the hands of Congress? Did he request
! them to repeal the actof Maryland of 1896
:, and to allow eUcry STAKEHOLDER in the Union
:" to carry his slaves into the Districtof ColUm
II bia, at pleasure? No. The act for his re-
o. lief shows what he asked. 1t is in these
ID words: (See United States Statute at large
i volume 6, chapter 258, page 600@
!. "That Edmund Brooke, of Georgetown
, in the District of Columbia, be authorised
y and permission is hereby granted him, TC
g BRING FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, into
j. the District of Columbia, two negro slaves
If namely, John and Alfred, the property O
the said Brooke; and to have and to exercise
y the same rights of property, and of owner
ship, over the said slaves, as if they had beer
brought by the said Brooke into said Distric
at the time of his removal to the said Distric
of Columbia, any law, usage or custom tt
vs the contrary Notwithstanding.
Against this law, it is said that Genera
Pierce cast his vote; and that vote is now re
ferred to as evidence of his hostility to tn,
Of institution Of slavery. Can any such infer
IS. ence be justly drawn from it? We say, no
~ In casting that vote, he did, two things, ant
, two only:
1st. He refused to confer upon one man
as privilege which every other citizen Of tn
ID, Union was prohibited by law from enjoying
lie ID He refused to repeal law which tn
Of slaveholding State of Maryland had passed
for the purpose of preventing an excess G
e slave population, by immigration from othe
Of States; and which Congress in 1901 had ez
;er tended over that portion of the District {
H. Columbia, ceded by the State of Maryland
:, If there is any evidence of hostility t
" slavery in all this, we would be pleased t
IN have it pointed out So far from it, we loo
to upon Gen. Pierce's vote, on the Brooke bi
ire as one which any Southerner might have PROF
erly given. We know that under the cor
:. stitution of our State, every citizen Of tn
~ State can be prohibited from bringing slave
here from other States; and we know to
ng that the trainers of our constitution conten
*. plated that such law should be passed, a
= ter 1845 Surprising then that such la
were now in force in this State, and petitio
'ou were presented by single citizen, not to r.
AN peal it altogether, but to set aside its provi
alfI ions for his particular benefit; would any ma
tor have the hardihood to say that member
i our Legislature, who should vote again
g granting special privilege Of that kin,
on would be an enemy to the slave institution
its Of Mississippi? And should he refuse to I
md peal it for the supposed benefit Of one ma
~ would it be just to say that be approved
= the law itself, and was determined to upho
FV- it, under all circumstances? Nothing
md more common than ia hear members OF o.
led Legislature say, and very properly, too, To
nar while they are opposed to exempting sing