Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-08-13
RJCHMOND ENQUIRER.
~ DEMOCRATIC MEETING TONIGHT. rs
"MosT EXTRAORDINARY LOGIC"


Yesterdays Wing betrays it's gross "gnoIanee, il
4. comments upon explanation Of General Pieces
sons for voting allow Edmund Brooke OF George
town, to bring slaves into tho District of Columbia. W.
showed that the law of Maryland of 1885, prohibiting such
Importation adopted by Congress the law for the 60
of that portion Of the District Of Columbia coded
the United States by Maryland-ha that law passed
the instance Of shareholders and for their benefit in order
prevent the reduction in the value Of slave labor which,
believed would ensue Maryland became over
with slaves from other States feared she might be
and that al this the slave-owners OF the District
Columbia would resist the repeal of the law OF 1896
The Wing sneers at the have advanced and
,emp TO hold General Pierce responsible because he voted
in accordance with the express provisions Of law passed
by the shareholders of Maryland 1t is not true as the
Wing alleges tina, represented General Pierce as voting
ITO prevent reduction in The price of slave labor" What
We said was that the law passed by the Maryland
holders with that object, and all that Franklin Pierce did
to vote In accordance with general law, with whose
he had nothing do and which was passed by
saveholding Maryland and repealed by those who
were Interested in saye property and certainly presumed
20 know the best policy to be pursued in such cases.
But this s all The Wing shows objectionable ig.
of the legislation and judicial decisions of
State. Virginia in 1888 passed law declaring tina, from
and after the passing thereof slave shall be imported
this commonwealth by land and that every slave i'm
shall, upon such importation, become free.
case arose in 1906 and it is reported in 9TH Calyiz
Wilson IsbelThe parties agreed upon case as fol.
lows Mathew Whiting of Virginia. on the 9TH October,
1888, owned slave, the plaintiff Isbell who In
1905 suing in the County Court for her
freedom aud in the year 1871 or 1882 Whiting 70.
moved with part Of his property (umong which IsbelD
Maryand where he sold her the defendant Wilson,
who brought her bnck Virginia. Whiting also
4, four nffe
County Court gave judgment for the defendant, Wilson
which district Court revcrsed and the defendant appeal
ed to Court of Appeals.
The argued by Wickham for the appellant, and
by Stuart and Hay for the negro The latter reer
ed law and that Of 1896 conclusive
pont-apd commended that the policy of the law pre-
Of that kind ave) Of population among
Judges Lyons, Tucker, Roane, Fleming ana Darlington
unanimously agreed that the Clearly within "he
mischief which intended be emedied by OF
l7SS"-that the importation Of the slave in manifest
violation of the slatute-that the judgement of the Dis
,ric, Court should be affirmed, and the negro go free.
Now here is law precisely similar the Maryland law,
passed by Virginia savehodng Legislature expounded by
Virginia Court of Appeals. and negro imported free
and The Wing might with equal popre,y charge with abo
ionism Virginia Legislature, and Virginia Court OF
Appeals for the existence and execution of such law il
does franklin Pierce for voting against special exemption
similar law passed by Maryland Shareholders and
them kept force and executed Former Legislatures Of
Virginia. we learn, from those read in the laws, have
refused pass special laws similar the in favor OF
Edmund Brooke This is precedent that all iours
with Gen Pece-and the Wing should equally de-
those Legislatures abotonsts This plain
ration Of facs-and the Whig attempting 10 consc' "en
Pierce of unsoundness In consequence OF this vote gull
" of the grosses msrepresenaton-not at all snrpzIng
in paper shat repeats the cuckoo notes of Foss and Good
ale convicted aboonsts ampers ON the constitution and
laws reqars of the Bible and proved calumnlators