Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-09-22
For the Standard.
DISCUSSION IN LOUISBURG.

.
Nh. HOLDEN: We have had quite an animated
discussion between Mr.. Miller, the Wing State
Elector, and Gen. Saunders. 1t was announced or
Monday of our Court that Mr. Miller would speak the
they heard, Tuesday morning. that Gen. Saunders
was on the ground. 1t was arranged that each gen.
tleman should speak an hour and half, with hall
hour to reoin. Mr.. Miller opened the discussion by
stating the true issue to the soundness OF the
respective candidates for President the Slavery
| question To show Gen. Perce's unsoundness be
relied upon his vote against the bill in favor of allow
ing MIR. Brooke to introduce two slaves into the Dis
trlct of Columbia-his presentation of abolition
petition in the Senate in 1889, and his votes for
ceivng abolition petions-his opposition to slavery,
as expressed in his speech of November 1850. and
his New Boston speech, as testified to by the Rev.
Mr.. Foss He stated other objections, which may be
mentioned in my notice of Gen. Saunders answer.
Mr. Miller, having spoken his time, Gen. Sau nders
rose to reply and proceeded to answer each objection
| to zen. Pierce made by Mr. Miller. He admitted
the test as between the two candidates, and avowed
his willingness to abide the result of fair and
did examination.
The law forbdding the introduction of slaves into
the District of Columbia, had been enacted by the
State of Maryland, slave State-had been rendered
still more stringent by Wing Legislature in 1888,
and similar law had been passed by other Southern
States. The permission asked for TO bring the
slaves from Virginia. Congress had authority to
act upon the subject of slavery in the District though
according to Gen. Scott Congress has the constitu
tona power to abolish slavery therein. To say this
]
surd that the introduction and vote abolition Pc
tons was what Henry Clay had done, time and
again; that Gen. Pierce's and concurrence in
Mr. Plnckneys report in 1886, denying the constitu
tional right of Congress to interfere with slavery
between the States, and against any interference in
the District and the resolution against any action
the reading or printing of abolition petitions. was a
conclusive this objection. AS the speech
es, zen. 5. read an extract from Mr.. Faulkner's
speech referring to the November speech. he says
1t was bitter opponent of Franklin Pierce !
tn fho frnfh nfh Ictor dina 20
his consistent record in support of Southern nstitu
tutions to demand of as Southern man to tram
pie under foot the vile and Infamous faseheod After
such declaration from high-minded Virginia hig,
the public had right TO expect nothing further of
this objection. Gen. Saunders then referred let
ter OF Foss recently published under his name, in
which ne had the impudence to admit that he had
acted the agent of " Free Mission Society," in
the abduction and removal of runaway negroes and
that 5000 fugitives had been carried from the free
States into Canada since the passage of the fugitive
slave law; that if Foss had not been in the penen-
tary, he felon, and deserved to go there.
Gen. S. having thus answered these objections of
Mr.. Miller in the most clear and satisfactory way,
said he would inquire how Gen. Scott stood before
proceeding to other matters. He then referred to
Gen. SCOTS letters, in which he had distinctly adj
mited the constitutional power of Congress to abo
sh slavery in the District of Columbia, and the duty
of Congress- under the Constitution, to recetue, to
refer, and to report upon abolition petitions-that he
was not the owner of slaves-wonder what he has
done with those he inherited land that he held to
De moral 00RgGtIOn upon masters and slave
holding States to meliorate slavery, to extermi
nation" Thus admitting that he was emanci2a-
zionist; that while Gen. Pierce had openly spoken
in support of the fugitive-slave law. and with Fill
more Webster, Cass and others had resisted the tide
of opposition that law, Gen. Scott after its passage
had remained perfectly silent, although repeatedly
called upon for his opinions. To this was to be add
ed his being in favor of the admission of Canada, and
against the annexation of Texas any Mexican ter
ritory. Gen. S. said that whilst Gen. Scott had en-
deavored to take back and explain what he had writ
ten the subject of the naturalization laws and the
veto, he had neither retacted even aude TO his
opinions in regard to slavery.
AS TO the objection to Gen. PIerce's vote against
the land distribution act Of 1884, he, Gen. 81, had
given the vote, and he pronounced i. the most
unjust and unequal measure ever passed by Congress-
1t gave to each of the States 100000 acres of
land, and then raised the Tariff above 20 per cent.
by which off the old States from receiving
a cent. This passed by Wing Congress, and !
approved by Gen. Scott.
Gen. S. then proceeded to answer M. Miller as
to the adoption by the two Conventions OF their
pectve platforms-the manner and vote on their |
adoption, well the nomination of the two can !
oidaes. Mr. Miller complained of the nomination.
having been made by the Democratic Convention be-
fore the adoption of the platform, which he said
adopted without discussion and under The gag law OF
the previous question. Gen. S. read from the journal
of the Convention, by which it appeared that Com
mite of one Delegate from each State had been ap
pointed on the second day Of the Convention, who |
reported the morning OF the fourth day that they
had agreed upon platform with great unanimty, and
this announcement was made on the ninth ballot
After the nomination of President the Committee |
made their report, which was laid the table and |
ordered to be printed. After the nomination OF Vice
President the resolutions taken up, vice read,
and the resolution slavery was loudly cheered.
and the reading again called for, and it was again
read, when the loud applause was repeated. 1t was
then that the previous question was demanded and
ordered. A New York Delegate asked for diyis-
ion of the question: and Gen. Saunders objected
less it was seconded by the call of some State
no State Delegation sustained The call, and the reso-
lutions were adopted in full a Convention
any time during its sittngs. 1t thus appeared that
the resolutions had been agreed on, reported, and
dered to be printed before the nominations, and
passed. majority of not single State voting against
them. How was it as TO the Wing platform !-and i
as it the first platform the Wings had adopt
ed, he disposed give them all the credit to
which they entitled. The Wing platform was
reported upon the second day and what account does
Mr.. Pike, Delegate from Vermont, give of what
followed He says after Mr.. Choate and Anderson
made speeches in their favor, MIR. Bolts also spoke
and called the previous question. That he, Mr. Pike,
asked to be heard but that Mr. Bolts refused with
draw the previous question; that he asked for d.
vision of the question, which the Chair overruled,
and the resolutions adopted from reading,
In hurried and noisy Convention Gen. Saunders
showed that majority of the Delegates from Maine,
New York, Ohio, and Nj ichigan-Seott free States
voted against the platform; exclude these free
States, giving 10 Electoral votes, deduct the 66
votes which were given against the platform, and
what becomes of Gen. SCOTS nomination. From
these and other facts it appears conclusively
hat Gen. Scott indebted for his nomination to
hose who had voted against the Wing platform