The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1854-11-20
CiuciuuAsi ana memphis.

j The neighboring cities Of Tennessee and
Ohio, above named, seem to have got at log.
gerheads TO an extent that will be hard to
cure. The citizens Of Memphis, who have
hitherto looked TO Cincinnati for large por-
ton OF their necessary supplies, have recent
iy taken efficient steps to supply their wants
elsewhere, aud divert their trade from the
great emporium Of the State, which refuses
to recognixe1he right Of property in slaves,
when withia the limits of its own borders.
The question Of difference between these
parties is one of grave import, and one
which may yet lead 10 consequences highly
iniuica 10 liberal commercial intercourse,
not only between the cities of Memphis and
Cincinnati, but between the entire North
and South.
The cause of the present difficulty be-
tween the people of Tennessee and Ohio. it
is we'll known, had its origin in the act Of a
Cincinnati merchant, aiding and procuring
the escape of a slave from his master, while
passing through the State Of Ohio.
So long as this controversy was confined
to the cities of Memphis and Cincinnati, it
was a matter of local concern, and the peo-
pie Of the States, either North or South, felt
little interest in the matter beyond desire
that justice might be rendered to the party
justly agrrieved. But since the States Of
Mississippi and Arkansas are making formi.
dable demonstrations, as well against the en-
entire North as against Ohio, it be-
comes the duty of the citizens OF the free
States that have not tres passed upon South.
ern pretensions, to defend themselves irom
all imputations of the kind. A Mississippi
i paper makes an indiscrimnate charge of rob-
berry against the whole North, because Of
the conduct Of single individual in the
State of Ohio, and forsooih counsels the
withdrawal of Southern trade from Northern
cities.
Now, how stands the case that has given
rise to this controversy!
- A gentleman Of Tennessee was travelling
through the State of Ohio with a slave,
which would have been legal property in
Tennessee, but in Ohio the slave was by
law as free as his master. The rights of the
slave were made known to aim by citizen
merchant OF Ohio, and the slave choosing to
avail himself Of his inalienable rights, es-
capped from his master, and is now probably
ss free a. any Of his colored brethren. The
case was made known at Memphis, and ex.
PLANTATION was dema nded of Cincinnati, in
tone and language involving the loss Of q
large trade, upon her refusal to do what
Why simply recognize the right OF proper
.ty in slaves in Ohio.
The citizens OF Cincinnati very properly
declined to recognize any identity with any
Individual transaction of one of their mum.
Der. but publicly deprecated that such 9
thing should have occurred in their State
thus giving assurance to discourage and dis
countenance all such innovations upon tht
property of the slave holders. This assur
rance, il appears, did not give the required
satisfaction, and now the State e Ohio i
not only threatened with a withdrawal o
Southern trade, but, says our Mississippi CO
temporary, "if the North does not learn t
respect the rights of Southern property, an
circumference, and make restitution for he
robberies, the South won't trade with her.
Il We hope the South will be more discrim
inate hereafter in her charges Of robbery
and not implicate innocent States in her SO
called robberies, nor charge whole commu
mites with the indiscretions OF single indi
viduals.