Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1856-05-07
Is PENNSYLVANIA SOUND2
TIlis & 4 tiftestioa aslsed by Virginius in his

WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY q, 1895.
IS PENNsYLVANIA soUND3
This is a question asked by Yirginius in his
criticism on speech. delivered TO the people OF
Washington, bot intended for circulation IL that
entire congressicDai district. This was evident
from the manner in which the speech uas pre-
pared for circulation, and from the aspirations
and designs Of the author. 1t was evidently
not the production Of an exalted intellect and in
tsgrity, looking to the welfare oftEc nation and
enlightening public intelligence. and directing
popular sentiment into safe and conservative
channels twas the design and effort OF a man
Of a different order andof farmorep personal views,
to eyade IN part and ultimately follow the cur
rent Of opinions, which he was in some degree
unwilling 70 approve, but afraid to denounce or
rebuke. He is to be candidate-he viii not
he dare,not encounter the very prejudices, pas
sions and false phiianthropies which he has m
famed By hispublic course.
Yirsinins had two Obiectsin view: First, TO
defend the rights of the South, second, to aseer-
tain whether those friends of Mr. Buchanan, in
PennsylEGnia, who have SO zealously pressed
him forward at this juncture as the candidate
most worthy of Southern suppOrt-;nost deeply
irnbued with the conservative doctrines of the
Constitutional Democracy. and who would bring
around him, in tho day Of danger and the honr
Of trial, Arm, united and harmonious party
were sincere and faithful friends or not of those
prinlciples, which it is decidedly and solcmuly
believed can now, alone save the Union. Hence
the question, the pregnant, it may be the vital
r,,fe-finT ale pennSvivania Sound 81
Had yirginius been desirous of cntrapping
CHOSE friends into fatal ayowal, he could not
lave been more successful; nor could they have
more wantonly ayowed the Inconsistency and
insinccrity of their. conduct than by the reply,
under editorial sanction, in the Commonwealth
en- organ Of the Freesoilers of that portion
Of Pennsylvania.
virEinius maintained the doctrine that the
right Of an property was presGiptive; that the
soundest jurists Of all countries based all rights
Of property upon this principle, that this was
the fundamental clement of the right, and that
al property, recognized by constitution, law
or international comfy, was based and could
only be based thereon. He did not quote Sir
William Scott, the greatest admiralty jnrist of
modern times, in that nation most opposed to
American Slavery, to subserve her own policy
for our overthrow. He did not produce the lecis-
ions of the Supreme Court of the United
States, nor all the treaties of the world touch
ing the subject, which virtually and practically
admit the Prcsoriptise rights, whatever change
may have come over the views of several of
those nations as to the humanity aud policy Of
that trade.
But there is vast difference between tue Af-
rican slave trade AID Southern Slavery. No
nation Of the world has been bold enough so
foolishly infatuated, to propose to diyest the
rights Of others already fixed and vested or sub
sisting on prescription. The utmost limit of
any proposition vet made has been for each ma
tion that became party of these treaties,
TO make their own people subject 10 their PEN
altieS leaving the citizens of other nations TO
the undiSturbed pursuit of their traffic, as to
the humanity and morality of which, it is not
now necessary to express my opinion. No ma
ton has dared to disavow all history and inter-
iere with the rights of citizens of other na.ions
in obtaining this kind of property, and in hold
ing it on the high seas. On the contrary, ii al
most numberless instances, in the English courts
of admiralty, and in the various courts OF tEc
United States, having admiralty jurisdiction, the
right of commerce and the right of property
created by that commerce, have been rccogEi-
zed, allowed and enforced. Whence or how
these rights, except in virtue OF that prescriP-
ton, on which all property subSists.
But, the argument of NirGinius has not been
met The title by prescription, is irretutable
when applied TO property. And Mr.. BuchananS
friend, this friend who would save the South
and the Union by electing Mr.. Buchanan Presi-
dent, can only meet the issue by the bold aSser-
ton that there can Bono property IN stdrGS. And
to sustain him he refers to Grotius, Putteudorf
and Wesley; casting upon the South, in the
morbid enthusiasm of the latter, that there sla-
s. Oe all human VflIoiniaS "
there can be no property in s!ayeS, then there
can be no local law or constitution, giving
right of property in them. IL there can hc no
property in the service of slave, then the Com.
stitution of the Union and the laws for the de-
livery Of fugitiyes from service, is without any
element on which to subSist; and this Penn
Eylyania doctrine is abolitionism-black repub-
fcsnism scarcely disguised.
The whole argument in reply by tho Penn
SyIvania Editor is contained IN the following
GOreeGu. After arguing that there may be
property 10 the slave, he illustrates, by example
Instead OF enforcing his views by reason and
et us follow out the argument lie may take his horse
70 Kansas because be e property and IS NiEgns calls 's
Kansas he sell he chooses k AID eat his horse,
In biS Sout eating him II he be his property IA tho
same sense horse Why he not XIII him y he THINKS
is ~ S sSe he Eipr Of slaves murder
Ms.ssehasetts Pennsyivana, which slavery al
:viTSnils himself dare place the slave and
the harls 10 rreeisey tie came category a' to PTGPs
Here Is a confusion of languages andof ideas.
The writer confounds quail itseatiOn Of proper
" with the right of property. a master in
Pennsylvania has right to the services of his
adp1entiec until he shall arrive at the age of
tSenty-one; has he the right to kill him and cat
him; orimproperly use him. The English task
master had right to work an infant sixteen
hours day and produce curyatures of the spine
and malformation Of the thighs, but positive
law interfered and thwartcd the improper use of
his power; the owner of the horse in Va, had
the right to beat and cruelty use his own horse:
Vet now, for so doing he would be indicted and
punished for "cruelSy to animals. In the
whole argument he confounds the qualification