New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-07-02
9sa Orleans 9ailg Crescent.
FRIDAg MoRNINe, JULY .. Ia5s.
:. Afrlean ApprsnlIee Ell !,

EFron the Richmond fsdis0a Paffsb) TonYna 7tb u1t
Mr.. Editor have watched with some anxiety
the course that Wonld be pursued In The discussion
of this mneh.taiked n q ADpfentIce BiIiE And I
must confess that alter hearing the reasons pro and
con- am thereby convinced that it IS good bill and
one calculated materially TO advance the true interest
of the Sonth.
find that rs opponents have offered no objection
% ITS ezpeaiency or legality. On the contrary the
bill was iiTst submitted 70 select committee oY the
Senate among ShRH we're some of the first legal
gentlemen in tsie Etats aud no objection found.
again many lfsl6F s4iass i9Wgers pronounced f
entirely legal ana CONSTITUTIONAL and NOT Id conflict
with any Of the laws Of the State or the United
States When this question was under discussion if
the senate It's most bitter opponents whom
could enHmefate lawyers who deseFredIY rank high.
both as men Of learning and taient-ufged no legal
objection to its becoming law Then why do the
opponents OF the measure try TO prejudice 1T by mere
assumption and unIounded assertiOnsl In d letter
written from Baton Rouge, id the JefIersonian, al
paper published in Bienviile parish, and copied in
nearly ali the papera opposed ta Tile HaastFe lnd
the tqlIai9iEis faseuAtEe fs Tafi01s amendments
offered t9 ta and blythe friends Of she bill laid
OH the table will sn0w tie object og the bill as de-
signed by its friendss The friends Of the bill am
informed never refused amendments because the bill
meant more than it said, because they were afraid
OF investigation or discussion. But the true reason
was for want of time. The bill having been called
mp in the Senate only few days previous to its a1
ljonrnment, had the opponents of the bill succeeded
N tacklng on 1t ever so trivial an amendment they
Wotu nave succeeded IN ueeatlng IT. Tor the present,
thing they afterwards effected by breaking quo.
rum The friends Of the measure believed that these
amendments were offered only for delay for well did
its opponents know they could defeat II by amend
ments
The same writer goes on to say that the passage Of
the bill would be disgracetul to the State Fifst be-
cause it would be endorsing and authorizing the in
PRODUCTION of free negroes into the State contrary to
her fired policy II IS true shat the State has passed
some stringent laws in reference to free negroes Bat
did not know it was her fired policy think she
certainly has It in her power to change her policy
without it being disgracefnl. Can she not enact d
law authorizing and empowering free negroes TO in
dentuTe themselves for a term of years. France,
England and Spain have done it; Massachusetts and
the balance Of the free States would do this or i'm.
port coolies ii they found it necessary and viii it be
denied to the State OF Louisiana?
Again, he says " Secondly attempting to re.
revive the slave trade under mask That is but
an assumption and gratuitons assertion, The com
mittee to whom the bill was submitted have ably met
that question But this has been invariably the case
pursued by the opponents Of the BILL They hope to
obtain by gificaton and abuse what they failed tc
accomplish by argument The opponents oi the
measure do not fear much what the South will say
| bnt what will be the opinion OF our conservative
Northern brethren, as they are pleased to term them
Relying upon the intelligence of Southern public
am confident they will never succeed in staltifyinp
Or even niurng its policy by such unfair statements
~