The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-11-21
BALTIMORE.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 81, 1860

owners. the National Government should pay for
them at the average rate of 81, 900 apiece-the flu
oitve, we suppose, though it was not so said,
thereafter TO go free. We treated this suggestion
as afording evidence rather that the Republican
party was disagreeably realizing the nature of the
crisis it had evoked than as of itself offering
satisfactory solution of one of the most vexed ques-
tons at issue between the sections. Very briefly
expressing some of the most obvious objections to
the plan of the Times, we concluded with the ex-
preston of our conviction, that such proposal
would not be satisfactory. The Times of Satur-
day last concludes an article, by replying to this
remark, that
We have not fallen into any such mistake sup,
pose that anything would be satisfactory" which should
settle this and deprive the South of grievance
They would probably reject such proposition no mat
ter from what quarter might But the EXCHANGE
supposes they better terms, gain their
object whatever may be- in any eectual way it
will probably become wiser as 1t grows older.
We do not ''fall into the mistake of conceiving
that the Times is vested with the authority to OFFER
or ourselves to accept an ultimdtum on this point;
but it really seems that if our contemporary did not
"suppose that anything would be satisfactory
(Which would settle this matter, and deprive the
its while to assume the part of q peacemaker.
A mediator, who openly processes to believe
either that there is no real grievance that those
who are aggrieved prefer, from sinister motives,
that they should not obtain redress, is not likely TO
inspire much confidence on either side; and
we are, therefore, not much surprised that the
Times does not appear very sanguine of the success
of its own remedy, There was no such sneer as
this in the article of the Times, to which we
ventured reply, or we should scarcely have
deemed it worth our while to notice it,
Still, as we have been drawn into the discussion,
we will add few words to what we have already
said upon the subject.
Upon what ground the Times supposes that,
if its proposal generally adopted by the people of
the North it would signify their earnest desire to meet all
the constitutional of the South, at very
considerable sacrifice to themselves,
we cannot perceive. The Constitution of the
United States prescribes as the Times adj
mits the rendition of fugitives to their owners and
says nothing whatever about compensation, for
their loss, by the General Government. How the
willingness of the people of the North to do
thing which the Constitution does not prescribe, in
lieu off thing which it expressly requires of them,
but which they do not choose to perform, can be
thought to "sgnfy their earnest desire to meet all
''the constitutional demands of the South" we fail
to comprehend. Nor should the Times think that
in arguing thus, we are disposed to exact "the
''pound of fesh''-the letter and not the spirit of
the bond. Setting aside for a moment the mani
fest unreasonableness, in the mere dollar and cent
point of view, of proposing that the people of the
South should, to great extent, be paid for their
losses arising solely from unconstitutional ac-
ton or inaction Of the North, out of their own
funds, is it not perfectly obvious that this
idea, which amounts to organizing the es-
cape of slaves, would be entirely at war
with the whole spirit of the institution of sa-
very? Whatever may be thought by the North
and the rest of the world about the matter the
South is contending for slavery precisely as it
listed when the Federal Constitution was adopted
and as it was thereby guaranteed. The South
also believes, an acknowled gment that the
state of public sentiment at the North justifes a
modification Of its constitutional duties, would be
fatal to Southern rights. 1t is precisely because the
South perceives that the North sets up private
science against the performance of constitutional
obligations that tit is disposed to bestrict. Oncead-
nit such a plea, and who can tell where the con-
sequences would end? A conscience so particu-
larry sensitive, on the score of other mems trans
gressons as that of the Northern people, is a very
unsafe guide in matters of general legislation.
Besides, the institution of slavery has an intent
and law of its own. Arguing upon the pre-
sumption that the South means to retain it, and
that the Constitution recognizes it, who can fail
to perceive that a policy of paying for fugitive
slaves, instead of rendering them up, would speed
lily and wholly demoralize the institution? No
man would take the trouble to pursue fugitive,
if he were certain in the first place, that he could
not arrest him in free State, and would be paid
for him, BESIDES if he did not. substantial sys.
TEN of emancipation, by the General Government,
would thus be established, under color of maintain
ing the very provision Of the Constitution which
was inserted to guarantee if need were, the per-
petuity of slavery. No one but those who live in
the border slave States can estimate the effect
that such policy would exert on plantation
discipline. 1t is this, much more than the
pecuniary loss, which makes Shareholders prize
the right of rendition. The escape of slaves is
like deserfon from an army 1t is an offence
against the nature of the institution, and must
not only be restrained, but punished; or rather, it
must be restrained by punishment-and to punish,
it is necessary TO arrest Can the North be sur
prsed that those who are resolved, as yet, not to
part with negro slavery, should refuse to surren-
der, under any pretext, its principal safeguard,
and accept delusive compromise in lieu of a con-
stituoual right? When, therefore, journal, or
dinarly so reasonable as the Times, assures
US that the South will never ''secure better
'terms, or gain their object, whatever it may be,
Fin any more elfectual way" we are compelled to
reply that, if so, the dangers which threaten the
Union are much more imminent than we have
hitherto hoped was the case.
1t is in view of such considerations as these.
that We said before, and say again, the ques-
tion at issue between the sections is not
one of dollars and cents merely. The Times
is perfectly welcome to our admission, to
which it calls attention, that the loss of
slave property by escape, exhibits a smaller re.
lative percentage than that inhering in the
possession of any other species of personal
property; and if this were simply question of
dollars and cents-a question of property only, as
the Times wishes to consider tour admission
would he fatal to the Southern assertion of pecu-
liar grievance and the proposition of the Times
would exactly meet the difficulty. If horses, in
stead of slaves, were involved the South would
be unjustifable indeed in exacting the return Of
the animal instead of its value, and this simply
because the enjoyment of property in the horses
remaining, would not be affected thereby. But it
IS because slavery enters into the social and poti-
cal status of the South quite as much as its prop
erty, that the South is compelled to insist on the
principles which are vital to its preservaton.-
1t is very hard, we know, for the North to under
stand that we of the South prefer our own
institutions to those which our Northern breth-
rem have established for themselves, and which,
possibly in spirit of the purest philanthropy,
they are so anxious to impose on the whole coun-
try. 1t is extremely difficult for those who do not
understand Southern sentiment to assure them |
selves that the South will defend this institution
ABOUT which it differs perhaps, with all the rest of
Inc world with the same unanimity with which
1t would defend rights about which all mankind are
agreed. And yet we believe that such is the fact
and those who have failed to perceive that it is the
TACT are in no condition to propose remedy for
the evils of the times. To attempt to settle the
question upon any other unders landing, would
oe treating the symptoms instead of the disease.