Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-06-19


M BEl1 AND ABOLITION PE1IrloSs-We are SIR
5rsed 70 find intelligent and usually ell-inform-
Cd a politician as A. R. Wright, ESQ., of Jefferson
repeating, even IN hypothetical form the stale and
Oft reputed SANDER that Mr.. Bell, while member of
Congress, voted for the reception of abolition petit
tons. In a letter published in the Augusta Ciyoa-
ice Of yesterday Mr.. Wright revives this charge,
and says if it be true it is good reason why any
Southern man should refuse to vote for Mr.. Bell
To say the least, the carelessness of this expires
sion involves an act ofnjustiee Mr. Wright confesses
he Is not very familiar with the political history
Of Mr. Bell he should have informed himself before
Ventlring 70 arraign him, on hearsay for offence
which, If committed, would prejudice Mr. Bell in
the eyes Of the Southern people.
We have no intention TO examine the record at this
time, our object being simply to pronounce the
charge false one, and invite readers to examine
for themselves. Il was fully investigated recently
BY the Columbus Enquirer. IN answer to the same
charge made by the Times Of that city, and over
wheming was the vindicatOn that the Times con-
iessed its mistake and made an honorable retracton
Of the accusanon.-SaUa1glah Republican. June A.
Our Savannah contemporary should have follow
ed the advice be gave Mr. WRIGHT " be should have
informed himself before venturing" to assert Mr..
BILLS innocence of an offence which, if commit
ted, would prejudice him in the eyes Of the South
ern people, We have before US the Muuy Press,
published at Columbia, Tenn, which advocates the
election Of Mr. BELL in which it is stated in reply
to the same objection as that Of our Savannah con-
temporary, urged by the Montgomery Maa: "In
1886 the House Of Representative adopted rule
ToRBIBDEG THE RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS.
AGAINST THIS RULE Mr.. BELL VOTED"
Had our Savannah contemporary examined the
record" he might have found that when on the
18th Of December, 1895, Mr.. JACKSON, Of Massachu-
sets, presented petition praying fOr the immedi
ate abolition Of slavery within the District Of Co
lumbis, Z" and Mr.. BEARDsLET, of New York, moved
70 lay the petition on the table, because he prac-
tce OF the House, for years past had been to lay all
such papers on the table, and such disposition Of
them he believed to have been satisfactory to the
country at large" Mr. BELL voted, as did JOIN
QUNCY ADAMS, against the motion.
He might also have found that at the same ses-
sion, ION the 2lst Of December, 1857 Mr.. BELL,
again voted with Mr.. ADAMS against a similar motion
to dispose of an abolition petition. Also, on the
same day, when Mr. OWEN, of Georgia. moved a
suspension Of the rules to enable him to offer reso
buttons declaring that in the opinion of this House,
the question Of the abolition of slavery in the Dis
trict Of Columbia, ought not to be entertained by
Congress- +" and that in case any petition praying
the abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia
be hereafter presented it is the deliberate opinion
OF this House the same ought to be laid upon the
table without reading" Mr.. BELL as did Mr. ADAMS
voted against the suspension Of the rule.
Other instances Of a similar character, both be-
fore and after the dates we have cited might be re-
ferred to, but these will suffice to show that our
Savannah contemporary was hasty in making up his
iudpu,pnt