The southern aegis, and Harford County intelligencer. (Bel Air, Md.) 1862-1864, 1862-07-05
WHO PAYS TIE EXPENSES

ton of the Presidents Emancipation scheme, says:
"As they refuse to give slavery up, even when it
is proposed that the expenses of doing SO shall be
borne by others, they will have no pretence of a
ground for complaint, if the course Of events is
such as to make their slaves worthless, and to
leave them no indemnity whatever
Now by what authority the Abolitionists de-
mand that the State of Missouri, or any other
State, shall give up slavery, or any other of their
institutions, we do not know. We,have always
been taught to believe that this was one of the
reserved rights of the States. Is it possible that
we are compelled against our own consent to
yield to the demands of the Gatrisons Wades,
and other fanatics, in all things-that we of the
Slave States have no longer control Of our own
affairs-that the Constitution is void, in all
things which is distasteful to men who think it no
harm to take from their fellow men, property
solemnly guaranteed to them by the very instru-
ment which Binds these States together? Yet
strange as this may appear, and wrong as it is,
it is nevertheless demanded of us by the party
just now in power. Why should Missouri or
any other State give up her slaves whether they
be paid for or not, if she desires to keep
them? Slavery did not stand in the way of the
adoption of the Constitution. and why should it
stand in the way of settlement of our present
difficulties? There is no reason that it should
except only that Owen Lovejoy and his followers
declare ''that there can be no union with slave
holders" This is the only reason, and the
present dominant party seem determined to graft
fly them ut whatever hazard or cost.
But we are told that others are to pay for these
slaves. What stothers?' Is there a man in this
broad land, so blind as not to see that the slave
holding Safes themselves are to pay large
amount Of this very p1rchase-money, and to that
extent are actually giving away, under the SEM
blance of purchase a large amount Of their
property, for no other consideration than as
qualification to the abolitionists Of the North
Where does the money come from to pay for
these slayes7 Out Of the National Treasury, of
course; and is nothing more nor less than an
amount collected from the people by taxation,
either directly or indirectly. Then as the peo-
pie of the Slave States are not exempt from taxa
ton it is clear that they would furnish large
portion of the very money with'which their own
property would be purchased; and this is what
We are told is 'sethers' bearing the expenses of
purchase. But suppose that s'others' did actu-
ally bear this expense, what right have they to
demand of us that we shall sell our property,
simply because they desire to become the pur-
obasars2 Tbasa ciouas o%asf4ald No xua controru
to law, and therefore to compel their owners to
dispose of them by SALE against their consent, is
Just as much violation of the law by which
they are held, as if they were taken without
compensation; for the reason that il 6eprives
the owner forcibly Of that which the law guar
antees him the possession of. Nothing can prop
perly be termed sale, when the owner is COM
PEELED to part with his property, when he de-
sres to retain its possession for IN this case he
yields to the demands of superior, and what he
receives in return is nothing more than an amount
bestowed by the taker as some compensation for
his loss, and depends entirely upon his generosi-
ty. And this we are reminded Of in the extract
from the Republican: GAS they have refused to
give slavery up, even when it is proposed that
the expenses Of doing so shall be borne by 9TH
ers, they will have no pretence ofsn ground for
complaint if the course of events is such as to
make their slaves worthless, and to leave them
no indemnity sclaeor." Hence we have it in
plain English, that if the Slave States refuse the
present offer, their slaves may be taken from
them with no indemnity whatever. This is the