The national Republican., 1862-03-24
OFFENSIVE TO MARYLAND.

OFFENSIVE TO MARYLAND.
One Of the staple arguments against The
abolition Of slavery in this District is, that il
will be offensive to Maryland. Writers In the
Slar say Of it, that it will be a thorn in The side
of Maryland"
Let us SEE how sharp aud how long this
thorn may possibly be, and how painful
wound it may ipHict.
We understand perfectly well that contact
with free territory is not sgreeable 10 slave
holders, who see in il increased opportunity for
the escape OF their property. The legal right
OF pursuing and recspturing slaves here would
not be affected by the abolition Of slavery, but
the practical enjoyment of the rights Of course.
not 80 perfect where slavery does not exist, as
where II does. In this sense, to abolish slavery
here may, indirectly and in some minute de
gree, be injurious TO the shareholders Of Mary.
land. But the extent Of the injury is so triHing,
that they would never think Of it, II the polii
clans would let them alone. Maryland already
has boundary Of hundreds Of miles upon free
territory in Pennsylvania. The addition Of q
few more miles OF such boundary here, is a
ridioulously small matter to make an uproar
about.
The abolition Of slavery here may be often.
sive to the shareholders Of Maryland, but only
in the sense in which it is offensive to slave
holders everywhere, as an act Of the national
authority implying a condemnation Of their
favorate institution.
Instead Of injuring Maryland, the proposed
abolition will greatly benefit that State, BY
stimulating the growth Of Washington and
thereby adding to the value Of all the lands in
its vicinity. Owners of real estate in Prince
Georges and Montgomery counties will moi
fail to appreciate this consideration.
But even if it be admitted for the sake o.
the argument, that Maryland has, upon the
whole, more to lose than to gain, by the aboli
ton of slavery here, the question would re-
main, whether, in legislation for the District o.
Columbia, the interests Of the District itsel
should be sacrificed to those Of Maryland.
In this connection, we observe that there
seems to be something sinister in the special
clamors Of the Baltimore press against what II
proposed to be done here. Nobody will pre-
tend that theSecurity OF what little slave prop
erty exists in Baltimore, will be weakened b.
abolishing slavery in this district. II the Balti
more slaves wish TO run of. it is not in this di
rsction, but towards the North, that they viii
escape. 1t is no motive connected with tht
security OF slave property, which stimuatel
the Baltimore newspapers to denounce Senator
MoRRnLs bill. What can the motive be: Il
it the apprehension, that if Washington is madt
free city, it will contest with Baltimore fol
the palm Of commercial supremacy on the Chez
apeake!
Washington is as accessible 10 the ocean Al
Baltimore, would be nearer to the Ohio rivei
by the construction oil short railroad to tbt
Point Of Rocks, aud has canal connection
which Baltimore has not, with the Cumberland
coal fields Washington has more water powe
in its immediate vicinity than Baltimore ha,
Here are all the natural and geographical ele
ments, for the creation Of city here on th
Potomac, which shall overshadow that on th
PatapsCo. All that Washington needs TO dc
velope these immense advantages, is a North
ern population with its skill, commercial ener
gy and capital; and such d population, everj
body sees, will be attracted here by the abol
tion Of slavery. Is il this which Baltimore sp
Irehends, and is it that apprehension whie
accounts for the tone Of the Baltimore press