Hon. J. M. Howard

Two wcpkssince we enumerated &ome reasons why the volers of tliis District ought not to support tliis gentleman forCongress. They were, 6mply, tlint he was a slavery man trying to exnlt the Slave Power over all thia notion in the person of Henry Clay. This he will not deny. We Bid that in our opinión, he kcked that independcnce of charactnr which a Member of Co'ngre?s ought to have. We could not but consider him as a lilère pnrty man. Whcn has he ever octed independently of pnrtv?- It is cxpectcil that every public man will cnrry out his prominent poliücal principies; but he need not be th" slave of his party on every quesüon that comes up. The present tsituation of our nationul affuirs requiresan indeperulence, a manliness of eharacter which shall lend a public man to act out his own judgmênt, n all respects contending for what he deerns to be the publif good: but we shall look :n vain to the public acts of Mr. Howard for such traita of cliaracler. We s:iid be liad not faithfully defended the riehts of his constituents. We know this matter mny be easily smoothed over, and the difficultiesof hiseituation urged, nnd all that. But we do not blame him for impossibilties. We blnme him becauee he did not idenül'v himself with the righls of thepetitioners. If lie does not. believe in their antislovery views, it is not to be Pxpectrd he would advocate them; but his constituents liad a right to beheard, and, that, too, through their Representative. They hnd reason to expect he would say as mucli as this io the doughfaces of the North, nnd the slave-breeders of the South, and say it, too, with earnestness: "Gentlemen, You do my constituents a grievons, on oiitrageous wrong in spurning their petitir.ns without readinjr or 'eferpnee, and I solemnly protest against this invasión of their righls.' Did Mr. Hownrd ever say this, or nny tiiing like ii? He nkvkr did! It would disturb the Whig party: the slaveh'ilders would be mad, and jointhe Locos, nnd ihen how could Henry Clay be elected? Shal! we send such a maa to rppresent us again? We said that he was for continuing his own high salary and exorbitant mileage fees. He will not deny this. Perhaps he will take the ground thut hiscompensation ia none too much - that one hnndred dollars per day for travelling' is none too much to be paid to him by those wbo toil daily for fifty or seventy five cents pr day. But we have berore spoken of this. and sliaü not dweil upon it. We also said that tve were not aware of any materml services he bas rendered the State while in Congress. He has filled his seat most of the time, has been a genteel, respcctable memher, if you piense, voted with hls party, said rmthing to offend the laveholdere, nnd lins now come home to ask a re-lo ttun. ouiicomng uil these things, we still think a more efficiënt member might. be selected! We aiso said that he was in favor of perpptnal slavery in the national domains, and for rontmubga slave market at Washington, and thnt so far as he has acted, he has sustained Slavert and the Slave Trade. Now the friends of Mr. Hownrd sny we do him inJngtiöe in This specificatinn; but wo think he himself will not deny ils correct ness. In the first place, it plain lh.it Mr. Howard must be for the continuance of Slnvery or agat'nsl it. Tlire can be no neutrality in a mnmber o! Congress:, who has jurisdicción of the case, and can act upon itat any ti -e. If he be an antislavery man, he will show it by his acts, or his spreches. We judge of all men by i.lue test. We ask, then, where. or when Mr. Howard has ever takpn ground for the nbolition of slavery in the Federal District, or m Florida? Has he ever expressed even a teish to that effect in Congross? He has not! Has he ever made n mton to thnt effect as a member of thnt body, as lie had a perfect right to do at any Urn? He nover has. lias he evor nvowed any desirc for this ob ject in any of his public speeches in Michigan? We never henrd any thing of the kind. Has he pnblishedto ihe people anyexpresíon of his antisluvery predictions on this subject in all he has written for the Detroit Advertiaer. or other papers? No one ever nccueed him of such a deed! On 'he contrary Qjtho Advcrtiser, the leadinv Whig paper of the State, exDressiy takes ground against iho immediate nboliïion of slaveiy in the Federnl District.nMr. Howard has presented mnny pefitions to Congfrcss for Abolition in the Federal Dis- trict. Has he cvrr token occnsion to say tíiak his own views coincidcfl with those of llie petiíionere? He never has! We cali on Mr. Howard, then, to Jet u know WÍ1EN or WHERK he haa everpnblicly taken .ín y c round for the immediate abolition of slnvery in the District of Cohimbia, or in Florida. Where has he actrd or spoken asnn nntislavery man? Let the instance b$ producid. Now, as we said before, the eonchiBion i inevitnblp, that if Mr. Howorrfis not for theitnmediate abolition of Blnvfiry, he must bn for its enntinunnee: because there can be no mid1- dle ground. Itdoes not appear that he has ever acfed or spoken far its discontinnance; consequentty he is for continuíng (he acnursed eytení. Well hoto long shall it be continued? We never heard of auy objection Mr Howard ha to it$ continimnce for Ihis year, or the nxt year, w the year afier, or forever. Honce we charge on him that he is for sustnining it indeflnitely, if not forever. We know nothing to the contrary. But we do know that he has becn a member of Congross two years, and in ibat time lie lias continuallu suttained it. Who