Hon. J. M. Howard Again

It seems to be our fortune not to be able to express nn opinión of the official acts of members of public bodies, either civil 01 ecclesiastical, without being involved in a controversy. We intended not to say any thing furlher respecling Mr. Howard, but leave his merils to be decided upon by his constituenls, to whom the judgment properly belongs.- But as he denies 6omo of our posilions respecting himsclf, wc must again refer to his conneclion wiili Slavery. On Saturday, Oct. 21, he addresscd avery respectoble congregation of his fellow cilizens of all parties at the Court House 'm tliis place. Before he procceded to the consideration of sotne topics on which he intended to dweil, he said hcwould advert to some statements respreting' his public cours? which had appeared in a paper culled the Signal of Liberty, which purported to be printed and circulated at Ann Arbor. He then read from the Signal the heads of three of our specifications, in which we had stated that he was in fuvor of perpetual. Slavkry and the Slavb Tradh in in the District of Columbia, as appeared by his course whilea Member of Congress, and ihat he had not faiilifully defended the rio-hts of his constituents. He denounced these assertion as scandalous libéis, put forth by an obscure, uncandid, and unfair writer; and he was the more desirous of referring 10 them on this occasion, as he understood the man, (for he was not a gentleman.) who wrote the arlicle, was present, allhough personally unknown to hún. As to the power of Congress to aohsh Slavery in Florida, and also in the Federal District, together with the Slave Trade, Mr. Howard admitted it. But whether that power should be exercised, he expressed no opinión whatever, thus maintaining an attitude as perfectly non-committal as any ever assumed by Mr. Van Buren. He merely denied our statement that he was in favor of its perpetuity. As to the charge of not faithfully defening the lights of his constituents in the matter of their petitions, he agreed with us that if ihey were true, he was unfit to represent freernen- But he was not guilty of the charge. He had ever been in favor of the Right of Petition, in its broadest extent, and his sentiments were still unchanged. He appealed to the journals of the House for evidence that on every occasion ho had voted for sustaining it. He referred with severity to the characterof a writer who could thus falwify the records of the House of Representatives in order to make out his case.iow ie so happens we saiü notmng about Mr. Howard's votes. Oiir charge was thai he had suffered the petitions of his constituent? to be dLposed of in an ignominous man ner, "without uttering one manlt word in defence of their righls." Tliis was ou charge, and as he read it publicly, he certainly had a fair opportnnity to answer it. How die he ausvver it? Wby, by saying that he had always voted riglit!! Well, who said he had nol? We had said nothing about his votes. It wiJl bo seen that he thus lacitly admitted the correctness of our position. I he thought us uureasonable in requiring him to spcak for his consütuents, why not say so? [f he were diffi'ient or iucapable of expressing his ideas, that raiglit be an apology. But such is not the ense. He can talk, and very well too; and he has repeatedly made formad speeches n Congress on other subjects. - This cliarge, tlien, that he hnd not spoken one manly word for the rights of his constitnents, he has not denied, but merely affirms that he had voted right - a matter on which we had made no issue whatever. That Mr. Howard, by his course in Congress, hassustained Sla very and the Slave Tkade, we will endeavor to make plain to the understanding of even a child. Slavery was established in the Federal District by that Congress which took possession of the District. They re-enacled the slave laws of Virginiaand Maryland, until other regulations should be established by Congreis. Here, then, slavery was established by national au - thoriiy, and several thousand human beings placed in a slate of servitude. Had Mr. Howard been a member of that Congress, anc voted for the re-enacrinent of Ihose slave laws, could lie have escaped the charge of being decidedly for the continuance of Slavery? He could not. Well, at the end of more than forty ycars, Mr. Howard beco:i'es a member of that body, and finds the imquity firmly established by a lavv of Congress. He finds also that he and 293 other members of Congress, in conjunction with the President, has complete jurisdiction over the wliole matter. Now, whnt does he do? He deliberates on the subject, anJ finnlly comes to this conclusión, so far as it can be gathered from his pub lic course: "I will let Slavbhy alonk. It is nn impopular atul vexatious matter, and during my term of two yeurs, I will be entirely silenl repeeüng it." The L93 other members come to the same conclusión; and to avoid being tronbled about it, they have refused to receive petitions respecting it. Now, as long as Slavery is alreadv established by a law of Congress, who does not see that all that need be done to perpetúate lts eternal existence, is, to let it alom! - Since Mr. IJoward has been a member, he lio s been asked by very many thousands to act on the matter, a large number of his own constituents; and he has refused! Now, when he has spoken in his defence, he does not pretend that he ever acted on the subject, :hat he ever wishcd to act if circumstunces had pennitted, or that he ever would act, should he be re-elected. But having refused or two yearsall entreaiies to act at all, and üiving let Slavery aud the Slave Trade entiiuly alone when he had fuil power to move theirnextermination, he denounces us as infanous libellers, bccause we say he is for the )erpetuation of these laws! But look at it further. Several thousand )orsons are held as slaves ín the District.- They do not voluntarily retnoin slaves. Somaf ody compels ihem to continue such. It is he power of Congress which lays its heavy ïand on them, and.crushes them down from year to year. There are 294 members, on each of .whorn the responsibility lies. Mr.Hovvardcannoi shift oö' his port ion, nntil he can show Ihat he has done all ho eould for the repeal of the iniquitous statute. He has said nothing, writte nothing, done nothing, except that by joint co-operation with the olher members, he has actkd for its continua nee for two years; and were each member to act forever os Mr. H. has done, Sluvery and the Slave Trade wonld forever continue. Yel Mr. H. thinks we are Jibellers for snying what we havesaid! But once more. Suppose we liad tnken tho opposite ground to that we have mnintained. Suppose we had gaid to all our Libeily volers, "There is no need of a separate nomination Tor this District. Mr. Howard is a thorough atitislnvery rnnn. He is an advocate of the Abolition of Slavery in the District, and Florida, and is zcalous for the removal of the nbominable Human Markets at Washington. We advise all Liberty men to support him." Had we taken this ground, how could we have Btistained it? What partiële of proof could we bring that he had the least sympathy for the objects of anlislavery men? We could adduce neither his speechen, writings, or actü, at home or at Washington. And, as we have seen, his course in Congress would strongly argue the contrary. There can be no neutral ground in ihis case. If Mr. H. is not ANTi-slavery, he must be Puo-slavery. We must be pertaitted to say in conclusión, tbat we have no feelings of animosity or ill will towards Mr. Howard. We have ever regarded him as a well disposed gentleman, (for such we will consider hm), of respectab!e abilities; and should he ever become acquainted with us, we cannot but flatter ourselves, that however "obscure' he might continue to regard us,he would cease to denounce us as intentionally "uncandid," "unfair," or "rotten-heartcd." We mean to do exact justice to every one; and it was only for the maintenance of our principies tbat we have been led lo alinde to his public course. Some of Mr. H.'s friends were endeavoring to secure his election by repi esenting him as an antislavey man; and it became necessary to counteract the falsehood. As to his voting í'or the reception of pelitions, it is no more than several slaveholders have done. Mr. Clay, we believe, has alvvays advocated their reception. Mr. Howard put in no piea in reference to our other specifications, but suffered them to go by default. One of these, it will be remembered, vvag, that he was opposed to the reduction of the pay and exorbitant mileage fees of the members of Congress, and that i was understood that he voted against the late Retrenchment Bil! in Congress, in which these and other extravagant allowancea were curtailedc We have not heard of his alluding to this matter on any occasion in his canvaesing tour; and we tliink it no more than fair,unde the circumstances, that he be con-sidered an opposer of Relrenchment in these respects. Mr. Howard spoke on the usual party topics. He eulogized the last Congress, made a furious tiade against the Wild Cat Banks, and declared himself in favor of a National Institution for providing a curreney, equalizing the exchanges, &c. We heard but a part of his remarks on the Tariff. He spoke of the difference between a protective, prohibitory, anc revenue Turiif, distinctions which we forgot because we had httle interest in them. He made one concession, however, which we thought established the potfition we have maintained, that there is no essential differ ence between Whigs and Democrats on this subject. He said that within the limits of a strict Revenue Tarifij a sufBcient protection niight be secured to American Industry. Why then shonld we quarrel about the name of a Tariff, whether it be called a "Protective" o "Revenue" Tariff; so long as each willaccom push the two objects sought, to wit: raise a Revenue, and afíbrd sufficient Incidental Pro teclion?