The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-07-18

"SoiSeiy uCoci Ses any as III
relied upon to convict Of ignorance of the political and
constitutional history OF our country may be ex
cused for noticing its various pas and it may appear in
the sequel that the Post ITSELF well read on the sub
ect of our revolutionary history" as it seems to imagine
itself, would shave written" about it the worse il
il had taken pains to inform itself better We pass by it,
gratutous fling at ourselves. The Post would discharge
isdutes as democratic press quite well, if, instead
OF making disparagng remarks of those who veneratt
the resolutions of '9s, would study their doctrines anc
mbibe their spirit
The first point OF criticism is our statement that the
ordinance of 1854 "was passed when Congress was
IN It's earliest vgor; but that Of 49, when it was in the
asst days of its existence" In reply to this we are in.
formed that Congress continued in session three month.
longer; and was renewed afterwards and remained the
actual government till the new constitution was adopted
and organized in 49, What are we to think of journal
which descends to such criticism as this and makes the
foundation Of the charge OF ignorance upon others Is
there schooboy in the country who does not know all
these facts, which the Post to regard as so
de In speaking of "the last days of its existence
did any one understand speaking literally, and
meaning that the government went out of existence in
| less than a week!
If in eighteen months from this day our glorious
constitution should pass out of existence and should be
brought to untmey end (as il will be, if it ever arrives
it. by such fanaca and sectional proceedings as the
Post is now engaged in would it be poetic license even
speak of the present time the last days of its exist
We suppose the Post would have had us to speak
with the precision of obituary notice of an individual
and specify the minute, well the hour and the day
of the dissolution of that body The Post does not be-
leve that ga year is but day" in the history of a
| nation.
In keeping with this is its second point We remarked,
that at the time the ordinance of s7 was passed, the
convention which framed present constitution was in
session, and the government already agreed upon
In reply to this assertion, and to demonstrate our gno
of constitutional history, are told that, at that
tme the actual session of the convention had little more
than half expired" This is very true But does dis
prove our statement Who does not know that on the
18th of july 1887, the day upon which the ordinance
passed, there was general concurrence in the opin.
ion of the nadequacy of the articles of confederation,
and the necessity of perfect union among the
States and, moreover that the general features of the
government already pretty well agreed upon
Again, we are taken to account for saying that when
the ordinance of 1884 passed. Congress was s'nsarly
fu but that when that of 1887 passed. there was
"a bare quorum present" Now, how does the Post con-
rovert ths' Strange to say, by showing that in 1884
there twenty three members present and in 1887
eighteen-neary one.third less and that in 1884, ten
States fully represented and other New Jersey
present by memberbut two States absent and that
1887, there but eight States present-one more
than quorum for any legislative business and one less
than quorum for the purpose of entering into compacts
which the ordinance is claimed to be-.
But we come to the gravest of its charges-one
which the Post refers to the most extraordinary of
ALL" We were unlucky enough to say, "that when the
ordinance of S7 was passed, there were fen men in
Congess) who enjoyed, to any great extent the conf
dence of the country" shown by the fact that
few of them had gained admission into the convention
We rallied very roundly Tor this But how is the as
sertion dsproved The Post asserts that 'sWm Blunt
of North Carolina, William Few and William PIERCE of
Georgia, members of the convention and also of
Congress, and were present when the ordinance was
passed. and that John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman of
New Hampshire, Rufus King and Nathaniel German, of
Massachusetts,, William Samuel Johnson, of Connect
cut John Lansing, of New York. James Wilson, of Penn
sylvania James Madison, Of Virginia. Pierce Butler and
Charles Pnckney. of South Carolina, and William Hous-
tom of Georgia. were also members of both bodies, but
were generally in attendance the convention 1t thus
appears that fourteen OF the members of the Congress of
1887, nearly half of the largest number ever pres
in the Congress of the confederation were also mem
bers of the conventions and when consider that they
appointed that body with the knowledge that the
Congress would be in session at the time it is re.
markabe that many and not that so few did gain ad
mission into the convention 1t is in the face of this
fact the Union gravey asserts and repeats that the men,
bers of that Congress could not get into the convention
because they had not the confidence of the country"
These last, we admit are eminent names and if they
had been present when the ordinance was passed. we al
so admit that our remarks would have been most nap-
propriate. But none of them were present With the
facts produced by the Post itself before u.s. with which,
however, familiar before,) and as three are not
more than few in comparison with the number COM
posing the Congress, repeat assertion that few
of the men, who enjoyed extensively the confidence
of the country shown by the fact of members of both
Congress and the Convention, present in the former
when the ordinance of 1857 passed AS the Post sug
gests the Congress and the Convention were in session
at the time and place and the modes of travel at
that time being tedious and expensive and the pay of
members uncomfortable, there obvious proprety
in selecting the members of both bodies ;
and most OF the statesmen of that day, who enjoyed emf
neny the confidence of the public were members of both
bodes but, repeat, "but few of them were present
in Congress when the ordinance passed
further defence of our remarks against the silly cri