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

for the Union. | ask sir. it. under these cir
cumsances, proper for feeble, dvindled body, that
had inhoHy lost the confidence of the nation, and
,ceh loas then ,oatng its suppression by the people
feeble, inefficient body in which only or eight
States were represented the whole of which consisted Of
but seventeen or eighteen men, smaller number than
your large coamitteesa body literally in the very agonie
Of political dedM-was ltnot to say lawful and constitu
honal-wAs IT, SIR, EVEN DECENT THEM to have
passed an ordinance of such imporancel do not know
ecollect the of those members who voted for
1t; but as to efary presumed they pould haze been
among me men ioo possessed the greatest confidence Of
the Union, or at that very time they wod haue been mem
bers Of the Convention sitting at Philadelphia"
With such authority this to sustain us, the Post is
welcome to say the assertion that the Congress of 1857
had few men in who enjoyed, any great extent the
confidence OF the country that it was composed of men
who had not sufficiently the confidence of the country to
gain them admission into the Convention u.s. if true
discovery wtch wa aoni all tOho haze written and all
ho haze read the subject of revolutionary history
The Post proceeds:
The differences, in almost every particular, in the cir.
cumstances ia which, according the Union the ord.
nances OF 1871 and l7S7 passed" having been su
centy discussed, advert, for a moment those differ
ences in the leading provisions" of the
which the Union, also, alleges to exist
1t that the ordinance of 1884 super seded
by that OF 1872 The is that the former expressly
repealed and declared null and void" by the latter
In reference to this last paragraph all have to say
is, that the word not inserted by mistake and the
typographical corrected in country edition
"a precaution which was scarcely necessary, it was
which the intelligent reader would have cor
rected for himself We have disposition to repeat the
contrast we drew between the ordinances of 1884 and
l7s7. Suffice it to say, the Post has said nothing which
has shaken our confidence in its justice
! The Post remarks further
That Journal says that the clause of the ordinance of
1877 "was doubtless a compromised, which, while it pro-
hbted slavery provided for the reclamation Of fugitive
slaves escaping into the territory.
| Such is distinctly our impression and the more we
study the history of that period, the
WINGED of its truth. When the antslavery clause was
moved in 1854 it did not contain compromise feature,
and the south voted against it. Nor when it was moved
in 1855 did it contain any such feature and again the
south defeated it, Richard Henry Lee, whom the Post so
highly and justly eulogizes, voting against it, In 1857,
when presented in the compromise FORM the south
voted in body for it, Richard Henry Lee among them
and the only vote against from New York. that had
uniformly voted for before. This however, is an i'm
portant view of the subject, particularly this time and
may to it again. We have not now the space
at our command to do it justice.
There many other structures of the POST inviting
reply but scarcely authorizing it, such as the follow.
ing
"The Union speaks of the clause which postponed the
power of Congress nerdct the trade as if were
restriction existing power, and if its exercise
prohibited for twenty years for the purpose of
coagig the importation of slaves into this country Mr.
Madison when defending the constitution against attacks
half caumnious and in the number the Fed
eras from which the Union has quoted, says that the
power interdct the slaveade originally conferred
by the constitution and that this clause was but post.
ponement OF its exercise
Strike out encouraging Uhe use of which is not
authorized by anything have sad,) and insert per
mittng-whch is the term the Post ought to have used
and leave position stated by the Post
vindicate itself, without word of comment from U.S.
Thus we could proceed till we filled columns more But
" cui bono2" Let the instances have given of the
fairness of the Posts criticisms stand as specimen of the
rest.
few remarks, and we dismiss the subject With
what proprey does that paper go of way to as
sail General Bayly in connexion with us' 1t true upon
two points we introduced extracts from speeches
which that gentleman has made-one in the Baltimore
Convention, and the other in the House OF Representa-
tives Mr. Van Buren, had given version of the dongs
of the Committee Credentials OF the Baltimore Conven
ton and of the Convention itself, inconsistent with one
which General Bayy, who member OF the commit
tee had given the Convention presence of every other
member of the committee and of the entire democracy there
assembled No one controverted the Convention where
ample opportunity to do it presented ITSELF any statements
which he made We therefore felt authorized quote them,
to contradict Mr. Van Burens, who present. and
must have derived his from second hand. Again, Mr.
Van Buren, asserted that the Iowa bill which he signed
in 1888 contained anti-savery clause We knew
that General Bayly had asserted and, as think, had
shown the House of Representatives, where he would
have been set right if he had fallen into eor) the re-
verse to be true 1t therefore convenient for to
quote what he said that point, rather than make
similar one ourselves.
The truth OF the statements in neither case is disputed
why, then, assa the author of them
1t was grautous in the Post to undertake to contrast
Gen. Bayly with such Richard Henry Lee. We
certainly have compared him with them and if we
were silly enough to do he is the last who would
thank us for our folly But is something than
grau,ous to say, referring to the votes which Mr. Lee
and Mr. Grayson gave in favor Of the ordinance of 49,
that he Mr Bayy] has shown himself faithful on the
very point on which they delinquent, by his recent
speech"
long the ordinance proposed exclude slavery from
the whole of the territory OF the United States, well
- r Al. NJ r