The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-07-21

vered it
But ifhe couldl really make out that AN the au-
thor OF the Missouri compromise he 20 step
further to make the author Of the Wimot proviso
lie must prove the two to be- Identical this
ne hss not done or even attempted Instead Of that,
he has adopted his usual course Of assuming what
Is incapable OF proving 1t Is very easy way to reach
conclusion that Is desired In this too he has dis
closed his wonderful aptitude to what ever
before suspected Heretofore all had su opposed
that they were very different things-that compro-
mise was essential to one, while the other
excluded that pre- opposes conct of opinion
between parties on question Of right expedency,
surrendered hJ right OF opinion. The other on the
contra pre- suposes positive assertion Of right, or
rSioon to the exclusion Of all compromise Thus, in
the case of the Missouri compremise the North and
South differed the constitutional question WHISTLER
Congress had the right to prohibit the introduction of
Union One contended that Congress had the right
to impose whatever condition it might think proper
territory about to become State and the other that
IL nau no right 70 impose any except that prescribed
by the constitutonthat its govern nsnt should be
publican The North on that case waived the claim Of
power ON the proposal made by Mr. Clay to fix the
northern limits of the territory, into which slaves
nigh be introduced at So 80 This proposal although
made by Southern member, was taken up and
carried by the vote OF the North and thus
fact their offer to compromise The South acq
without However yielding her principles asserting,
dissenting to the power Of Congress to exclude
slavery from the territories. 1t a compromise in
which both waived but neither yielded its opinion,
10 the power Of Congress.
Very different was the in reference to the Ore
gon bill passed at the session preceding the last.
There the North contended for the abolute right to
exclude slavery from all the territories and
their determination to do against the efforts of the
South to compromise the question: by extending the
Missouri Compromise line TO the Pacific Ocean. The
offer scornully refused. and the bill passed with
out any compromise. 1t was intended, indeed TO be
the practical assertion of the naked principle that
gress had the power claim for it, by the Vim,t pro-
yiso. 1t The first act of the kind passed aud
carried by the desertion from your cause by Col
benton and Gen Houston. 1t is not surprising that
the former should be DESTROYS Of conoundng far
more odious measure with the Missouri promise u
much less odous In the hope of mitigating your
deep indignation occssoned by his beray ai YOU on
question vital to the South But he n anot ner
motive, which will be explained, hereafter aud which
makes it still more desirable to him, that the two
should be confounded aud regarded identical When
1t comes to be explained it will DO
cessary that they should be- in order extrcate
from q very awkward dilemma ia which he has iced
himself job exclaimed, Oh that mine adversary had
written book - and well might have exclaimed,
+" Oh that my adversary might make speech" His
adversary must have been very much like mine. We
have heard whether his had the folly accom-
modate him, Is mine ha. had TO acc ommodite me.
have nov enectuslly repelled his preposterous
charge, that am tho author Of the Wimot proyiso
for 1t is utterly possible that he show that
] am the author of the Missouri Compromise that
that compromise and the Wilmot proviSo the
But he has made it the position from which sail
me with the charge Of disunon, and through you,
including his constituents, shall follow hun step
by step through the long process by which he makes
the desperate endeavor to establish his preposterous
charge, by attempting to show that have changed my
opinion the powers OF Congress torrito-
ries But my purpose Is more to expose his inc
tency and absurdities than to refute
what he advances as aa argument IL he could prove
to denomination. that have changed my opinion. 1t
could have no weight whatever towards showing that
my reso uton aimed at disunon. Nor do | deem IL "a
matter of Importance in this connection whether
my opinion has has not undergone change in the
long period Of thirty years since the adoption Of the
Missouri Compromise At that time the yer Of Con-
gress the territories had received but little con-
sideration while for the last few years it has been
subject Of vital interest TO and such, has been
thoroughly Investigated by myself and others whose
duty it has been to defend your rights in the councils
OF the Union, in reference TO 1t.
To sub-tsntiate the charge Of a change Of opinion,
he introduces copy Of what purpcrts TO b. draft of
letter found among the papers Of Mr. MsurJe IL is
said to be in his hand writing 1t is without date not
sigued or addressed 10 any person by but
tanned expressions which leave no doubt that t was
intended for General jackson This paper was found
filed away with another, endorsed "lDterrosatories
ments aud Attorney Geueraln IL contained NO
tons Of which the pertne to the subject
is in the following words: Has Congress right
regulation prohibiting slavery in a territory,n The
only material sentence In the draft Of the letter in
ference to the point under consideration Is la the fol-
lowing words 81 took the opinion In writing Of the
admin tration TO the .naly OF restrain
ing territories, which was explicit in favor Of 1t F"
Thee the exact words Of the SENTENCE finally
corrected by its author IL Is explicit the state
ment, that the administration as a body, favor
OF the constitutonaty, but furnishes proof what
ever Of its members being unanimous and OF
evidence that or any other particular member Of the
Cabinet was In its favor.
This deficiency Col Benton undertakes to supply,
first from the interlinng, aud next from statement
purportipg to be from the diary of MIR Adams First,
to the nterining instead Of the expression which
was explicit as nov stands IL read in the original
draft, aud the vote OF every mber explicit"
These words all struck out except expclt aud
in their place the following words interlned In
the nrrt Instance which unanimous aud after.
wards the words unanimous and' we're struck out,
which left the paper now stands Nov hold It to
b. clear that the ibterDing and striking out far
from strengthening the inference that the Cabinet
uDapimous, a. Col Benton contends, 1t strengthens
and susisns tbs very oppo-its SO far then IL Il
tain the draft Of the letter standing by itself instead
Of furnishing proof that the Cabinet unanimous
furnishes proof directly to tho contrary. tvsu Col
Benton himself seems to have been conscious that IL
fur nished satisfactory proof the snnity Of
the Labinet aud onde&vors supply this defect
statements purportng to be taken from the diary Of
Mr. Adams PROM these IL would appear that meet
Ing 81 the cabinet held the sd Of March for the
first time. to consider the compromise bill aud that.
according TO the statement Of air Adams. the cabinet
were unanimous upon the question Of con-tutionaty
IL also appears that the PRESIDENT sent him the
questions the 9th Of March, informing him at the
time that he d, sired la writing the
members OF the Cabinet and that the would
be In time received the next day Such Is the sub
stance Of the statement purportns TO be taken from
his diary.
connecting this with the draft II originally stood
aud the subsequent alterations iaciudns che date OF
the memorandum h'd With it, the natural iutsrprets
ton II the Whale affair IT, that Mr. dre~ up
tcrrcgaons and the dsn q his letter Intended for
jackson the 4th 81 Nsrch, the date of the
memorsndum II could not have been earlier, accord
ing the diary Of r ADAMS, probably later. lie
the draft because the letter could not be
flushed and transmitted to General jackson anil
after he had signed the bill The draft drssn up
u stood In al probability the basis Of tue opini
oppressed 81, th. third Of ,isrch the rst ay OF the
meeting Of the cabinet aud winch, at the time tue
disry states. was ubsniraousr and the doubts and
uncertenty q opinion expressed by cf the
members Oh. t~o subsequeut Gays (the 5th aud 9th
OF March) which cause the intcriiniog and the nrt
MODIFICATION Of the graft as " nov stands IL Is DIN
cult 90 give any other explanation
now turn to Col Bentou's reasoning upon the sub
ject. He alleges that the ords aud vote Of every
men Der was explicit were struck out AID explcit'
Inserted evidently 70 avoid yi.atiog the rule Ut csbi
TO tell the opinion OF members which
the word unanimous" would do His statement con
tsins two errors. to fact Pr plicitn in the
original draft and never struck out Unanimous made
part IL the original draft a. he supposes IL n
part Of the interns nrst but sub-a senty struck
All this ir apparent from certified copy Of the
paper before Thus bis ressb ping fats 20 the
prund lie carries the of cabinet very far
much farther than he does the rule applied the
secrets ~ the cabinet. Who heard that II
violation any rule Of cabinet secrets TO say sd
n,instrs tiop unapinous or divided IL ~ con-
ssnty SAID In reference TO their meetings. and yet he
would have you believe. thai IL wJud have been
br, sch coBhdenc- in ,ir Monroe, in wdtug cona
d.pal letter to friend Of high standing say that