Democratic banner., 1849-07-02

lDOSeO 10 I6lCI "
that he was not disposed by his adherence
Ito the Missouri compromise, to form a pre-
cedentf for the future action of Congress, be-
cause that might embarrass his new friends,
the Free Sellers of the North. For these
votes, we refer our readers to the Congress
%sional Globe of July and August, pages
1909 and following. From these votes we
think it is clearly shown, that Senator Ben
ton did not. either in letter or spirit, obey
the instruction of 1s47. tits true thathe vo-
ted for the Oregon bill containing the Mis-
souri, compromise on its first passage, but
when the House had amended the bill by
striking out the words of that act, and in
serting those of the Proviso, in his eager
ness to please his Proviso friends, Col. Ben
ton gulped it down. and it became a law
But this is not all, he endeavored, by his
vote, to give negroes ondn"LattOes the priv
ilcge of voting and holding office in the Ter
ritory. Surely no one will pretend to say,
that this was voting in accordance with the
letter and spirit of the Missouri compro-
mise; but all candid men must admit that
it was directly in conflict with the spirit of
his instructions. Then we have made good
our statement that his first objection was
erroneous in two particulars.
And now for his second objection-"That
these second resolutions did not emanate
from any known will or desire of the peo-
ple,' and his assertion to sustain this objec-
ton, "that some who wanted a pretext for
the change, THAT is for voting for the Sec
ord resolutions, tried to get mp instructions
of their own framing to justify their change.
were not able to do it-were not able to get
instructions even in a county" Now here
are two more "errOrs," and let us take the
last first, "that some who wanted a pretext
for the change tried to get up instructions
of their own framing" Now if Col. Ben
ton knew of any member who tried to get
up instructions of his own framing, why did
he not produce the proof? If any such in
structions were framed by amember for his
own benefit, they must have been sent to
that members constituents, whence it would
have been easy to have obtained a copy
Then why not produce it? Why not name
the county to which these framed instruc-
tons were sent? The absence of all proof,
when it is so easy to produce it, forces the
conviction on our mind that this is ~"error."
But to the objection itself, tina: the ~instruc.
tons of the Legislature did not emanate
from any Known will or desire Of the pen
.ple-"not eve in a county" Now we
have before US resolutions adopted BY meet
ings of the people prior to the session of the
Legislature, from which we will make a few
extracts. At a democratic mass meeting
held at tie Court House in this county, on
the first Monday of November, 1s47, the
following resolution among others was unan-
imously adopted:
"Resolved, That in the agitation of the
Wilmot Proviso we see at work elements
which must sunder the States of this Union,
and create an impossible gulf between the
North and South if persisted in; that we
are willing to stand by the Missouri Com
Ipromise and risk every thing that we hold
sacred for the salvation of the Union ; that
we deuounce this effort to trompEe on the
COMPROMISES of the CONSTITUTION, to ex-
cite sectional jealousy, and to array one
portion of the Union against the other-a-
gainst it, and against every kindred mea-
sure aimed at the eristence of our sacred,
our blessed UNION, zoe svear an eternal
hosHhty."
This resolution was unanimously adopted
by the largest meeting for the expression of
political sentiment which we have attended
in the county for years past, a portion of the
committee for drafting the resolutions were
for denouncing the Proviso in more violent
terms, but consented to the modification
made to it by o%urself, and in the language
given above in italics and capitals, it was
passed. There was then amongst the demo-
Gratis present the deepest possible feeling
against the PrOviso, as designed to trample