The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-07-18

zWhen.it comes to be.explai,ed, it will be seen,
that it was necessary :thatthe should be, J.. IN
order to extricate him from a very awkward di'
lemma, in which he has placed himsel. 1op
exclaimed, "Oh that mine adversary hfd writ
ten book ''and well might cxclaim,oh lha'
my adversary might make speech. Ills an
vrrsary must have been very much like mine
We have never heard whether his had tie folly
TO accommodate him as mine has had 10 lccon1.
modatc me.
have now effcctually rrpeIed his pre'oser-
ous charge. that am the author Of The Vilmot
Proviso for i, is utterly impossible thath ev.
or can show that am the author of the Msson
ri Compromise. or that that compromis and
the Wilnot Provso are the same. Btas he
has made it tho position from which to assai
me with the charge of disunon, and Trough
me- you, including his own constituents, shall
follow him step hY step, through the long pro.
cess by which he makes the desperate enravor
to establish his preposterous charge, hy atempt-
ing to show that have changed my o'inon,
as to the powers Of Congress over the errlfo.
rics. But my purpose is more 10 eSpse his
inconsistency, contradictions and absrdltIes,
than 10 rcinte what be advances as argument.
IF he could prove to a demonstration tha have
changed nv opinion, it could have no weight
whatever towards showing that ny resolution
aimed at disuniun. Nor do deem it F., matter
of any Importance. in this connection, Shcther
nv opinion has or has not undergone change,
in the long period of 30 years, since the adop.
ton orlhc Missouri Compromise. Al that time,
the power OF Congress over the territories had
received hut little consideration, while for the
last few years it has been sub bjcct Of vital in.
terest 10 yon. and, as such, has been thoroughly
investigated by myself and others. whose duty
it has been to defend your rights in lh. councils
of the Union. in reference to il.
TO substan,iate the charge of change OF
opinion. he introduced copy Of what purports
to be draft OF letter found anon! the papers
of Mr. Monroe. II is SAID to he in his hand
writing. II is without date, not signed, or ad.
dressed to any person by name, but contained
expressions which leave no doubt that it was
intended for General Jackson. This paper
was found filed away with another endorsed
Interroga,ories- MisSonri-March 81 1920"
9" To the Heads of Departments and Attorney
General" 1t contained two questions, OF
which the one pertinent to the present subject
is in the following words: HAS Congress
right under the powers vested in the consitu.
ton 10 make a regulation prohibiting slavery
in territory ~ The only material sentence
in the draft of the letter, in reference to the
point under consideration is in the following
words =" | took the opinion in writing OF the
administration, as to the cnnStitutionaliiy Of re.
straning territories, which was explicit in f,vor
of it," These are the exact words Of the sen.
tence as finally corrected by ils anlhor. 1t is
explicit as TO the statement, that the admins.
tration, as body, was in favor of the con>iitu-
tonai,y, but furnishes no proof whatever Of its
members being unanimous, and OF course no
evidence that or any other particular member
of the Cabinet wos in its favor.
This deficiency Col. Benton undertakes 10
supply, first from the n'erning, anc next
statement purporiing TO be from the diary of
Mr. Adams. First as to the inerlining: in
stead Of the expression, which was "expliclt''
rs it now stands, it read in The original daft
" and the vote of every member was explicit.
These words we're ali struck out except cox
plicit," and in their place the following words
were inlerlmcd in the first instance, I" which
were unanimous and" afterwards the words
's unanimous and" were struck out, which lett
the paper as it now stands. Now hold il to
be clear that the n,erning and striking out,
so far from strengthening the inference that the
Cabinet were unarimous, us Col. Benton con.
tends, it strengthens and sustains tn" very op.
posiie. So far then it is certain, the draft "i
the letter. standing by itself, instead of furnish.
ing proof that the Cabinet were unanimous,
furnishes proof directly 10 the contrary. Even
Col. Benton himself seems to have been con.
scious, that it furnished no satisfactory proof
as TO the unanimi,y of the Cabinet, and endea.
vors to supply this defect from statements pnr.
porting to be taken from the diary Of MIR. Ad
ans. From these, i, would appear, that meet.
inu of the Cabinet was held on the Sd of March
for the first time, to consider the compromise
bill, and that, according TO the statement of MIR.
Adams, the Cabinet were unanimous upon the
question OF consii'utionaitY. Ii also appears
that the President sent him the two questions,
on the 5h of March, informing him at the same
time that he desired answers in writing from
the members Of the Cabinet, and that the an.
swcrs would be in time, if received the next day.
Such is the substance Of the statement purport.
ing to he taken from his diary.
Connecting this with the draft as it original.
" stood, and the subsequent alterations inclu'
ding the date of the memorandum filed with it.,
the natural Interpretation of the whole affair H.,
that Mr.. Monroe drew mp inerrogations, and
the draft Of his letter intended for General
Jackson, on the 4th of March, the date of the
memorandum 1t could not have been earlier
according to the diary Of Mr.. ADAMS. nor pro.
baby later lie did not date the draft because
the letter could not be- finished and transmitted
to General Jackson, until after he had signed
the bill The draft was drawn up as il stood,
in all probability on the basis Of the opinion
expressed on the third of March, the first day OF
the meeting Of the Cabinet, and which, al the
time as the diary states, was I" unanimous,
and the doubts and uncertainty of opinion were