The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-15

The Compromise in Kentucky.

| The editor of the "Southern Press" at Wash
ington, contests the popularity of the Compro-
mise in Kentucky. We could mt help smiling at
the character manner of the editor with
whose peculiar style of hair-sptting logic we are
quite famlliar) in contestng the fact. He en-
deavors to sustain his position by a reference to
the proceedings IN the meeting Of the members OF
the Constitutional convention at Frankfort, by
which n resolution including the name of Mr..
| Clay, was substituted by another emitting his
name. Every body here understands that matter
perfectly. There were two or three persons in the
meeting, Calhounites, who could not bear to see
Mr.. Gays name in the resolution. To ensure
| unanimity, the resolution was modified in form,
but not in substance or spirit. AS adopted, it
was a substantial approval of the Compromise,
so intended and so understood.
The popularity of the Compromise in Ken
lucky is almost absolutely universal. This is be-
yond any sort OF question, as every body in the
State knows. But bubble with the editor of
the Southern Press, as we have seen a thousand
times, answers his purpose just as well as fact or
sound argument. He can talk upon one as fuen-
tly as upon the other-and with equal confidence
and pertinacity. His logical powers very
peculiar. He seems to act on the idea that the
greatest exercise Of his intellectual faculties is to
prevent facts into fancies and fancies into facts.-
Friend Fisher, the Compromise is universally
popular in Kentucky.-.Mayspille (Ky.) Eagle.
The members of the Kentucky Constitution
al Convention passed resolution approving the
motires of the Compromise Senate Committee
of Thirteen, and passed no resolution approving
their plan And therefore it was insisted that the
members of the Convention did approve the
plan, and that the people of Kentucky approved
ii. We denied that such was the inference
and held that if the members of the Convention
approved the plan, we supposed they would have
said so-as il was quite easy to say. And we
stated that we had seen two letters from well
informed gentlemen in Kentucky, that a resolu-
ton was offered directly in favor of the Compro-
mise plan and was rejected by the members of
the Convention. Hence we inferred they were
not in favor of it, and the case is too clear to be
contested.
We are told, but have not seen it, that the
Frankfort (ky.) Yeoman controvertcd our views
we presume on the same grounds the Eagle has
assumed. Nowifthey can say nothing better than
this, they had better say nothing at ALL
As for the Editor of the Eagle we are quite
familiar with the snnguine and spshod style in
which he starts and stumbles to his conclusions
unconscious of their ludicrous incongruity with
premises or facts, and have often smiled Mt the
air of triumph he assumes precisely at the mo-
ment his argument breaks down.
We have heretofore known the opinion of
Kentucky much better than the Editor of the
Eagle and can conceive of no attompt to con-
vert fame les into facts" more signal than this
effort of his to prove by his peculiar method of
argument that the opinion of Kentucky now, is
precisely what she has refused to say.