Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-19
THE FIVE MINUTES DEBATE.

THE FIVE MINUTES DEBATE.
We insert brief speeches made by several gen
tlemen, in the House of Representatives, on Sa-
turday The conciliatory remarks of Col. Bssell
are in very different view from his famous
speech, in which he threatened the South with
free Soil Illinois regiments. Several other North
ern gentlemen declared their concurrence in the
proposition of Mr.. Inge's amendment, that the to-
Iteration of slavery by Territory applying to be-
come State is no constitutional objection to its
admission. The extreme party, however, repre-
scented by Root Giddngs and Thaddeus Stevens,
took the bold ground shat slave State shall ever
hereafter be admitted into the Union. The posi-
ton of Mr.. Vinton of Ohio, will arrest attention.
He opposes the amendment as an abstraction
foreign to the objects of the bill, but declines to
say whether he would vote for another slave State.
Mr. Schenck, too, could not be brought to make
this acknowledgment 1t is natural that Southern
members should have their blood stirred by these
developments. The manly declarations of Mr..
Toombs will find an echo in every Southern
heart.
The Washington Republic Of Monday morn
ing, contains long article, in which it declares
that any Southern man who advocates the Senate
Compromise, as containing something practically
beneficial to the South stultifes himself and IN
suls the intelligence of that Ohole portion Of the
Uaaion' The article concludes by pronouncng
the scheme san gorgeous humbug." What the
Republic proposes, as better than the Senate's
scheme, is of course the Presidents plan. The
substance of its argument, so far as the Terrific
rial question is concerned (Which it treats as the
main point of difference) is, that although the Sc
Mates scheme does not apply the Wilmot Proviso,
yet Shareholders will be deferred by the apprehen-
sion of the enforcement Of Mexican law from Ia
king their slaves into the Territories. We can
readily appreciate the Republics protest against
being understood as "setting forth our Chat pa
per's) objections to the compromise plan;' for it
proves, by not attempting to show how the Presi-
dents plan is more favourable to the introduction
of slaves into the Territories, that the alleged i'm
pediments to their introduction under the compro.
mise of the Senate, form with it no real ground of
opposition.
But, since the Republic has thought proper to
draw comparison between the respective advan-
tages of the two plans to the Southern slavehold-
err, we beg the editor of that journal not to stop
at denouncng the Senate plan, but to demonstrate
also the superior claims of the Presidents. We
should be gratiied to have, from the Republic, or
from any other advocate of the Presidents policy,
an answer to each of these questions
Was the Presidents plan designed, or is it like
likely in practice, to enable the stakeholder to
ny his slave property into the territories?
If California be admitted as State, without any
provision at present for the Territories what Sc
curity will there be that Congress will not enact
the Wilmot Proviso?
Does the Presidents adoice that the Territories
be left to take of themselves, give any guar
anty that Congress will follow that advice?
Isit reasonable to suppose that the Free Soil
party will abandon its organization and its agita-
ton of the public mind, so long as the Territories
are without authorized governments, and the Will
mot Proviso is thus left an open question?
Finally, what hope of the extension of slave
ry is afforded by that feature of the Presidents
policy which would admit New Mexico immedi-
ately State, and thus confer upon its popula-
ton of Pueblo Indians the power of permitting or
prohibiting slavery at their will +?
We have never seen any solution of these diff
hculties which approached being satisfactory to
Southern minds. If the Republic will undertake
to enlighten us, we shall receive its instructions
with profound gratitude.