The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-20

O3v PALxxs, Newspaper Agent, o.y
.saotssa s the cass Of BOSTON, New Yosk
ana Phisdepha take advertisements
subscriptions required His receipts win
regarded :. payments His Offices areDossoh Congress
s Tribune buildings Philadelphia, northwest corner Of
:" Ths Beathsrn Press"
our auennon has been directed to an article in the
oo"tnsrn Frsss OF Thursday, in which paragraph is
quoted IRON the Unom and the nnuendo if not the direct
assertion made that we contend that the prohibition Of
slavery north OF SO deg 80 min by the Missou Com.
promise not taking jurisdiction slavery by Con-
gess and that to recognise slavery soy Of such line
would be taking jurisdiction over that instu,ion,hat
we regard southern who the power OF Con-
gress to prohibit slavery patriots, while would call
them ultras,s and dsunionss if they conend thai Con-
gress may recognise it, But for greater certainty,
quote the article Of the Southern Press entire
Let the South consistent she would be strong. Evey
souri, Com promise has been Gently changed al tho Mach
vile Convention. They were unwilling e take The Ms
queny recognised by the Texas resolutions They
adopted the Msos Coasyo.iss irs, and INSISTED On the
Missouri Compromise itself In doing this, they have
s hs
although they pretend that their demand is sancso1ed
X M s g. 2 sy s s;oyyss:
ward is and distinct proportion, which admits the
Provided sseonses i south Of that lns giving
10 Congress the jurisdiction the subject Of slavsry
Usion
The Missouri Compromise of 1870 prohibited slavery
north of So deg 80 min That taking jurisdiction
slavery by Congress But II Congress recognises sA
very south of such line, that is nsw princiPe-hais
taking Jurisdiction
Southern patriots who tho power Of Con-
gress prohibit slavery but uaist and dsunionists
il they contend that Congress may recognise III
Such the obquy OF and servity Of spirit that
nf the Comm pn
his conclusions.
Now. if the inference be right that the above remarks
meant to apply to the Union. must be permitted
to say that they utterly and entirely without f0unda
ton, and that the author Of them must have known they
without foundation when he made them. From the
first commencement Of the Missouri controversy mp 10
the present time, have deaed that Congress had any
rghtu authority to take jurisdiction of the question OF ala
very and from the adoption OF the Missouri CompEose up
to the present time, have always and upon all suitable
occasions declared that it volson OF the consti-
tuition, because Congress did in adopting that measure
wrongfuy exercise the power to exclude and forever
prohibit slavery north Of given line, running through
the national territory Congtess had right % do th
fact which We have proclaimed from 1870 the present
time and the editors Of the Southern Press know wen
that have proclaimed it oftentimes during the last
three months. They know that have contended sgan
and again that Congress had constitutional right to
prohibit or establish slavery anywhere take 1us-
dc,on over that institution north south of 80 deg 30
min. or OF any other line whatever. Ills not true that
we have ever considered it patriotic in southern to
assert the power of Congress to prohibit slavery and
that southern ultrasts and disunionists they
contend that Congress may recognise slavery. We
have said, and we say again, that the man. whether
from the North from the South who asserts that Con-
gress may prohibit slavery anywhere, that it may
tablish by recognition otherwise anywhere, ssserts
principle which is TO be found in the constitution
Ia principle which. il established. will inevitably
lead 10 the destruction OF southern rights o. to =
severance Of the Union We hold that slavery may
rghduy 90 wherever competent tribunal has not
forbidden it and recognise tribunal competent
to that end but State the inhabitants OF Territory
when they forming constitution preparatory to their
admission into the Union. :
While we have held these views, we have seen that
The people have acquiesced the Missouri Compromise
for nearly third Of century aAd becauss It has given
peace to our country and have therefore been viii
Iing-nay. anxious-to see II extended TO the territory
acquired from Mexico, while would Oppose it, II
/, were an original proposition, - strenuossly -
we opposed il in 1899. But, in the course Of the
las, three years. the Missouri Compromise has been
repudaied not only oy some Of ne nortneTn' out Dy
some Of the southern politicians and the South has
been told that it was longer binding in COED
faith, although the country had soquiescsd in il %
long The Convention OF Nashville, which met for
the purpose Of protecting southern rights, adopted
ne line of 80 degrees 30 ninutes but il did not adopt
the Missouri Compromise II recommended 70 the peo-
pie OF the sIaveholdng States 10 demand Adjustment
differing oddly from hs Mnsouri Compromise: and
strenuous efforts have been made to inducs hs aoshsrn
people to believe tina, this principle
r6oe and those efforts hAvs been based upon the is hat
the Nashville Convention adopt the line Of - deg %
min, which taken by the Missouri Compsomiss
North Of that line the convention allow Congress 70 pro-
hbit slavery provided will, At the same sas, permit.
by congressional recognition, the iasstuton Of slavery
south Of that line Now, contend that Congress hAs
no authority under the constitution to do sithsr The oae
or the other Either would be the exercise OF authority
which is not vested in Congress This is what We nsant
to say, and did say the paragraph which the SoxAr
Press has perverted
Before concluding, we would beg leave to say hat We
neither seek nor have sought any controversy with the
Southern Pres We have written thus much only TO