Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-05-24
The Enquirer on the Compromise.

We subloin rather curious article, from yes
terday's Enquirer, on the subject of the Compro-
mise The sum of it seems to be, that the Editors
have determined, upon consideration, that is bet
ter to take the Compromise, very nearly as it is
rather than run the hazards of no settlement at all
They enter a careat, however, against being con-
sidered its too ardent advocates They approve
with a protest, and evidently desire to exc some
party advantages out of the failure OF the oou'h
to obtain more satisfactory accommodation'-
Unfortunately for this object, two words nave
Slipped into the Enquirer'S article winch must
render nugatory any effort it may hereafter make
to throw blame upon the Southern Wings, in con-
nection with the Nashville Convention; for it
openlv afirms that both sour Democratic and
Wing brothers. have'been guilty of an 'imbecile
and old womanish course in this regard.
1t is worthy of observation, that the Enqulrer's
remarks, touching the admission of California, and
the establishment of Territorial Governments, in
dictate willingness to accept the first and most
important of the bills reported by the Committee
of Thirteen. That bill embraces the two subjects
lust referred to, and, in addition, the important
proposition to Texas for a change of her boun-
dairy. As the Enquirer does not allude to this
point we presume, it does not oppose the bill on
account of it. The first bill, therefore, which
covers all the questions raised by the acquisition
of Territory from Mexico, we understand it to be
the desire of our neighbour that Congress should
pass.
The fugitive slave bill is an independent mea-
sure and we are assured by the declarations OF
Mr. Clay, that such notifications of it as may be
suggested for the purpose of rendering it more
efficient, will be readily assened to by its friends.
The bill to abolish the slave trade in the Dis
trct of Columbia is also separate bill, although
a part of the general plan of settlement recon-
mended by the Committee of Thirteen. We do
not agree with the Enquirer in the opinion that
Virginia is sslemnly pledged to resist the prncl-
pie of this measure. Her attitude with regard to
it pee uliar one, and deserves explanation. It's
true that the Legislature of 1889 did, as the En-
quirer States declare that the abolition of savery,or
the SLAVE trade, in the District of Columbia would
be resisted but is also true, that the Legislature
of ls49-5o reracted the latter portion Of that de-
claration, and thus, instead of being pledged not
to submit to the abolition of the slave trade in the
District, the action of the Legislature has COM
mitted u.s. by the strongest sort of negative preg-
nant, against taking umbrage for that cause. A
brief recurrence to the proceedings OF the House
of Delegates on the subject will make this mani
fest
The resolutions reported by joint committee
of the two houses, on the Both of January, con-
corning the "Wilmot Provso and kindred SUBJ
ects were taken up in the House on the 9th of
February. The second resolution, as reported,
was in these words:
9 Resolued That in the event Of the passage OF the
Wimot Proviso, OF any law abolshng slavery on
the saue trade in the District Of Columbia. or between
the States, Virginia will be PREPARED &C.
Mr. Pendleton, of Giles and Mercer, moved to
amend the resolution by striking out the WORDS
sor the SLAVE trade" and inserting other words, SO
that it should read:
g ResolUed, That in the event OF the passage OF
the WiImot Proviso, or OF any law abol hing slavery
in the District OF Columbia or an any manner anteJer
ing With the rights of Shareholders therein, or abol-
shng slavery in, the slave trade between the States
Virginia will be prepared, &C
The objection was taken to Mr. Pendleton's
amendment, that it gave up the power of Con-
gress to legslate concerning slavery in the Dis
trict; but, on the other hand, it was contended
that the slave trade in the District, and the rights
of Shareholders dwelling there, were essentially
different and that the former might be legitimate
" prohibited, so far as not to interfere with the
latter. The amendment was adopted by vote OF
SO to 81. When the question was taken on the
adoption of the resolution, amended, MIR. Rives
said he should vote for it, although he feared it
would be construed to give up to Congress the
power to legislate on slavery" Mr.. Shepard said
he should vote against it, because it yielded one
of his constitutional rights" Mr.. Harrison, of
Prince W.lliam took the same view, and declined
to vote at all The amended resolution was finally
passed. ayes 1876, noes ., (Messrs. Allen and She
pard)
There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt,
that the Virginia Legislature, at its last session,
deliberately receded from the position that the
abolition of the slave trade in the District of Co.
lumbia would be just cause of Southern resis-
tance Hence her past declarations, instead of
furnishing conclusive authority against the third
bill of the committee afford the highest presump-
tive evidence that she would cheerfully assent to
it. if passed in connection with other measures
which are positively desirable.
The bill is simply renewal of the Maryland
laws which were in force when the District was
coded to the General Government. We cannot
perceive that Congress, the exclusive local Legis-
lature, usurps any dangerous power, by reviving
the laws formerly in force. But if it should at
tempt to assai the tenure of slave property in the
District it would violate that faith with Virginia |
and Maryland, which was as strongly implied in
their assent to the constitution if special pro-
hibton had been incorporated amongst its articles
We should certainly oppose the bill, if it were ad-
vocated merely by the Northern factonists but
offered as it is by the most prominent statesmen
of the South, we do not object to it.
From the Enquirer of May o.