The North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1834-1850, 1850-06-05

Il From the Washington Union.J
Letter from the Hon. Robert Strange
i WASHINGTON CRY, May 81, 1850.
i MY DEAR SIR: Your kind note of the 18th inst
was most unexpectedly sreceived, and places me in
an attitude in which would rather not appear.
ing your place in the public eye attached any value
my opinions. have always been very free in express
ing them upon most subjects, believing that they
would pass as the opinions of an humble individual,
without materially affecting the action of any one.
Even now If could possibly think them entitled to
the consideration that you are pleased TO ascribe to
them. should shrink from the responsibility of maxi
ing them public. Demanded of me, however, as they
are, in the character Of personal friend, cannot
withhold them, such they are nor prescribe to YOU
what use you shall make of them. 1t is proper, how
ever, for me to observe, that it is long since have
had anything to do with public affairs, although
have been as attentive looker-on as was quite con-
slstent with great devotion to laborous profession.
l came to washington at this time on professional
business, little dreaming that any would condes-
cend formally to ask me what thought on any pub
lie matter In the present excited state Of the public
mind, little toleration can be expected from those
with whom you may chance to differ, and one who
uters opinions upon the great subject to which your
letter refers must look to encounter of criticism
than of appreciation. Were l candidate for public
favor, should think it prudent to forego response
to your iattering appeal but hold at present no
Office, either State or federal, and do desire any.
unless accorded to me from just appreciation Of
tments that really entertain. 1t is much to be re-
gretted that there should be occasion even to talk of
compromises other than those that were made in the
formation of that admirable constitution under which
we live Both reflection and experience teach that
no others are to be relied on. What has become of
the Missouri compromise, Gas it is caed,) and what
has been its operation? Has it furnished to the South
the slightest security that slave property may be hol
den in any territory of the United States south of 36
deg 30 min. Though it has very effectually closed
the door against its Introduction north of that limit
Of what value has been the compromise of 1888
upon the tariff question! Has been regarded as any
thing more than so much blank paper? What guar
anty have We that any future compromises will re-
ceve more consideration. l can conceive of none.
The making OF compromises, then, seems to me to
he very idle business, unless it be such comprom
ses as are made and executed at the same moment.
The constitution must be left to work out its own
results; and though, like everything partaking of
human lmperfection it must desperation bear hard
at times upon particular interests and sections Of
wide spread country, doubt whether anything will
ever be gained by complaints-certanly nothing by
ordinations and recriminations. Whenever wrongs
are inflicted particular interests by unconstiuto-
al legislation OF Congress, is then very proper for
the injured party to entertain the question: whether
It will submit to the wrong as the lesser evil, whe
tter the wrong is of grave character as to make
necessary appeal to the EXTREMIST measures for its
redress. But there are some wrongs, under every
system of law, that admit of no redress but by the
voluntary act of the aggressive party. In the Ian
guage OF the common law, it is dunnum absque inura.
Enforced redress for wrongs such these cannot be
obtained, for the law itself protects the aggressor and
he who seeks by force to redress them becomes him
self aggressor, and will be counted disurber of
the public peace. Within constitutional limits, there
fore, we are all bound to submit to the will of the
majority, whatever that will may be, and however
dstastefu to the minority. But when unconstitu-
tional measures are passed, however large the ma
jorties passing them, they law, and may pro-
pery be complained of, and even resisted, by those
who suffer under them. TO apply these principles
| to the subject before US. The Wmot Proviso is
unconstitutional measure, demonstrated to be by
speech of great intellectual power by distinguish
ed statesman during the present session of Congress.
| While, then, this Wilmot Provso was likely to be
put upon the country by brute force, (or it would
have been lawless carried out by the mere
strength of majority,) the South might with great
proprety have taken any measures of redress, even
to secession from the Union, resistance by force
But the Wilmot Proviso has been abandoned, and,
may not hope from the conviction of our northern
brethren that it is unconstitutional, least that its
constitutonality is doubfu and that they will not
again trouble the country with its advocacy But
other questions now press themselves upon con-
sideration and the one alluded to in your letter is
IS touching the plan of compromise under con-
sideration in the Senate and upon this you desire
my views. cannot but repeat my regret that those
politicians who are generally so liberal in constituting
the constitution, and have thereby derived much more
than their share Of advantages from federal COM
pact should on this occasion avail themselves of
cidental circumstances to deprive the South of what
the SPIRIT If not the letter of the constitution intend
ed to secure-hat they should refuse the adoption OF
such measures would throw the whole territory
won from Mexico open to the occupation of all whose
blood and treasure have contributed to its acquisition
Whether Mexican law in regard to slavery is now in
force in that territory, is question that will moi
presume to decide, or even to discuss But do think
that, having been made subject of doubt Congress
should have relieved the southern people from the ef
fects of thai doubt, by declaring it open we'll te
the slave holder the non-saveholder, both upor
the ground of justice and Of sound policy. This il
refused to 90, but threatened positive restric
tions and the consequences that Shareholders
have been afraid to carry their property into the ter
ritory. Hence California has been occupied exclu
compact has been violated. though its letter be
touched and California comes forward and ask.
admission into the Union non-slaveholding State
land of the questions is, shall she be admitted
But there is question of constitutienality in this
1t is one of :xpediency alone. True, we have rea
son to complain of federal interference in bringing
forward California in her present attitude to claim
admission. But that is past. Can that evil be RENE
died by refusing to admit; or, if it can, will tn
refusal bring with it far greater evils Is it not ian
porant to the South to remove this slave question
soon as possible from the field of debate II is pei
ectly certain that the South has no thought Of givin
up her right to hold slaves, and that demonstrations
interference with that right is the Rubicon Of disst
luton. But it is equally certain that she can neve
obtain anything more than she 10 entitled to strie
, sim; juris. Argument can avail her nothing befoi
a the audience she must address. She may provok
: aggression upon what are now her admitted rights
oIol., hnrn f<spa ma