The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-06
To the Editor.
HousE or RrparsrsrArlvrs, June I, 1850.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,, June d 1850
Sin. find in your editorial Of this morning gross
session. (no doubt unintentopa) which call upon you
to correct, act of justice due alike yourself and
the opposers OF the present compromise bill You say
this bill in the clause concerning slavery is Identical
with the Clayton compromise and you quote the follow
ing words, as from the Clayton bill: !" But law shall
be passed respecting an establishment Of religion or
with the following, from the present compromise bill
" But no law shall be passed interfering with the pr
mary disposal Of the soil, nor in respect q African
Slavery" Now, if the facts you stale them there
would be no difference in the two bills in this particular
but there IS no such clause in the Clayton compromise
bill, it passed the Senate and came the House The
clause quoted was reported by the COMMITTEES Of the Sen
ate but i was stricken out and the following substituted
for Il "Bu no lazy shall be passed respecting the pro
The difference between the two is observable at the
FIRST glance. The clause in the present bill would pro
hibi the territorial government from passing the niece.
be decided that the property could lawfully go here
whereas the clause in the Clayton bill only denied the
territorial Legislature the power either to prohibit
tablish slavery Whether slavery could legally exist
there not question for the courts: il Affirmative
ly decided the territorial legislature could, under the
Clayton bill pass laws to protect the property; under the
As have been araigned. with others. for opposing the
present compromise bill. while favored the Clayton BILL
and as we have, unfortunately no paper here through
whose columns southern members opposed to this bill can
speak to the public you will not deny small space
in your paper 70 show my constituents in what essen
First The compromise bill before the Senate de-
mes 10 the territorial legislature the power protect
slave property, though legally and constuonally car
red there the Clayton compromise bill did not deny il
Secondly. The Clayton bill gave to the stakeholder
cappna The bill If confirms and a sszes the
Wmo Proviso very large and the better portion
OF the county-nay, over that portion where slave labor
would be more productive, by 1--WE hundred per cent than
in any other country in the world.
Thirdly. The present bill will subject to soil rule
onethrd OF the undisputed territory OF Texas comprising
equal 10 six eight such States Massacha-
sets the Clayton bill left at least what had and
contained no provision converting, or that might convert,
slave soil into free SOIL and establish free States out OF
Texas and below Arkansas.
Fourthy. When the Clayton compromise was proposed,
was at least an open question whether we might not
take our slaves to California now y = ioregone con-
caring that il he thought this compromise enabled the
South occupy the territory with its slaves, he would be
Filthy Under the Clayton BILL the STAKEHOLDER had an
inducement, in the rich mines OF California, try the
question of right under this compromise he is shut
from the gold mnes and he will abandon the rest oil the
territory to the soers unless the discovery of
mines should offer sufficient premium for the hazard Of
attempting to work them with slaves Time and circum
stances then favored the South they are opposed
to II. -
am opposed to this compromise, Mr. Editor, for
other very important reason TO wit u U.s. at any momen
in my power TO get better We can AT least save
Texas 10 the South (Which this bill in pan gives up.) by
letting the North take the Territories and go for is very
certain they Will ALL ana lekds 10 DOOl, unler
bill II you doubt il, ask MIR Clay A far as our honor
il concerned can difference between submitting
to the WlImot Proviso and buying il off No one &c.
ceye that the offer OF third of Texas TO free soil
intended TO buy of the Wilmot Pfovso and is thus in
fact the price offer the North TO change the
form Of the insult The Texas boundary could be set
tied by merely buying her right TO the slip Of territory
she claims on the Rio Grande, and included in the
limits of New Mexico. The South has said she will
resist the Wilmot Provso to the last extremity II il
thought she was playing the part OF Captain Bobad and
that she has become alarmed her own bravado, and
seeks only petext to back out in other words, lei
the outrage and insult be perpetraed in another
form, and she will tamey submit. shall hold differ.
emit opinion until she submits TO this bill
You think II strange, Mr. Editor that the defenders OF
the South should be found in opposition this bill along
with the utras and aboiionsts OF the North. viii
explain TO you the Their creed is agitation they
would therefore be Opposed % any settlement y would
destroy their vocation Would you agree TO any compo
mise, however unjusti No, you would not but your
opposition TO such one would throw you with these
men.
While this subject OF strange political combinations,
turn your eyes inwardly for moment, and reflect
that you are advocating the same bill with one who de-
cares m a, no mower on earth could make him vote 10
convert free soil into slave soil" Il quote from
memory and only profess 10 give the substance)
He believes California and New Mexico to be free soil
ergo If this bin permitted slavery 60 there, he would
be against IL Now, demand TO 90 q right, SO do
Won yet you and he are acting together 13 iotE
Remember that You, also, are acting with many free
golfers one 81 whom Is strongly fixed, that neilher
education hzst. location, though all pleading in
lavor OF Inc South, induce him for one moment