The North-Carolina standard., 1850-07-13
COZ nnap,ss ,ssQREGoN voTsa

T6s Rseigk q 80 psbsrs Fsassl prints,
M ssilL charging thet Col. Reid noted. while in
congress. for the ssels4 Eai.ok fsoviar in The
Oregon bill. We have already shown how basely |
alse this charge is and Col. Reid himself has Civ
the lie to it, both in his Address, by letter. and by
word Of amoash to Gov. Manly. Col. Reid never /
voted any OCCASION for the Ordinance Of 'e7.
He usIroRMLY VOTED AGAINST 1T; bu, in order to
give Oregon government, and regarding this Ordi-
applied 10 Oregon as in accordance with the
principles Of the Missouri line, he voted for the bill
organizing government for that Territory with that
Ordinance in it, He occupies in this matter the very
position occupied by President Polk in signing the
ly approved and justified at the time by the Charles.
ton Mercury, by this paper, and BY Southern Jour-
nails generally, Of both parties. The House journal
of the I'd session Of the 2s,h Congress, page 3ls,
shows that an amendment to the Oregon bill was Of
tered, prohibiting Slavery in that Territory and that
the amendment passed, yeas l29, nays 69--DAvID
s. REID VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. The
bill then passed, with this amendment, yeas lao,
nays 50. Those who voted in the affirmative, are
David S. Reid, A. H. Arlington, Linn Boyd.
Howell Cobb, Aaron V. Brown, ]. R. ]. Daniel,
Cave Johnson. James J. Mckay, R. Barnwell Rhett,
John Slidell, William L. Yancy," and others and
those who voted in the negative, are John Quincy
Adams,'' and others. Our impression is, that the
Oregon bill, with this Ordinance Of s7 in it, passed
the House at three several sessions-1s45, 1876,
and ls47-and was never acted on in the Senate un-
til August, le4s, when it was started originally in
that body, sent to the House, the Ordinance of 's7
put in, approved by the Senate and then signed by
d. E> A.-> II
portance to this vile slander against Col. Reid and
have therefore examined into the vote in the Sc
nate upon the bill; but we think it highly probable
that Messrs. Mangum and Badger both voted in 1s4s
for the very bill Mr. Polk signed. They certainly
voted with Mr.. Calhoun at the session of 1s47, for
the Missouri line-the rery Compromise to which Col
Reid adhered in his pote on the Oregon bill.
But what said the Raleigh Register about the VII
mot Proviso-not the Ordinance of '87-only one
short year ago7 That paper of the 9th Of June,
ls49, speaking of MI. Clayton's Compromise, held
the following language:
1--WE. however, have no intention of saddling all
Mr.. Calhoun's Constitutional incongruities upon
those who coincided with MI. Berrien, in holding
that the COMPROMISE Bill would have sanctioned the
introduction of Slavery into the territories. That
opinion is honestly entertained, and pausby defend
ed, by many Wings and Democrats; yet We think it
utterly untenabe, and attach no sort of blame to
those who voted either for against the Bill, be-
ohat Congress may do in the premises, since the laws
of nature have rrevocaby excluded Slavery from the
Territories acquired of Mexico. By the way. the
latest as we'll all preceding accounts from Cali
ornia show that the people of that territory are op
posed to Slavery, and will not have it among them.
They SO declare it in all their public meetings."
Here it is distinctly asserted by the Register that
! Ia. Il I.o.S
CONGRESS MAY DO" ON THE SUBJECT
OF SLAVERY in the Territories acquired from
Mexico since the laws of nature have irrevocably
excluded'' it from those Territories! Or, in other
words, it made odds, really, whether Congress
applied the Wilmot Proviso to California and New
Mexico or not! There it is, in plain English; and
yet that paper, with these soemnly recorded words
of its own staring in the face, has the audacy and
the hypocrisy to denounce Col. Reid, and call for
Sc monument Of infamy" to him, because he voted,
under peculiar circumstances, and in accordance with
the principles of the Missouri line, for the bill or
ganizing government for Oregon with the Ordi-
nance of 'e7 in it! And this same paper, be it re-
membered, sustained the Abolitionist, Fillmore, fol
Vice President-endorsed Sanly's recent treason to
the South on the floor of the House-and now advo-
Gates the reelection of Gov. Manly, who proposes
to upset the basis of represeRkaon in the State Le
gislature. Can any ho9k4 \nan, searching after
truth, put faith hereafter ia fap3 thing it may say.
MR.. MACON-EQUAL SUFFRAGE. y
In the Convention Of 1885, which revised and
amended our State Constitution, the venerable Ma
THANlEI Macon said
I" He did not approve Of The land qualification for
tcrs. Suppose two respectable neghbors had each a
son that of them had fifty acres of land, per-
maps not worth more than twenty-five cents acre,
and the other had land, but good blacksmith
shoemaker, and his standing in society rreproach
abe-why will you allow bne to vote, and not allow
the other If any qualification is necessary, he would
prefer age; it is age that makes the man."
The above may be found in the " Debates of the
Convention pages 60 and 10. - -
with that force and brevity for which Mr.. Macon
was remarkable, he has condensed the argument in
favor of Equal Suffrage into four five lines. And
now, let the positions respectively occupied
this question by the two parties in this State The
late Democratic Convention, which nominated Col.
Reid for Governor, passed the following Resolution
| IS Resolued, That amendment to the Constitu-
ton of this State ought to Be made abolishing the
land qualification for electors of Senators and that
the people ought to be permitted to elect the Judges
for term of years." 49,.
There is no evasion or equivocation in that 1t 10
right up to the mark; but what said the Wings in
their Convention The following are their resolu-
tions on the subject:
"WHEaEAs, A large number of the people Of the
! SA-A> ,srI> ls-As