Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1851-02-06
GLASGOW, MISSOURI, THURSDAY FEBRUARY G, 1851.

question Of rcs,riction-of imposing
terms upon the admission Of Missouri
that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude" should exist within her Dor
ders was another and entirely different
question-a question which was swal.
lowed up and disposed Of by that very
compromise which prohibited The ex.
istence Of slavery in the territories of
the United States north of given par.
alel Of latitude.
The gentleman refers to the address
ofthe Whig State Central Committee
Of Missouri, in 1s40-written by Jas.
H. Birch, now a leader Of the Southern
States Rights Republican, Independent
and unterrified wing Of the Missouri
Democracy!--and tells US that when
he was candidate Of the Whig party
for Governor in that year he took that
address as his power of Attorney. Sir,
that address no where denies the power
of Congress to legislate on the subject
of slavery in the territories. Mr. Van
Buren was then the candidate of the
Democratic party for the presidency
Gen. Harrison was the Wing candi-
date. 1t was charged upon Mr.. Van
Burcn, that as member of the Legis>
lature Of New York, he had voted TO
instruct Rufus King, the Senator in
Congress fiom that State, TO vote
against the admission of Missouri into
the Union as Slave State. General
Harrison living in non slaveholdlng
State was charged with being an abo'
liIionist. In defending him from that
charge it was shown that in 1919,
when the Missouri question was pend
ing before Congress, Gen. Harrison, as
a member of Congress from Ohio. vo.
ted against the restriction sought to be
imposed upon her admission; and lei
me say here sir, that he opposed the
restriction upon the express ground
that Congress had no power TO inter-
fere with the subject Of slavery in the
States. Ii was further shown that in
Isl9-when bill was pending upon
Congress for the establishment of q
Territorial Government for Arkansas
Gen. Harrison voted against the pro-
hibition Of slavery in that Territory
but he based his opposition TO thai
measure notupon constitutional grounds
but as he expressly stated when called
TO an account for it by his constituents
because "as louisiana had been puy
chased out Of the common fund of The
J Union, the Southern States had righ
} to an equal share Of its Territory, a
an outle. for their population, and thai
) the exclusion Of slaves from Missouri
and Arkansas, would in effect exclud
3 slavery from every Southern State.
This was his position, whatever ma.
; be thought of the strength of his argu
, ment; he looked at the question as on
ofexpediency and propriety altogether
e and raised no question of constitution
J. al power.
e The Senator from Boone, (M
h Young says that Mr.. Clay dispute
the power in 1891 deny it, aud ca
II for the proof--Mr. Clay never has dI
Il MED that power in Congress--he neve
C would have supported the Nilsson
e Compromise if he had believed thi
o Congress had no such power-for h
IT is not one of that class Of politician
d who believe that they have a right
e compromise the constitution Of the
'e country and the oaths they have take
a. to support il.
a The Atherton resolutions have bee
d. brought in array against US on tn
o. question of political orthodoxy. Tho
y. who will recur 10 the history of Il
10 introduction of the Atherton Resol
d. ,ions--will recollect that they were j
to tended to reconcile the conhictil
al opinions Of the Northern and Soulhe
- Democracy on the subject of SLAYER
C preparatory 10 the Presidential conte
OF of ls4O--and that they were careful
al worded with view TO accomplish III
m object and The further object if pos
he bic, of committing the Wings of t
he North against them, in order 10 effe
ry a division between the wings of t
he North and South on the question
ed slavery.
nfl II 10 a Ettla 0ipuuIar thare fnrn II