Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1851-04-24

ress over the subject, and leading out oil
he wing camp all those who affirmed the =
,owcf? II MIR. Geysr regarded the whole
subject as finally and definitely disposed o
by The compromise, he could not, without
he grossest faulty and folly, have advocated $
4 Test" amongst Wings, turning upon The
power oil Congress 10 legislate
upon a subject which requird no further leg
lsation. II he had been restrained by no
principle, from advocating such test
proper degree OF self respect, and decent
tegerd for consistency, would have compell-
ed MIN TO repudate it, after treating the com
promise as full settlement OF the Controver.
sy. In this connection we would call
attention 10 the enquiries embraced in the
letter from Mr.. Allen 10 Mr.. Geyer. They
referred, lst, to the repeal OF the fugitive
bill. I'd, To the sustaining Of tho compro.
mise, in all its features. Mr. Geyer is asked
whether he will oppose the repeal OF the fu,
gitve slave bill, and sustain The compro
misc. In his reply, he speaks Of the ques
tons embraced in Mr.. Aliens enquiries, as
destined soon 10 become, il they are not
already, the controlling questions, " referring
W uIC tWO tb'iulliCS IuOIeu Ai''
Allen also states that he understands Mr.
Geyer 10 be opposed 10 prohibiting slavery
in the territories, aud 10 legislating upon
the subject in the District Of Columbia
lie puts no question, however, TO Mr.. Gey0r,
on those subjects; nevertheless they are fully
answered by Nh G., in his reply. In speak,
ing Of the "conuollng questions" MT.
Geyer not only refers in express terms to
those embraced in the enquiries Of Mr.. Allen
but The whole letter proves conCIusivsly that
he considered the subject Of slavery in the
territories, and in the District OF Columbia.
as concluded by the compromise, and there.
fore no longer open for discussion. We
have deemed it proper to call attention to
this expression in Mr. Gsyer's letter, in
connection with that Of Mr.. Allen, knowing
that every expression which can, by any in
genui,y, be tortured into seeming approval
Of the test" will be used for that purpose
With these explanations, VIC have no fear
in conGding Mr.. Geyer's conduct to The
people. So far as he is concerned, the
whole charge Of duplicity against him is
predicated upon the letter 10 Mr.. Allen
The public can now decide how far Genl
CLARK is warranted in making that charge,
imputiug grave moral delinquency 10 Mr..
GeyeI. In our judgment, the impulntion is
not only entirely groundless, but is com.
pletely refuted by tie very letter on which
Gen. Clark relies as the basis OF the charge.
1t is not pretended that Mr.. Geyer, at any
other time or place, ever inlimated that he
favored the "lest." II the letter to Mr..
| Allen, contains no evidence against him on
that subject, the whole charge falls 10 the
ground, so far as he is concerned So far
from containing such evidence, it contains
indjsputable evidence to the contrary.
But Gen. Clark, alledges tina, at all
events, he and those who concurred with
him. and especially the Anti. Benton party,
understood Mr.. Geyer as advocating the test,
We cannot hnow that they did so under
stand him, their private opinions and sun.
deIslandngs" could only be known 10 them.
selves, but il they did so understand him,
they did 80 not only without evidence, but
against evidence Of the strongest character
1t was VIGOROUSLY known, that OF least nine
teen twentielhs Of the Wing members OF the
Legislature did not so understand Mr.. Gey-
er, and that large majority Of them would
no! have voted for him if they had SO under>
stood him. 1t was equally well known to
Gen. Clark and his friends, tina! those who
were on the most intimate terms with Mr..
Geysr, did rot SO understand him, and avow.
ed that they would not vote for him if he fa>
vored such test. In addition 10 all this,
Gen. Clark admits that lie read communi.
cation in tie MlelFgencer last summer, over
the signature Of "a whig" which repudialed
the "IesI" most emPhatcaIy, and that he
had heard that Mr.. Geyer was the author OF
il; but with extraordinary incIeduIity, he
refused TO believe it. The editor OF that
paper was present in person al Jefferson
city-was q member Of the Legislature.
taking part in the Senatorial election, and
announced upon the floor that he would not
support any candidate who favored such a
lest; and yet, no question was addressed 10
him by Gen. Clark, as 10 whether, in point
OF fact. Mr.. Geyer was the author Of that
article.
II oil these means Of obtaining nlorms'
ton, had failed, it was well known that in
enc hours time, Mr.. Geyers opinion could
have been obtained by telegraph; and il
Gen. Clark, or any one else intended &c
make that question sine qua non, it is
most marvellous that no steps whatever
were taken to ascertain Mr.. Geyer'S opin'
ions. As Gen. Clark has averred in hil
address that he vo!ed.lor Mr.. Geyer under
the fam belief, that he favored the test, i
would not be courteous or becoming in u
T TO aver 10 the contrary but We are COMPEL
ed 10 soy, that in so voting, he must have
kept his eyes and ears helmelrcaIly sealed
60 as 10 exclude all evidence OF Mr.. Geyer
true position, AS 10 the anti. Benton mem
bsrs who supported Mr.. g., it is not GU
opinion that one individual amongst them
believed that Mr.. Gcyer advocated such
test nor would it have Influenced their vote
il they had known TO the contrary. M
I L Al II.