The southern press., 1851-06-28
SOUTHERN PRESS.
WASHINGTON CITY.
SATURDAY. JUNE as. 1851.

CHASE, of Ohio, for copies of his speech at To
ledo recently made
Some time ago, the junior editor Of this paper
copied and commented on small paragraph il
the Cincinnati Gazette, which imputed to Nj
CHASE, on account of his Free -soilism and sup
port ofthe new constitution Of the State, whic
excludes free negroes, a philanthropy who's
love of the negro existed only when the objec
was at distance. We must do Mr. CHAsl
the justice to say, that we do not believe he ap
proves of that part of the new constitution
But in order to do him full justice, we have pub
lished, to-day, his Toledo speech entire; and VIZ
shall now make some commentaries on it, to give
our readers knowledge of the manner in which
philanthropy progresses in the politics of that
State.
Prior to the Mexican war, the Democratic
party Of Ohio was in harmony with the South
ern Democracy. The Democracy of Ohio had
adopted the principles of free trade, and sup
ported cordially the annexation of Texas. The
Wing party opposed both measures-but both
parties disavowed and repudiated the Abolition
or Liberty party, of which Mr.. CHASE who had
been Wing, was one of the leaders. Mr..
CHASE was strenuous opponent of the annex
alton of Texas and the extension Of slavery, and
was in favor of abolshing slavery in this District
and in the territories, and in the dock-yards and
arsenas; and opposed to the election of slave
holders for President. He was even hostile to
Mr. CLAY for supporting the Missouri Com
promise. i
In l847, the Ohio legislature instructed the
Ohio senators in Congress to support the Will
mot Proviso-the vote consisting of the Wings
of that body, and large portion of the Demo
Gratis. But in l848, Mr.. WELLER was nomi-
mated by the Democrats for governor, and, in
the canvass, denounced the Wilmot Proyiso
He received the cordial support of the party, and
was almost elected. In the same year, General
CAss, on his Nicholson letter, received the vote
of the Democracy and of the State for Presi-
dent. But Mr.. CHASE opposed Mr.. WELL Err
and General CAss, and supported the Abolition
candidate, MARTIN VAN BUREN, for President.
Nay, Mr.. CHASE went to the Buffalo convention,
was on the committee of resolutions, and drafted
those that were adopted, or some of them
Such was the position Of Mr. CHASE at the close
OF l848. He had passed from the Wing party
to the Liberty party, and from that to the Free
soil party, which nominated and supported VAN
BUREN. He had never acted with the Democracy
OF Ohio, but always opposed it.
The legislature of Ohio met in December,
ls4s, and the lower house was disorganized for
long time, in consequence of the contested
election of Hamilton county. The Democrats
in the house were not numerous enough to ad-
init the Democratic claimants but lacked two
votes. There were two Free-soilers in the
house that were friends of Mr.. CHASE, and
after long struggle, these votes ,oent orer to the
Democratic claimants, and then was elected Mr..
CHASE to the Senate of the United States, by
the unanimous vote Of the Democratic and these
Free-soil members. twas coalition precisely
like that by which SUMNER was elected, only
much more sud len and unexpected BY the
terms of the coalition the Hamilton Democratic
claimants were to be seated, Mr. CHASE elected
TO the Senate, and Mr.. SPALpINc, CAss
Democrat, to the supreme bench, and others tc
other Offices. So much for the assumption il
Mr.. CHAsE's speech that he was elected as
Democrat. Mr.. CHASE knows that but for tn,
two Free-soil votes he influenced in the house
he never would have visited even the dreams O
the Ohio Democracy, as their candidate for th
Senate. But that Democracy supported th
annexation of Texas in 1S44 the Wilmot Pre-
viso in lS47, Mr. WELLER who bitterly oppose
it in l848, and also General CAss who equivo
Gated about it, and then elected Mr.. CHASE i
the beginning of I849 Such is the sort of
party, this veering to every point of the com
pass, to obtain majority, that the South Il
called upon by some simple-minded gentlemen
to confde in, for the preservation of her rights
Mr. CHASE asserts that the admission of Cal
ifornia as State was resisted by the South
"with violence and pertinacity almost withou
parallel, because she had ventured to prohibi
the introduction of slavery where slavery hat
never existed" Now, if this were true, Mr.
CHASE would have no reason for surprize o.
complaint. For he and bis friends had resolved
that she should not be admitted if she did toler
ate slavery. They had declared for the Wilmot
Proviso by Congress, which was fatal TO the
right Of a new State TO adopt her institutions
for herself And the South, according to its
views of the Constitution and of slavery, had
precisely as much right and reason to exclude
State because she prohibited, as the North had
because she tolerated slavery. But the asser
tion of Mr.. CHASE is not true 1t never wa
asserted by any Southern member of Congress
or Southern paper, that California ought to b
refused admission because she had prohibte
slavery. Mr.. CHASE cannot find single il
stance Of it. The South never has on any OF
casion asserted or acted on any such principle
But the admission Of California was opposed b.
cause she was not eligible to admission as
State, according to the usage and the reasc