The southern press., 1851-06-28

o''Aci opJcctiohst ana ADMIT her WITH an area
large as that Of any other State formed out
the territory Of the Union. This was repeated
offered by the South, and MIR. CHASE knows
full well. The South offered to admit her wit
her prohibition Of slavery, If her Souther
boundary were fixed at $500, and that woul
have left her the largest State that ever wa
formed out of the federal territory. But whe
the North refused this offer, the South saw tina
in insisting on her admission, with her enormou
clnims and limits, the North was attempting
under pretence of the power to admit a State
to exclude the South from vast unsettle'
region, and TO exclude on account of slavery
The South saw that, under the pretence 0
the power to admit new States, the North wa
determined TO enforce the Wilmot Proviso, an,
to crush the rights of the Southern States ant
people to the common occupancy of common
territory. 1t is no new thing to perpetrate al
outrage on the pretence of principle. 1t is th
common expedient of tyranny and hypocrisy
SOCRATES was condemned to the hemlock
CRANMER to the stake, SYpNEx to the block, il
the sacred names of religion and of law.
So the rights of the South and the rights
the States to colonize the new territory, TO ere
ate new States, and to acquire fortune, wer,
inundated on the pretence of a power to ad
NIT new States, and for the purpose of giving
property and dominion to the North. And il
is conclusive evidence of the infrmty of Mr.
('uasE,o nd of 4
been compelled, in order to sustain himself, to
misrepresent utterly the course of the South on
this question; and that he has fallen into the
absurdity Of ascribing to the South precisely
the same position, of pretence to the exclusive
occupancy of a territory which he and his friends
originally made for the North and still defend
and then to be astonshed that the South should
be so arrogant and absurd. Mr.. CHASE does moi
yet relnquish the preposterous and impudent
claim of the North to all new territory. For not
satisfied with getting all California, he complains
that the South was not excluded by positive
prohibition from Utah lin accordance with athe
aciN of a vast majority of the American people,
And ne recognizes with n prophetic sarcasm this
as a settlement of the continual slavery question.
Mr. CHASE next declares his opposition to the
settlement of the Texas boundary, because the
Wings denied that Texas extended beyond the
Nueces, and "the Democratic party on the other
hand, had generally maintained the title of Texas
to the territory between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande. But no Northern statesman admitted
the right of Texas to any territory whatever
west Of her ancient limits as Spanish province,
and above the lo,oer Rio Grande." The Demo-
Gratis, as party, defended the Mexican war, on
the assumption that Mexico had invaded Ame-
rican soil. And as Mexico, in that invasion, on
ly crossed the Rio Grande, but did not come
to the Nueces, and as the pretence that it was
American soil was founded exclusively on the
! Texas claim in her constitution, and as that
claim extended to all the country esst of the
Rio Grande, the Democrats asserted as much
the Texan title to the upper as to the loper Ric
Grande. Neither bank was in possession Of
Texts, but in that of Mexico, and the sole title
of yNvas was that she claimed it, coupled with
whatever of argument there was to show tina,
fM was proper and convenient boundary be-
tween the two countries.
And no Democratic, and no Northern states.
man ever pretended that the title of Texas tc
the lower Rio Grande was better than to tn,
upper Mr. CHASE, therefore, is utterly unsup
ported in his opposition to the claims of Texa
by Democratic authority. And since he has n,
reason of his own to advance for denying tn
claim Of Texas, he is left decidedly aground
AS for his solemn objections to assuming tn
debt Of the State on Democratic principles,
only displays the poverty of his case, for n
debt was assumed. But what sort of DemoC
racy is il that authorizes the federal governmen
to buy the territory and sopereingty of States ?
Mr.. CAAsE opposed the Fugitive slave law
because it was not mentioned in the origna
plans Of federal Constitution. The reason o
that was, there was then no difficulty on tha
subject 1t was not agitated-for all the State
were slaveholding- it was inserted withou
opposition, either in the federal convention
any of the State conventions, that discussed ant
ratified that instrument. To object TO claus,
of the Constitution because it was not origin
ally in the plans of three or four members of
convention, is perfectly original con stitutiona
argument But Mr.. CHASE bethinks himself o
view of the subject which, as it is similar to ont
advanced by Mr.. WEBSTER in his recent speecl
at Buffalo, is entitled to notice for its author
| ty, which its absurdity would have forbidden
This discovery Of Mr. CHASE or Mr.. WEBsrEr
is, that there was an understanding when the
Constitution was formed, that no more slave
States would be admitted. Nay, Mr.. Chase has
found out that there was general understand
ing that slavery was to have but Temporary
existence in any State" Now what is TIE evi
idence Of this understanding 1t is not to b,
found in the Constitution. 1t is not pretended
by either of these acute and original reasoners
than any sen. ence, line or word in that pape
can be tortured into that meaning No, Mr.CHAsi
| 90 i