Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-04-20


In its outward form this Fugitive Slave Law
differs in nothing from any other law enacted by
the federal Legislature repealabe at the pleasure
of the power that called it into existence. But is
this so-does it then carry with it no higher au-
thoriy than this and does it lie so entirely within
the arbitrary discretion of a free-soil majority,-
We are fully npprsed of the fact that it is so re-
garded in the abolition and soil circles in the
North and West, and that tanatical politicians talk
as fippantly of having the stigma as they are
pleased to call this law, removed from the cata
logue of enactments, they talk of increasing OF
diminishing the rate of protection. But these
men, IN their overweight zeal and impudent har-
dihood, assuredly fall into great blunder. They
can as easily and safely tear from the Consti-
stitutiou the clauses which recognize the insttu-
ton OF slavery element in our political sys-
tenn as impair the force and obligation of single
provision of that law. The people Of the South
look upon The Compromise Of as high dignity, and
Of as obligatory force as If it formed part Of the
organic La,o. Though it has not passed through
the forms of an amendment to the Consti-
tntion it yet ia truth springs from a
pie of the South have purchased the Compromise,
and have paid for it, at least for those portions of
the measures favorable to them. The people of
the free States have received in hand the stipu-
lated price. Here, then, is a sale, perfect and
complete, and now, after having pouched the mo-
ney having received the stipulated considerations
some of them begin to murmur at their
N tba
and resume the price which they agreed to pay
For such isthe peculiar nature of this compact that
the benefits accruing from it to the free States
are benefits which do not lie in contract, where
as those accruing to the South for the most part
do. No legislation of Congress can deprive the
free States OF the features of the Compromise ia
vorable to their views for though Congress can re-
peal law, it cannot lin the language of Judge
MarshalD repeal fact. 1t is impossible to re :.
scind an executed agreement, andtherefore, the
North is safe, but an executory agreement is dis
tructable in its nature.
The security that the South has that the Com
promise will not be disturbed, arises from two con-
siderations-frst the good faith of the free States
which we freely admit to be precarious in the ex-
treme, and secondly, IN their DUN deliberate
determination not to submit to oppression. The
people of the South, if Congress shall dare
to touch that adjustment, that Treaty of
Peace to change even the spelling of a
word, ought to be willing and we doubt not are
willing and when the event shall occur will be
ready, to deprive the members of the warrant by
which they hold their sessions and pull down tho
whole fabric of the government on their per6d-
Gus heads. Now since the measures of compro-
mise are entitled to this high position in the po-
ltcal scale and are cloathed with so great degree
ofauthorty how does ithappen that the Democracy
of the South, and more especially the Democracy
OF Virginia, still place themselves in opposition to
it and deprive it of the strength that it would ac-
quire from their cheerful endorsement? They
say they acquaesce But this assuredly i. not the
case. But where is the proof even of this sullen
| assent! In the Democratic newspapers? We
all know that there is at this time, in h. State
division am ong them in this respect. But admit
| ting them all to be where the Richmond Enqui-
| rer now stands we may very properly enquire
into their authority to speak for the party. The
| Democratic State Contention was cloathed with
| the requisite authority to bind their party-but
| did they acquiesce ia the Compromise On the
contrary so far from doing this, or even approving
| Of the Fugitive Slace Lac, they gave the whole
| subject the go-bye and treated it with silent con-
| tempt. Now we address this question to the Edi-
tor of the Enquirer, was the Democratic State
Convention Indifferent to the fate of the Com
promise 1t not Indifferent why did they not
throw the weight Of their influence in its favour?
But if they were Indifferent to its destiny, which
we suspect to be not very far from the TRUTH we
again enquire of our neighbor, what sort of bone
fit did they promise to the South from the over
throw and destruction of the Compromise, inclu-
ding among its features the Fugitive Slave Law
1t will be necessary for the Enquirer to clear
this point up and satisfy the people of Virginia,
why it was, and how it was TINT the representa-
tives of the Democracy, assembled ia solemn
Convention by their refusal to act on this question
threw the weight of their influence in favour of
those relentless enemies of the Slave Law who
live in the free Stat s.