The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-27

MT. OIEfhEnS ASKS US 10 thioTm tic county
who were the Northern members that in the
last Congress, would have voted for 80,
rather than pass no bill on the territorial qaes-
ton. Now, this is an inquiry to which We
could hardly be expected TO reply specifically.
The facts we learned in private conversations,
when we demonstrated bitterly with Northern
members on their votes in favor Of the Com.
promise and we do not relate private con.
versations. We may state the substance Of
them, when of public importance. And we
thought the fact We referred to, was too well
known here in this city, at least, to be ones,
toned But we can offer corroboratve evidence
that we are correct.
In l848, when the Oregon territorial bill
was under consideration in the Senate, the
clause prohibiting slavery in Oregon was
opposed by the vote of every Senator from the
South, we believe, except two-Mr BENTON and
Mr.. Houston. On that occasion, Senator Douo.
LAS offered an amendment to the bill, basing the
clause excluding slavery,on the MissouriCompro
mise, and thus in effect extending that line west
of the Rocky mountains to the Pacific. The
vote on this amendment was on the 10th of
August, after California and Ne,0 Merico had
been confirmed To us by treaty. And for that
amendment the following Northern Senators
voted, viz: BRIGHT, CAMERON, DIcKINsoN,
DOUGLAS, HArNEGAN, and SrURcEoN--6ve SEN
ators-most of whom were in the last Con-
gress, when the Compromise bills passed. And
when the bills passed, the South and the North
had an equal vote in the Senate Ifthen all the
Southern senators had insisted on 36 80, here were
at least three or four Northern senators who had
already voted but two years before, so as to indie
ate what their vote would be in this case, and they
had not subsequently indicated any change in
their determination. Now these three or four sem
ators represented half of New York, the half of
Pennsylvania, the whole of Indiana, and half of
Illinois, and assuming that the delegation in the
other House correspondent in sentiment with
them, the vote then would have been amply suili.
Gent to secure the adoption of the Missouri Com
promise line there. And in addition 10 what we
said the other day, we may now state that, in the
course of the Compromise discussion, we met in
Washington several editors of leading papers, or.
gons, in the larger Northern States, who, in reply
to our circumstances with them for supporting
such measure, asked us how could they recon.
mend better terms for the South, when the Dc1no-
cratic organ here-the Union--conducted by a
Southern man, and so many Southern members
ofCongress, themselves supported the Compro-
mise? They said then, (and we commend it to
the South now let the South unite, and she
will find plenty of operation in the North to
do her justice.
But Mr. STEPHENS then asks us another ques-
ton: Were there enough Northern men to vote
+" for the recognition and protection of slavery
south of $3.50, provided it were excluded north
of that line ?" We answer no. And for our
own part, we never insisted as an uhimatum on
any express Congressional recognition or estab-
lishment of sla cry. We always thought that
such thing would weaken, rather than strength
en- it-and SO We presume, thought the men who
adopted the federal Constitution We think
that slavery requires no more Constitutional or
statutory recognition than any other property, or
than the institution of marriage, or than modes of
religious worship. But if it did, the recognition
would be as clear, in the words of the Missouri
Compromise, particularly if it applied to the
new territory, as we could DESIRE Those words
would divide that territory by line of latitude,
and prohibit slavery north of it. What is the
inference-the inevitable inference? Why, that
slavery is not prohibited south of it. But we
are told the Mexican law remained in force over
all the territory, until changed by Congress,
and would exclude slavery south of the line
but this very inference would be excluded by
an express enactment prohibiting slavery north
of s6.30-for if that were already done by
law in force, it would be useless for Congress
to say anything on the subject; unless it
could be commended that Congress designed,
by such clause, to render the prohibition of
slavery certain north of the line, and doubtful
south of it; which would be too absurd.
Mr.. STEPHENS asks u.s. if it was not we'll as.
certained fact, that at the time the Compromise
measures passed, and long before, an over.
whelming majority of the South denied the
power of Congress to legislate upon the subject
of slavery in the territories, ethertor or against
it! and was not this the doctrine of Mr.. CAL
Hous, the great leader of the South in this
controversy, and was it not well asct rtained fact
that upon this ground he was opposed to the Mis-
souri, compromise on principle? We answer yes
these are all we'll ascertained facts. But it i,
also fact that although majority of thu
Southern members, and Mr. CALHous, denied
the right of Congress- to restrict slavery, ant
claimed for the South an equal and common
right to colonize all the territories with The
North, yet Mr.. CALHOUN, and a majority OF the
Southern members, opposed and detested the
Compromise of 1850 much more than that OF
1920. All would have acquiesced in the extern
sion of the Missouri line. We know that Mr..
CALHouS would have done so. On our arrival
at WashinUton soou after the comuaneo,n.,,t