The daily union., 1852-05-06

from the language OF his speech which. supposlng il all
the time TO iatsad MIR Roots resolution is certainly
capital exempfeston of Taeyrands maxim that words
exquisite instrument for the eOncsalmsn OF inn
ti0as.
In the next place. assuming that Mr. Stephens did refer
TO the vote on Mr. Roots resolution and the vote
on the fugitive law and its kindred measures then we
cay that his speech is inaccurate than
we at first supposed il to be- for it cannot be justly
said that the vote Mr.. Roots resolution Is sst
OF the sentiment of the North the g reclamation
and rendition OF fugtiyes from labor. and the other
kindred questions" And yet il now appears that Mr..
Stephens spreads that before his constituents and
the country authentic indication OF northern SEN
nment two years ago these paramount and leading
questions" We saw that Mr.. Stephens's speech was
erroneous at nrs but did that it was so grossly
wrong and unfair as his letter makes it.
Again: assuming that Mr.. Stephens's reference in the
above cited passage to the Mr.. Roots
luton his letter tells us and not the
the fugitive law aud its kindred of compromise.
then say that MIR. Stephens in his speech is con-
sstent with himself , for he cites the vote on Roots
resolution proof that the great majority OF the North
two years ago against the South the right to
reclaim fugves-at the time telling in the para
graph next preceding in very emphatic MANNER that he
does not bsue any such "asseron touching the great
majority Of the North, and that the assertion is only
"he cant Of few bad men and then, in the very same
paragraph in which he refers to his chosen PROOF uoe
he tells again that at the very time that vote
given he never regarded it proving that the North
against the rendition of slaves in obedience to the
constitution.
So much for that part Of Mr.. Stephenss letter which is
designed to convict of and unfairness in our
former notice OF his speech. We leave this part OF the
subject with the simple remark that Judgment Mr.
Stephens has not impaired the force Of article.
But it seems the correction Of our article is not
the only purpose Of Mr. Stephens's letter; for that
document contains avermen not called for by any
thing we wrote, and which take to be very
great The avement is, that, two years ago, ga
very large majority Of both parties at the North were
in favor of the Wilmot proviso. We regard this
charge, in so far it refers to the northern
democracy, to be entirely unjust We know of no
period within the last two years. the last three
years. in which it be truly said "that very large
majority of the democratic party in the slaveholdng
States in favor of the Wilmot proviso 1t is true
that in New York. and in other States, the democracy
was divided that questions but we believe that taking
the whole party throughout the North, the majority of its
voters have been against the Wimot provso ever since
the bearing Of that proposition has been fully discussed
and understood. And especially do we deny that the
vote the question of tablng Mr. Roots resolution
test that subject. the House then
constituted. Mr.. Stephens will find much better test in
the vote Mr.. Clayons compromise bill, the defeat
Of which has been generally attributed 10 him. But per-
hsps he would be quite willing 10 let that sum
Der in the archives considering how his stands
on that record and the political companionshp by which
it is surrounded.
Since however, Mr.. Stephens has cited at length the
vote upon Mr.. Roots resolution, and relied upon as
test, let us examine fully IFS claim TO that char
acter.
Mr. Root offered his resolution under the rules of the
House. which provide that all the States and Terrific
res shall be called for resolutions each alternate Mon
day." and all resolutions which shall give rise to debate
shall lie over for discussion To prevent this resolution
from going over never be heard FROM author.
at the time OF moving it, also moved the preuio ques
tio which, if sustained would have brought the House
to direct vote upon the resolution. motion then
made to lay the resolution upon the table-he upon
which is given in the letter Of Mr. Stephens.
Many members voted against the motion to lay upon
the table because they preferred another mode OF dis
posing Of the resolution They knew that the next ques-
tion upon seconding the previous question: which re.
qursd majority OF the House, and this falling the
resolution would have gone over for discussion aud
would have been as eHectually disposed OF and de.
feated As it would have been by laying it on the
table. Before the vote was taken on seconding
the previous question the House adjourned These
proceedings were had Monday, December 3is, is49
This resolution did not up again until Monday Feb.
ruaIy 4th. 1885, when its modified it as to make
il road
Rssoivsd, That tho Committee on Territories be In.
suucsd report to the House. with little delay prsc
ticsbe, bill, bi providing for territorial govern
governments for all that part of the territory ceded
the United States by Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo lying eastward OF California, and prohibiting
slavery therein"
The motion TO lay upon the table again made, and
was carred-yeas i05, nays TO-
Those who voted In the affirmative
son, William Ashe Thomss Aveeu, William " NJ Bay Thos
Bsvfv Jares Bcae William H. Bissel, Frnnklin W. Bow
doo James Bowln, Linn Boyd George Bnss James Brooks
T. cssneson csbs George Alfred Caldwell Joseph r. Caldwell
Oharss Clarke, Thomas L. ClnEmsn, Wniamon w Cobb
wuam Coccck Chses A. Conrad John Ds"tel Edmund
Henry X EAmundson WinAeld s. Feaherston
Meredith Gently, Gilmore Willis A. Gornsn Willard
r dan, William Hamilton, Hugh Haaon, Isham a. Harris,
ssmIsn w Harris, Thomas H. Harris, Thomas Haymond eny
Hoson vosney Howard David Hubbard Samuel W. Inse, An
drew Johnson Robert w. johnson, W. Jones' David g.
LsMe Job Mann, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, John A.
McCsssnand, Mcdowell, Thomas McKock James K Nc
Ls.ahea, Robert Mclane Fayere McMun, John Mcoasen
Richard K Meade John X, Miller, Mion, Chas g. More
Out