Washington sentinel., 1853-11-05

position 10 introduce slavery into California
while it was Territory, before its people had
spoken on the subject?
Mr.. Calhoun himself was content that the
right to carry slave property within the limits
of the acquired territory should be tried, not in
Congress, but before the courts of the country.
We asked no Legislative enactment III behalf Of
the right, That right was as strong without
a Legislative enactment, rs with 1t. II 1t dld
not exist, Congress could not give it--if It did,
Congress could not take it away Judge Bron-
son wished that question tried before the same
tribunal AS LAWYER. he had arrived at
different conclusion from Mr.. Calhouns as TO
the fact. whether IN the abSence ~ congressioa-
al legislation and while the territorial State
continued, and 6etoJe a State constitution ,cds
0doDfed, the owner of slaves had the right TO
introduce them as property in the territory nc
qured from Mexico.
Judge Bronson stood with Gen. Cass and
Gov. Bright on the platform of aoa-interceatioa.
any effort made on the floor Of Congress 10 in
troduce slavery into California. In voting for
her admission into the Union, with Constitu
ton tolerating slavery, none of them would
have considered himself as voting to introduce
slavery within her limits, but simply as acqui.
escng in the fact Of her admission with con-
stitution adopted BY herself, and for which she
was solely responsible. Any man may consist
emily vote for the admission Of State within
the Union, whose constitution contains articles
which his judgment does not approve. The
mere affirmative vote on the question OF admis-
sion does not include with it an endorsement Of
every provision of the State constitution. The
question in such case would be, not whether
slavery shall be introduced or extended, but
shall State be denied admittance into the
Union.
Throughout the entire letter, Judge Bronson
aludes only to congressional action on the
subject Of slavery, and not to any congressional
action on the question of the admission of
State, whose constitution tolerates the institu-
tion. He nowhere alludes TO any action TO be
taken on the subject, BY the Territory itself, in
its transition to State. On that he gives no
opinion, either way. The letter itself is silent as
to whether Judge Bronson, if he were in Con.
gress, would vote for or against the admission
of California into the Union, if she presented
a constitution tolerating slavery. If he had
touched upon that subject, we have the most
thorough conviction that he would have replied
in favor Of her admission There is certainly
nothing in his letter to the contrary. His
course subsequent to the letter, his close and in
innate afiliation with the patriots who held to
such view, justify US in such belief
That he did not allude to that branch Of the
subject was quite natural The faction whose
movements he rebuked as unwise and impolitic
was then engaged in desperate effort to i'm
press, by congressional action, an anti-slavery
character upon the acquired territory. Itwas
then agitatiag for that purpose. Believing
that the territory was already free, it yet de-
nounced with unmeasured bitterness all such
as would not rend the country in an endea-
ordinance touching that territory. 1t was
exclusively with reference to that aspect of the
case that Judge Bronson wrote, and with this
fair Interpretation Of his language, We say
boldly there is nothing in the letter at all incon
sistent with the doctrine of non,interventon, or
which any northern man, standing on that plat
form, could not utter.
We repeat that the letter, on its very face,
Enthusiastically refers solely to positive congress
sional action on the subject of slavery per Sc,
and that any other Interpretation would make
it not only inconsistent with itself, but with the
political career of its author. We cannot see
how letter which rebukes agitation, which
does not advocate the proviso, which does not
oppose the admission into the Union of State
with a pro-slavery constitution, can, with any
sort Of justice, be charged to be the utterance
of freesol sentiments, either technically or sub
stantially. The democratic party has nothing
TO do with opinions on the abstract question Of
slavery. 1t has nothing to do with any such
question as whether slavery can exist in ma
tural state Of society. All that it requires is,
that the constitutional enactments shall be faith
fully observed. The party requisition only de-
mands an honest adherence to the compact of
| our fathers. 1t makes no crusade in favor of or
against slavery. 1t suffers it to rest where the
trainers of the Constitution placed it. This
! doctrine is the tower Of our strength in the
north It appeals to the patriotism Of all men.
To such as embrace it, and prove their faith BY
their works, we shall always be prompt to give
the cordial greeting Of fellowship.
HOW THE FIRST ASSAULT ON PARTY
PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS Is
MADE.
Nothing should be more sedulously and vigi
10 ntlr nainst in nolitical anznfinns