The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1854-09-20
aars s Position on the Ne-
braslSa Question.

u
readers can have an opportunity of perusing
it. Let them give Ii a careful perusal.-
And We should be pleased if every paper In
the District would give il a circulation
His position is as follows:
Disjointad portions of some private con.
yersauon of ours have by some means gain
ed circulation, from which inferenees con-
trary to our views relative to the controyer-
sy growing out OF the passage Of the Me-
braska and Kansas bill are drawn. Te pre-
vent lurther misrepresentation it is proper
that our opinions should appear in full 10
these columns. sf
We have said that il fs!avery should nos
be intro1i iced into K,nsas, the only t.rri.
tory where it was thought at all probable
Il Eoald 20. that good would resulI from the
passage vl the Nebraska bill. Il is known
that portion Of the territory included .
Kansas was formerly a part OF Texas. by
the articles OF anne xaliOn it was stipulated
that this Territory. lying north Of 36t deg.
Of latitnle should be exempted from slaves
ry, while it was agreed that Texas should
be divided into four States in addition to the
then existing State, and that these new
States should come int0 the union, with OF
without slavery, as their constitutions should
prescribe. In 1850. by the act fixing the
boundary Of Texas, all that part Of the ter
rtory north of 364o Was cut off, but the
right to create the additional states was re-
} tanned. These States will therefore have
the right TO come in with slavery il they
shall so elect. if the articles of annexation
are to be carried out. But Congress hav-
ing violated them, so far as it could do so.
by placing nearly sll that portion of the
t Perritorv Of Texas secured loF free iustitu-
tons under territorial governments which
expose 1t to the lnroads OF slavery, there is
no Obligation resting upon the next or any
succeeding Congress to carry cut that por-
ton Of them designed for the benefit Of slave
institutions.
We think now--we thought ptesisely tho
reverse when the Nebraska bill was undsp
discussion--we think now that the probs.
onles are against Kansas becoming slave
, holding terrI.ory. Aud from these things We
C draw our inferences that the passage of the
bill will probably yet result in gool; for if
slavery does not extsM under 1t, we have
+. got rid Of abiding by bad bargAin-a bar
gain, that pledged us to four more slave
i5tates-wilneut any other evil results than
the bad SerElng engendered between the peO"
: pie Of different portions of the country.
This being the state of the case, we are
. not in favor Of restoring the avery restrio-
ten, un esg. contrary to expection, k4nsas
should tolerate slavery, and its restoration
becomes necessary to prevent We would
NOT set iIup because in doing 80 we nsees.
y sarily patch up and make whole the articles
, of annex ation, and we would be- met by thu
argument that having done so, we are bound
!, in good faith to live up to them and submit
to baying foHr new slave Stacs carved cat
Of Texas .# A s
We think matters should rest for the prea-
en:-that no lA% should be passed uutI wo
see whether we do not prevent slavery from
: spreading 10y emigration. Ii We do MT.
then pass a law expelIIas 1t. II We do. the
take advantage of the violation OF the bro.
ken agreement, and wh"H Texas applies ior
the privilege OF diviIil. b rself into two or
F, more States, ~ she mas. DO nler the Cln-
s,itution, positively refuse our consent un-
IeSN it is morally certaiN that the new St.ses
will be free States. *ue3 .,..
gy~ The above arpearedin orr dzily Of
Saturday. Since then we have been asked
what our course would BIZ should bill be
introduced into the next Congress aboiishinE
; slavery in Ulah and prohibiting it in all the
territories. We answer that we would give
it our support At The same time We think,
for the reaso.s above stated, that none Of
she the Texes territory should bs included
IL such n bill, unless necessary to pfevSns
slavery from spreading over it.
Democratic Congressional Con-
> vention.
= In accordance with previous notice the
Delegates from the several counties of 9lst
Congressional District met in Convention at
Harlem Springs on Tuesday the 5th day
. OF September. The Convention was organ.
lied by electirg Joseph @. hcCLEARY Esq,
] OF J.iie,sop county, President, and AlBRRr
ARMSTRONG, of Columbiana, and CALVIN
FERRALL, OF Carroll, Secretaries.
On motion the townships of the several
counties were called over, and the follow
ing delegates Teach county having filled all
vacancies admitted to seats in the Con,eu.
ton:
| ..... ..a... CARRcLL COUNTY. .....
Loudon--Jas. Movies; Lee Geo. II.
Martin; Fox-C. Ferrall; East-p. Came.
ron; Washington--D. Smith; Center K.
Mcclure; Uuion--J. NJ. Lyle; Perry.
M. Custer; Orange--G. Lather; Rose--Jos.
Close; Harrison--Yant; Brown--J. Miller;
Monroe Wm. Brown; Augusta r. Hen
ry.
HARRISON COUNTY.
Shortcreek s. Jos. Braden; Green - s.
Bell: German = j. Brown; Athens - G.
Cook; Cadiz --Wm. |. Fry Archer - R.
Maxwell: Rumley--J. Gutshal; North
L. II. Custer; Stock "A Conaway; Noting.
ham--E, Kenneday; Moorefeld-J. Lafer.
ty; Freeporl--S. Colyip; Washington-J. "A.
Noble; Monros--Jno. Lauthers; Franklin
I. Quinn.
JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Steubenvlle---J. s. Patterson, J, H Bris.
tor; Island Creek--M. GLADDEN.; Saline.
} Lawrence; BrusL sLcreek-J Russell: Ross
IT. Smith; Salem-R. Dury, Springfield
j. GLADDEN.; Wels--S. H johnson; Cross
Creek--Wm. Gable; Warren--J. G. McClea-
ry; Mt. Pleasant--Jacob Hult; Smilhfsld-,
G. Mather; knox,. G. Smith.
CoLuMBIASA COUNTY.
st. Glars. Qugly; Middletown--G.