Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-04

| rity, is magni6ed into premeditated attempt on
the part of one section Of the country to violate
its faith with the other, by abrogatng the Missouri
Compromise and this version of it is now placed
upon record to the prejudice of the National Intel
ligencer, in the official debates of Congress-
The subsequent legislative proceedings cited in
the revised report of the speech of Mr.. STEPHENS
as demonstrations of infdelity on the part of the
North to the Missouri compromise act, being of
much later date than those relating to the admission
of Arkansas, it is unnecessary to examine in de-
tail They seem, however, not to be free from
grave misapprehensions.
1t cannot have been forgotten that the annexation
Of Texas was opposed as party measure, which,
with good reason, was believed at the time to be
fraught with the calamity of war. Instead, there
FORE of regarding this Legislation in the light in
which Mr.. Stephens views it, it should rather be
inferred that the vote against the bill annexing
Texas was directed against the measure itself than
against the incidental and subordinate clause of the
bill which applied the line of $50 80 to that new
acquisition.
A part of what Mr.. 6TEpHENs says about the
Oregon bill is erroneous in taking it for granted that
the Oregon Territory was part of the Louisiana
purchase from France. The description of boun-
dairy quotedf by Mr.. S. to sustain this posi-
ton is that Of the F2o,saa treaty of 1919 with
Spain, and does not by any means justify the
conclusion that Oregon is " territory to which
we derived title by the cession lin lS03] al
luded to in the act of 1920" In fact it goes
great way to prove the contrary, furnishing as it
did, in the judgment of our negotiators with Eng
land, perhaps the strongest ground on which the
title Of the United States to Oregon could be placed
That the Oregon Territory was not considered by
Mr.. Jefferson as part of the Louisiana purchase
is shown by his own recorded statements. Exactly
to the same effect is the positive testimony of the
French Plenipotentiary the MARQUIS DE MARBoIs)
who negotiated the Louisiana cession. Mr.. GREEN
HOW, who was not likely to underrate any argument
on the American side, may be likewise quoted in
dsproof of the assumption; and, although Mr..
CALHOUN, probably for cumulative purpose, ad-
vanced a claim to Oregon through the French ces-
sion, it was virtually abandoned on our side when
the discussion devolved upon Mr.. BUCHANAN.
| With respect to the result which befel the sup
/, posed " test put by Mr. Burt's amendment to the
North, it is difficult to see why the conclusion Of
Mr. Stephens must necessarily follow. The amend
ment was needless, in having no object to fulfil,
less it were something not apparent on Its face, as
all the world knew that the whole of Oregon was
far north of $50 30'
| And, finally, according to our judgment, the re-
fusal of the House to consent to an amendment
which proclaimed the reOiua1 Of the Missouri Com
promise act "a law that had never been repealed)
should not be considered as furnishing any just
basis for the inference that the North intended
thereby to repudiate the act which it was thus un
necessarily proposed to revive. The vote on this
question simply indicated an indispost,on to make
this act applicable to any other territory than that
to which 10 nad been already applied, Wig The
territory acquired from France under the title of
Louisiana and the territory acquired by the annex
alton of Texas.
That no reader may be incredulous concerning our
explanation Of the influences which operated upon Con-
gress at the date when Arkansas and Michigan were adj
mtted into the Union, make two or three extracts
from the Globe newspaper then the official organ Of Gen.
jackson, a nd published by BLAIR & R1vEs:
From the Washington Globe Of April 5, 1886.
IL gives us pleasure to announce that the bills to ad
nit Michigan and Arkansas into the Union have passed
the Senate. There hard struggle on the part of
the opposition to prevent the admission of Michigan
This was stroke at both Territories If the application
of Michigan had been defeated having nearly double the
population Of Arkansas it would have followed inevitably
that both applications would have been rejected THE
rpugance Of the Opposition TO the admission of these ne,c
States arises from knowdge that ii ceakens their srenqh
IN e nert Presidential election and their dwiuding phalaaz
in the Senate.
i From the Washington Globe of June IL, 1885,
Inc city was amazed yesterday morning, on awaken
to see the flag of the House of Representatives still
flying. The House had been in travail throughout the
night in Committee Of the Whole give birth to Michi
gan and Arkansas.
The effect of the committee rising still leaving the
Arkansas bill pending and subject amendment and de-
bate IN Committee of the Whole would have been to
new during the next week. the of the present one
AS the session is now drawing to close, this was
looked to as the only way Of defeating the right Of the
States entitled to place in the Unon from obtain
ing mat right, so as TO exert in The Presidential
election This was the motive which induced the joint
enort OF the ABoLrIoNIsTs and to deprive
two States of their most unquestionable rights.
upon oil the votes on the dilatory amendments on
the committees rising and adjournmens, the
TiosIsTs and NULLIFERs voting together. The
utras OF both ends Of the Opposition chung together
throughout while the friends of the Administration and
Mr. Van Buren, adhered with equal perseverance and zeal
the support Of both the Northern and the Southern
State.
| From the Washngton Globe of June IA, 1886.
We copy the following from the Hartford Times. The
excitement, it will be perceived, is altogether with us
here They have Presidential intrigue on foot that
requires it to be created
"ABoLrToS.-We understand that the Legislature Tof
passed two resolutions near the close of the
Aon1ort 49, :-lA