Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-26

constituents. This is the alternative to which
you are reduced BY the submission Of the Ad-
ministration to the extreme demands Of the
Slave Power.
MISREPRESENTATION CONTINUED.
The Propagandists are alike destitute Of can
dor and logic A more fragrant game Of mis-
representation and sophistry than they are now
playing, was never attempted in our political
history.
"The organ of this morning commences q
long editorial on Congressional Non-Interven-
ton" with the assertion that
"Tho chief merit of the Compromise Of 1850,
so far it relates to the question of Slavery in
the Territories Of the United States, consists in
the fact that il denies to Congress, under the
Constitution, any more poicer either TO fegastafe
Slavery INTO a Territory on out Of al, than az
possesses in regard to The States"
This is utterly false, and every member Of
Congress knows that it is false There is not
word in any Of the acts Of 1850, that directly
or indirectly expresses an opinion on the power
of Congress over Territories. "The organ y
knows this--nor will it ever attempt to produce
a scrap Of proof in support Of its statement.
The attempt was repeatedly made, during the
struggle Of ls4s-5O, to obtain some expression
of opinion from Congress, against its posOer to
legislate on the subject Of Slavery in the Terri
tories but always without success. The ma
jority in Congress believed that Congress had
the power to pass an act prohibiting Terrific
rial Slavery, and at first insisted upon the exer-
else of the power; in other words, upon the
passage Of the Wilmot Proviso. At last, after
q protracted struggle; influenced by the coun-
sells of Clay and Webster, who always asserted
the power Of Congress over Slavery in the Ter
ritories, but who, for reasons which need not
be stated urged the expediency Of waving its
exercise; rendered anxious by the threatening
attitude assumed by the South wearied, dis
gusted, and overreached by the superior tactics
Of their opponents; consoling themselves with
the fact that California would be received as a
free State and with the assurance that New
Mexico and Utah were protected by natural
laws against the growth Of slave institutions
they finally conseHted-to what To the de-
NAL of the power Of Congress to pass the Will
mot Proviso? never! but-to the organiza-
ton of Territorial Governments for New Mex
leo and Utah, ,cithott insisting upon the policy
of the Proviso. That was all. The poauer of
Congress was not denicd--the exercise Of it was
suaiped, for the reasons just stated
AS to the provision concerning the future ad-
mission of States, to be formed out Of the Ter
ritories that did not touch the question of the
power Of Congress over the territorial condition
of the inhabitants.
Here is another false statement in tho same
article of the organ"
at is q fact of history that repeated propo-
sitions to stand by the Missouri Compromise
line were made and rejected during the pend
ency of the agitation growing out of our Mexi-
can acquisitions"
When these men pretend to state /" fact Of
history" why do they not give the authority
or evidence for their statement For the truth
Of our statements we have appealed to the rec
ord, quoted the language of the record, official
and authoritative. They shun the record, and
leave their assertions unsustained by shadow
of evidence
II is not "a fact of history that repeated
Propositions to stand by tho Missouri Compro-
mise line were made and rejected during the
tendency during The tendency THE or
gan is always tautologicaD Of the agitation
growing out Of our Mexican acquisitions No
member of either House ever moved q recog-
milton or rcafirmation Of that line. What
possible reason could there be for such q mo-
ton? That line, in express terms, applied ex-
clusiveIy to the old Louisiana Territory, and
that Territory was not under consideration.
A proposition TO recognise or repeal what was
not under consideration, and what nobody
thought of disturbing, could have emanated
only from fool There was no such fool in
Congress. OF course, no Southern man would
originate sach proposition, for its only effect
would have been to confirm to Freedom her
title to the Territory Of Nebraska; and no
Northern man would do it for that title was
not drawn into question.
What is athe fact Of history" which the
"organ thus grossly misrepresentsa Simply
this, that repeated propositions we're made"
pending athe agitation growing out of our
Mexican acquisitions" not :" to stand by the
Missouri Compromise Line" but to ertend that
line to new Territory, acquired twenty-eight
years after that line had been agreed upon, as
q settlement of the question Of Slavery in Ter
ritory then belonging to the Union. In other
words, it was proposed to form new Compro-
misc, applying to certain territories in ls4s in
certain circumstances Principle which had
been applied in 1920 to certain other Territory,
in quite different circumstances. Again and
again was this policy attempted to be carried
through the Senate by Senator Foote, in every
variety of form, sometimes accompanied by q
provision for the protection Of Slavery in Utah
and New Mexico and California below the
line Of SO dog. 30 min, through the express
abrogation of the local laws Of these countries,