Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1854-04-12

may be communities who will sustain their rep
resenatives in this great outrage upon their
rights, but if there is pity the deluslon under
which they are laborng.
The bill states in substance, that the compro-
mise of 1920 was repealed by the compromise
of 1850. Now this is either true or it is not
If true, where is the necessity of repeating it
over again? 1t is an anomaly in Legislation to
repeal statute which is already repealed
What end can be attained, except that OF placing
dangerous weapon in the hands OF northern
agitators? 1t gives them an opportunity to de-
ceive the ignorant and unthinking, by represent
ing the South as faithless--by asserting that
we seized the first moment of power to repeal
q solemn compact, and that no reliance can be
placed upon any compromise that we may make.
They will assert that one compromise is no
more sacred than another-that as we have re-
pealed the Missouri restriction, they may and
ought to repeal the fugitive slave law, and thus
will be revived that dangerous agitation which
all good men hoped was happily at an end. /
know the common answer to this view Of the
subject; but it is false one, and if it should
impose upon our people it will not upon the
North. .(.ttl ut
We are told that northern men violated the
compromise of 1920, and we are no longer
bound by it. This is n misconception. The
Missouri Compromise applied to the territory of
Louisiana, and to that alone. There was no
provisions that it should be extended to any
other territory. The contract was complete,
and bound neither party in relation to territory
thereafter to be acquired. So far as that CON-
promise was concerned, we might, without any
violation of its provisions, have carried slavery
into new territory as high rs the 49th parallel Of
latitude, if We had the power, or they might have
excluded it as low as the equator, if We would
submit. In 1850 we proposed new compro-
misc-that is, to run the line to the Pacific
| This was merely an extension of the old con-
tract, to which they could agree or disagree with
out any breach of faith They rejected it; but
this refusal to enter into new arrangement can
not justify us in violating the first | mention
this, however, merely to show the view which
will be taken of the subject north. and do not
care to elaborate it.
have sad that if the legislation Of 1850 did
in point of fact supersede the legislation OF
| 1920, then the insertion Of such n provision in
the bill was not only unnecessary but mischiev-
Gus. If it is not true, then the bill ought not
to pass, because it bears falsehood upon its
| face.
The value of any compromise depends upon
its finality. If, when one party have the power,
it may repeal the part which is dstasteful to
them, when the other party has the strength why
may they not also repeal that part which is dis
agreeable TO themselves, and thus the whole
compact will be abrogated, and all hope of new
one destroyed by the knowledge that neither
can rely upon the good faith of the other.
hold it to be good rule that we ought to be
very careful how we make compacts, but, once
made, to abide them firmly, fairly, and honest
! ly.
This letter has been written in haste, and amid
constant Interruptions, but hope have furnish
ed you with sufficient reasons to justify my
course. OF one thing need not assure you, and
that is, whether right or wrong am influenced
by none but honest motives-seeking nothing
asking nothing. Confnng myself exclusively
to the professional duties, am at least free from
the temptations which SO often beset the politi
clan, and less liable to error, except such as may
arise from defect of judgment.
JERE. CLEMENS.
Nick. DAVIS, Jr., Huntsville, Ala.