Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-07-13

teri at whig meeting held III Pike county
on the Sd November, lS47, as chairman OF
committee on resolutions reported and sd-
voca,ed the following:
Resolved, That we are opposed 10 the
prosecution Of the existing war as a war Of
conquest for the sole purpose Of acquiring
territory; but that if permanent acquisition.
of Mexican territory should be the resul, Of
war, we are in favor Of leaving it TO the peo-
pie of such State or States as may be formed
out Of such territory to settle by their fun
damental law the question whether such
State or States shall be saveholding or non
slavehoding; ard therefore we are opposed
to the proposition offered by David Wilmot.
Democratic member from Pennsylvania as
proviso bill appropriating $4,000, ,o00 as
secret fund. known as the Wilnot proviso
or &c any similar measure, as calculated 70
disturb the peace and harmory,and to endan-
ger the existence Of the Union.
THUS early upon the record agaius. the
Wilmot proviSo. it was nc new thing With
him to deuounce all interference by Con-
gress with slavery in the territories.
Mr.. Cornick's party done more. During
tie cventtul period under review, they had
passed the Oregon bill in Congress, with
the Wlmot proviso in it, and Senator Atch-
ison, OF this State, voted for It aud President
Polk signed the bill
Mr.. Porter maintained that Don-interfer-
encc with slavery in territories by Congress
is the correct doctrine. II was established
for the first time in 1850 by the compromise
q, measures-estaJlishe with Wing Presi-
dent in the White House and Ly the unE!-
vailed eloquence Of Clay, Webster and o;he.
Wing statesmen in tie halls OF Congress-
The same principle was III Douglas BILL
Had he been in Congress he would have vo-
ted for that bill, as all the Wing members
from Missouri did. Now that the bill had
passed, :spealiug tic slavery restriction Of
1920 and applying the principles Of nou-in-
terventon to all the territories owned by
the Z. States, lie was for standing by that
bill. He YVES against its repeal, and if cleo
ted tU Congress he would not only oppose
all further agitation of slavery questions in
Congress, but he will resist all attempts, nc
difference by whom made, TO repeal the Ne
braska-Kausa bill. 1t settles the question.
1t leaves tic people Of Ihe territory to have
slavery Or not, as they may choose. This
, was nov, and always. had been his doctrine
He was against furlher agitation, He saw
no coed 10 result from it. Let the Nebras-
, ka bill remain unrepcaled aud irrepealable.
, Although, like Gen. Cass, he thought the
first bill! Of Mr., Douglas would have attain
ed the same results, and with less sectional
and bitter agitation, he was now for putting
quietus TO The whole question by standing
by the Bill as passed. The country needs
repose and his position secures it. Mr.. Cor
nick's secures agitation not only out OF Con.
gress but in Congress; for if he does not in .
tend agitatrg il in Congress, what sense
is There in Ills agitating it here?
:, Mr.. Porter saw no practical good to re.
. suit from iong disqulsitlonS on abstract cues
) tions of constitutional law. Although he
differed with Mr.. Cornick both as 10 the
power of Congress and the prCpriety of max
ing it q test in the elections, he would do as
much against slavery restrictions, and more
against agitation, than that gentleman. lie
would labor and speak aud vote to maintain
=. Congressional non-interlerence and this i.
all Mr.. Cornick could do.
!, Was not Mr., Clay safe for the SOUTH
, Were not Mr.. Webster and Mr.. Fillmore:
4 Were not Stephen a. Douglas and Geo. L
: Badger the one the author and the other 81
advocate of the Nebraska bill safe men fo
, the South in Mr., Cornick's opinion? Al
these men admit the power! Noone Of then
agrees with Corrick on this question. Ye
they could vote right, and why cannot Othe
. people entertaining the same opinion?