Washington sentinel., 1854-05-06

constitutionality. He did, after much hesitar
ton, sign the bill; but that signature did not in
any manner implicate him or the members Of
his cabinet in the conception or passage of the
measure through Congress.
Mr.. Benton, in his book, refers also to the
proceedings in the Senate to sustain his ale
CATION, using this language:
"The unanimity of the slave States in the
Senate, where the measure originated. is shown
by its journal, not on the motion to insert the
section constituting the compromise, (for on
that motion the yeas and nays were not taken,
but on the motion to strike out, when they were
taken, and showed 80 votes for the compromise
and 10 against it; every one of the latter from
non-slaveholding States, the former compre-
hending every slave State vote present, and
few from the north
/ This extract has more resemblance to the
intricate, involved, and confused statement of
an advocate striving to conceal the weak points
ofa bad case, than to the plain and direct mar
rative of an impartial historian recording i'm
portant events. The Senate had before it the
Missouri bill which had passed the House of
Representatives. That bill prohibited slavery
in Missouri with two provisoes the first re-
quiring the surrender of fugitive slaves, and the
second forbidding that the condition or civil
rights of any person then held to service or
labor in the Missouri territory should be alter
ed. These are the exact words in which the
prohibitory command with its provisoes was
couched.
"And shall ordain and establish that there
shall be neither slavery nor involuntary seryi-
tude in the said State, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted Procided alacays,
That any person escaping into the same from
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in
any other State, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claim
ing his or her labor or service, as aforesaid !:
Prouided, aeoertheless, That the said provision
shall not be construed to alter the condition or
civil rights Of any person now held to service
or labor in the said Territory"
Mr.. Barbour, of Virginia, promptly moved to
to strike. out this clause, and it was stricken
out by vote of taceatysecen to fifteen, every
negative vote being from the north. Of the
affirmative votes, tacenty-t,uo were from the
south, and only flee from the north SO that
the proposition to strike out the anti-slavery
restriction contained in the House bill was
southern measure, and opposed by two-thirds
of the northern votes.
AS soon as this vote was taken, Mr.. Thomas,
Of Illinois, brought forward the present eighth
hibits slavery north of 36o 3O/ north latitude.
That was adopted, and, as Mr.. Benton correctly
states, the yeas and nays were not taken. It
not known, therefore, who voted for it or who
voted against it. 1t came from the north, how
ever. As the next step, Mr.. Trimble, of Ohio,
moved to strike out that portion of Mr.. Thomas's
amendment which limited the anti-slavery
restriction to 36o 30>, and insert provision
which would have extended the operation Of
that restriction to all the territory acquired from
France, west of the Mississippi river, " except
the proposed State of Louisiana the State of
Missouri, and the Arkansas territory east of the
seventeenth or ninety-fourth degree of longi-
tude, agreeably to Melish's map" This propo-
sition was rejected by a vote of tcelce to thirty,
the affirmativevote beingeatiely. from tie north.
No other amendment was offered, and the bill
passed without call for the yeas and nays.
Now after calling the attention Of the reader
to the extract we have presented from Mr.. Ben
toms book, we would remark that we do not
clearly understand what's meant by the motion
to strike out the section " constituting the com
promise" which . showed thirty votes for the
compromise and fifteen against it every one
of the latter from non-slaveholding States"
There were, as we have shown, two motions to
strike out the last Of which was coupled with a
motion to insert. The yeas and nays were or
dered on both, and upon no other proposition,
not even on the passage Of the bill. Mr.. Ben
toms affirmative figures do not correspond with
the affirmative vote on Mr.. Barbour's motion,
whilst his negative figures do correspond with the
negative vote on that motion. Onthe other hand,
Mr.. Benton's affirmative figures correspond with
the negative vote on Mr.. Trimble's motion, but
his negative figures do not correspond with the
affirmative vote on that resolution; the vote
on Mr.. Barbour's motion being t,oenty-seren to
fifteen, and on Mr.. Trimble's motion, ticelce to
hirty--in each case the minority consisting en-
tirely of northern votes.
Not believing that Mr.. Benton would COM
NIT blunder in the second chapter ofhis book,
we thought that we were perplexed by a typo
graphical error, which the context would rectify.
When we came to the list of names which Mr..
Benton gives as the names Of those who voted
for the compromise, we counted them over, and
found that they numbered hcenty ight-not
agreeing with the vote on either Mr.. Barbour's
or Mr.. Trimble's motion. Comparing the
names themselves with the record, we found
perplexing discrepancy.
As to Mr.. Barbours motion to strike out,
Mr.. Benton's list would add to the afirma-
tive vote Messrs. Lowrie and ROBBERS, of Penn
sylvania; Noble and Taylor, of Indiana; and
Palmer, of Vermont-the four first of whom
voted in the negative, the fifth not voting at all.
On the other hand, Messrs Eaton and vii.
liams, of Tennessee, Hunter, of Rhode Island,
and Lanman, of Connecticut who voted in