Washington sentinel., 1854-04-07

principles or conditions 4 "Shoud bill
pass admitting Missouri, subject 10 restraint,
shall have no difficulty in the course 10 be pur'
sued; nor shall ], in any future case respecting
The admission ofany new State, as 10 its rights as
State"
A ''bill passed Congress admitting Missouri
subject to restraint" and also "depriving her oi
her equal rights with the old States" President
Monroe, in accordance with the opinions ex
pressed in his letter to Judge Roane, prepared
the draught of veto message, in the event o
Congress admitting Missouri with certain re
strictions. quote from it:
Having fully considered the bill entitled, &c.
and disapproved oft, now return il TO the -
in which it originated, with my objections 10 III.
same. That the Constitution, in providing tha
new States may be admitted into the Union, as i.
done by the third section Of the fourth article Of
The Constitution, intended that they should be ad
mItied with all the rights and immunities OF the
original States, retaining like them, all the powers
as 10 their local governments, and ceding 10 the
United States, in the general government, all the
powers ceded TO il by the Constitution.
That If fconditions of character not applicable
10 the original States, should be imposed on new
State, an inequality would be imposed or created,
lessening in a degree the right of the State SOW
ereigniy, which would always be degrading 10
such new State, and which, operating as condi-
ZION of its admission, Its incorporation would be
incomplete, and would also be annulled and such
new State be severed from the Union should il
afterwards assume equality, and exercise power
acknowledged 10 belong TO all the original States.
THAT the proposed restriction 10 Territories
which TO be admitted into the Union, inot in
aieet violation Of a1 Constitution, IS rspn gnamt
its principles; since il is intended TO produce an
effect on the future policy of the ,ieu States,
rardt tofh pip
injuring those effected by it in an interest pro-
tected from such injury by the Constitution, with
out benefting any State in the Union"
For these extracts / am indebted to the re-
search and kindness of the Hon. Mr.. Westcott
late a distinguished Senator from Florida.
1t is true Mr.. Monroe afterwards gave hi.
sanction to the bill admitting Missouri, subject
to restraint, but it was only to save the Union
Mr.. Pinckney, of South Carolina, cannot be
quoted in favor Of the restriction, consistently
with historical truth. He both voted and
spoke against the restriction; and in his speech
is the following passage:
Al cannot, on any ground, think of agreeing to
a compromise on this subject However we all
may wish TO see Missouri admitted as she ought,
on equal Terms with the other States, that is a
very unimportant object 10 her, compared with
keeping the, Constitution inviolable-with keeping
the hands of Congress from touching the question
OF slavery. On the subject of the Constitution no
compromise ought ever TO be made. Neither can
any be made on the national faith, 50 seriously
Involved in the treaty which gives to Louisiana,
10 every part OF II, right 10 be incorporated into
the Union on equal terms with the other States"
1t is true, in a letter, he said it was triumph
of the south. The committee will perceive,
by the extract from his speech, that he could
not mean a triumph of principle. Practically,
he thought slavery would not 90 above the line
OF 36o 3O>, by the laws of physical geography; /;
and therefore that the south lost no territory
fit for slavery, but that the restriction was in
violation of the Constitution, and in deroga-
ton of the equality OF the States. The triumph
was in the admission of Missouri, even with
the unconstitutional restriction, the north strug-
Cling to exclude her unless she abolished slavery
throughout her entire limits. The triumph was
not in preventing violation Of the Constitu-
ton, but IN preventing more fragrant viola
ton than was committed.
The sanction of Mr.. Calhoun, too, has been
adduced in favor of this restriction Upon what
ground is this allegation founded? 1t rests
upon the fact that he was member of Mr.
Monroes cabinet at the time he signed the bill
containing it. Thesfurther assumption is, that
the cabinet was a unit in the advice given to
the President. Nov, we have seen that Mr..
Monroe, but few weeks before the passage oi
the BILL in letter, indicated his opinion Of the
uncenstitutionality of the restriction, and also
prepared the draught of veto message, in tht
event of the bill containing it passing Con
gress. He subsequently acquiesced in ane
signed the bill to save the Union; but acqui
escence is waiver, not an admission of right
Sir, the two great parties in the country illus
trate this fact. Large portions of the whig ane
democratic parties acquesced in their respec
tive platforms, but did not approve of them
No, sir; in acquiescing they repudiated them
But what reason is there for asserting that the
cabinet was unit in this matter? None what.
ever No evidence has ever been adduced to
show that it was. 1t rests upon the asssmp.
tion that the cabinet must be unanimous, when
to be SO, instead Of being universal, is rare and
exceptional.
There being, then, no proof to sustain the
charge, let us see what testimony there is to
rebut it. The first proof is his reputation Of
this restriction upon the first occasion of its
coming up during his service in Congress, and
upon all subsequent ones The second, and
satisfactory proof is his personal denial o.
having sanctioned it. In his speech in the
Senate, February l9, l847, on presenting his
resolutions on the slave question, he says:
"Sr, let me say word as TO the compromise
line. Ihars aiacayS considered Il as a great error
highly injurious to the SOUTH because it surren
dered, for mere temporary purposes. those high
principles of the Constitution upon which, think
we ought to stand. am against any compromise
line, yet ! would have been willing TO acquiesce
in a continuation of the Missouri compromise, in
order TO preserve, under the. present trying cir.
cumstances, the peace Of the country"
Who, sir, will say that Mr.. Calhoun sane
toned what he considered great error y
that he surrendered, for temporary purposes,
the high principles of the Constitution ~ Sir,
he acquiesced in what he had no power to re.
sist. repeat it, sir, acquiescence does not in
volye sanction; for, short while before his
death, he wrote me a letter, (for he was to me a
kind, personal, and political friend,) in which
he said " that the extension Of the Missouri
compromise to the Pacific might give peace to
the country; but, while he would acquiesce in
Its extension, he could not vote for it." Thus
much have said, sir, to vindicate his history.
Sir, the history Of Mr.. Calhoun for forty
years is largely identified with the history Of
the Union. Splendid, too, as was his intellect,
glorious as were his deeds, his moral purity vel
boautified his character like the how set IN ;ha