Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-28
WASHINGTON, d. C.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY %, 1854.
MISREPRESENTATION AGAIN.


aThe organ ASSERTS that during the dis
cussions of 1850, the Missouri Compromise was
declared to have been expressly repudiated
that it was denounced as infamous in the Sen,
ate, and there was no reply TO that denuncia
ton until John p Hale came to it's defence
that even he admitted it to be without legal
force or validity; that general principles were
avowed in the Senate, wholly inconsistent with
il that the advocacy Of it was deprecated in
the House. as likely 20 prevent peaceable ad-
justment Of the pending controversy; that the
Constitution--as it was in 1919, before the
Missouri Comprehensive demanded in Con-
gress, and the position taken there that the
South would accept nothing less"
10 sustain this assertion, it relies alone upon
tho following allegations:
1. June 18th, 1850, Judge Stephens, Of Gsor-
gia, declared before tho House. that g the Mis-
souri, Compromise had been expressly repudia-
ted.o
2. June 18th, Of the same year, Mr.. Root re-.
marked that the Democratic Party had made
great mistake in abandoning the Missouri
Compromise policy for the new doctrine Of In
tervention.O
3. May 2sth, Of the same year "John P.
Hale complained that the Ordinance of 1857,
identical in principle with the Missouri Com
promise, and all legislation Of like charac-
ter down to ls4s, the Missouri Compromise in
cluded, had been denounced in the Senate as tn
famous, and not word sOas said in reply ~
A. June 81, Of the same year, Mr.. Douglas
said:
81 would LEAVE THE WHOLE SUBJECT TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES THEMSELVES, and
allow them to introduce or exclude Slavery as
they may see proper. / believe that that is the
principle upon which our institutions rest |
believe it is one Of those rights to be conceded
to Territories the moment they have Govern
ments and Legislatures established for them y
5. Jones' Of the House. said, on the 5th Of
June:
81 believe thar to adpocate tie Missouri Com.
promise line at the present tims, is, in effect, 10
oppose settlement Of the agitating question
which now threatens the integrity of the
Union
g. Upon the sth Of August, g Brown, of Mis-
sissippi took grounds even more distinctly. He
said:
aGIvE US THE CONSTITUTION AS 1T WAS AID
MINIsTERED FROM THE DAT OF IT'S FORMATION
TO 1919, aud we are satisfied. Up to that time,
Congress never assumed to interfere in the re-
lation Of master and servant. IL extended over
all and gave to all an equal protection Y
LESS THAN THIS, WE WILL NOT Ac.
cEPTn
Such tissue Of gross misrepresentation we
have rarely seen. From the collocation Of quo.
tations made in the organ" one would infer
that the Missouri Compromise had been under
discussion in 1850, and, after full elaboration,
had been rerudiated. The record of the pro-
oesdings Of Congress, published in the Congress
aonal Globe, shows that that Compromise was
never under discussion, never brought up for
action. Nobody proposed its repeal, nobody, its
confirmation.
The only question connected with it. which
at any time came up for consideration, was,
shall the policy Of the Missouri Compromise
be applied to the Territories acquired from
Mexicoi In other words the question was,
not shall the old Compromise stand, but shall
its policy Of a geographical line between Sla.
very and Freedom, be adopted Us the basis Of
. new Compromise
The majority in Congress refused to apply
the policy to the Territories just acquired, but
never touched the policy as already establish
Cd in the old Louisiana Territory. There is
not man in Congress who does not know that
what we state is true
Let US now attend to the allegations Of athe
organ in their order.
!. His not true that Judge Stephens made
the declaration attributed to him. He said
that athe extension of the Missouri Compro.
mise line had been expressly repudiated "--not
that the Missouri Compromise had been OK
pressly repudiated. aThe organ" misquotss
the Judge 1t should be added, that Mr.. Ste
phsns IVES rsproaohing the Southern men for
Going for thu acguisition Of Mexican Territory,
afts- the Wilmot Proviso bad been sanctioned
by msiority Of Congress, 10 ls4s, and the
erteudoa Of the Missouri Compromise line to
the Pacific, rejected by similar majority
The alIusion to ss:s Compromise was incidental
2. Mr.. Root n,,xss aade the remark 'astrib-
uted 10 him that i,nssr vas made BY Mr..
Johnson, Of Arkansas He ws ~ advocate
Of the extension Of the Missouf: Compromises
line to the new Territories that tat pol
10y had proved . happy ons--had given the
country peace, union. and brotherhood, for
thirty years--had been adopted in relation to
Texas and 0regon--should be applied 70 the
present controversy--sn abiding TO the doc.
trine Of the Cass Nicholson letter, remarked
that q the Democratic party had made grea
mistake in the late canvass, in abandoning the
Missouri Compounds policy" mot the Missouri
Compromise for the new doctrine Of Non-In
terventionn
g. John P. Hale never said anything Of the
kind, and athe organ = knows IL What h
did cay, re shall quote from the record, with
out garbling he Language, IS the organ
does in another artiole Mr.. Foote had spokeu