Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-25
ERRORS OF THE PRESS.

/ Our friend of the Sentinel devotes almost CO.
lumn in his Saturdays paper to the laudable pur-
pose of correcting mistakes which he alleges widely
prevail in respect to the history of the Missouri
Compromise. 1t is to be regretted that, in the pur
suit of SO meritorious purpose, the "Sentinef'
should at the outset become itself involved in er
rors quite as gross as any it would reprove. Thus
the G Sentinel pointedIy AYERS that the National
Intelligencer has published remarks equivalent to
direct and positive assertion of the fact" that Mr.
CLAY " originated and carried through" the Mis-
souri, Compromise. This ayerment is the more ex-
traordinary, considering the Sentines claim to the
possession of memory which "never remembers
wrongly"
We must suppose, then, that the Editor of the
Sentinel has seriously perused the editorial
remarks in our paper of the 9th instant to which he
has more than once adverted lie he had so read
those remarks he must have seen that we then in
yited the earnest attention Of all our younger read
ers, himself among the number, to the fact of Mr.
CLAY's steady opposition to the restriction upon
| Missouri" !" The same fact was again stated in our
paper of the 14th instant. n
Equally remote from correct impression of the
circumstances of Mr.. CLAYs connexion with the
Hclosing scenes of the Missouri controversy more
than thirty years ago. is the idea of the SENT.
nel' that Mr.. CLAY, in one of the speeches which
he delivered in 1850 on the recent measures of ad-
iustment washed his hands of all and any connexion
with the Missouri Compromise of 1920" In his
speech in the Senate of February 9th, 1850, Mr.
CLAY remarked on this subject as follows:
4 aka ta Oh tboeau vho
voted for the line $50 3U were the majority of the
Southern members. My friend from Alabama,
| Mr.. KING,) in the Senate, Mr.. PINKNEY, from
Maryland, and indeed the majority of the South
'crn Senators voted in favor Of the line 36o 30; !;
and the majority of the Southern Members in the
other House, at the head Of whom was Mr.
'LowNDEs himself, voted also for that line. /
have no doubt did also; but, as [ was Speaker
of the House at the time, and the Journal does not
show how the Speaker votes except in the case of
tie, was not able to ascertain by resort to the
records how | did vote; but have very little
doubt that | voted, in common with my other
Southern friends, for the adoption, in spirit of
compromise, it is true, of the line 360 3V."
| How little obnoxious we are to the seoidng ad-
monition of the "-Sentnel" q to refresh our recol
lection of past events and do justice to the truth of
history" the Sentinel itself might have seen by
an inspection of the National Intellgencer of the
14th instant. 1t will be found to contain a con-
densed but faithful history Of the enactments con-
stituting the compromises of 1901 and 1850, pre-
pared in compliance with the suggestion of an es-
teemed subscriber in Jefferson county, Virginia.
But the Sentinel in its number of yesterday
commits another grave error in sayins thas the Mis
souri, Compromise "was never approved by the
South )" but, on the contrary, was forced upon
the South" As sufficient set off to this assertion
we republish the votes in both Houses of Congress
upon the law prohibiting slavery in the Terrific
ries west and north of Missouri, and also the sub
Joined extract from letter of CHARLES PINCk-
NEY, of South Carolina. This gentleman, it must
be recollected, was an active member of the Con-
vention which framed the Constitution of the
United States was member of the Senate from
1898 till 1907, when he was appointed Minister to
Spain by Mr.. JEFFERSON; and subsequently, repre-
sented South Carolina in the House of Represen-
tatves from 1917 to 1921; all Of which attest his
qualifications as valued public servant, well as
his popularity in his native State
CONGRESS HALL, MARCH ,, 1920,
I" Three o'cloch at night
DEAR SIR: I hasten to inform you that this
moment we have carried the question to admit
Missouri and all Louisiana to the southward OF
$50 30' free of the restriction of slavery, and
give the South, in a short time, an addition Of
six, and perhaps eight, members to the Senate Of
the United States. IT'S considered here By The SaUc
holding States as A GREAT TRIUMPH The votes
were close-ninety to eighty-six, THE vote was SO
first declared produced by the seeding and alb
sence of a few moderate men from the North. To
the north of $50 80 there is to be, by the present
law, restriction, which you will by the votes
voted against But it is at present of no moment
it is vast tract, uninhabitcd, only by savages
and wild beasts, in which not foot of the Indian
claim to the soil is extinguished, and in which,
according to the ideas prevalent, no land office
| will be open for great length of time.
/" With respect, your obedient servant,
" CHARLES PINckNEY."
In republishing the affirmative and negative votes
in Congress upon the slavery restriction contained
in the act of 1920, admitting Missouri into the
Union as State, it is necessary to explain that the
House of Representatives had first inserted in the
bill an amendment prohibiting slavery in the State
of Missouri which was in the words following, viz
And shall ordain and establish that there shall be
neither slavery involuntary servtude otherwise than
in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted Provided always that any person
escaping into the same, from whom labor service is
lawfully claimed in any other State, such fugitive may
be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claim.