Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-04-08

SoS5ASsS-SAA',A
debates and newspaper discussion, we are rather
indsposed to the further agitation of the subject in
our columns at present but cases occasionally arise
which we consider entitled to be made exceptions,
in the two articles which follow They are both
from sources known to US and we admit them be-
cause the first is from aGSouthern Wing and the
second from Northern Democrat, who claim from
Us the courtesy to be heard through our columns.
PETERSBURG (yA) MARCH 81, 1854
Messrs EpIroas: How pleasant it is to contemplate
the prospect with which are now cheered that the
Missouri compromise will not be repealed now, when y
is so specially desirable that these favored States shall
dwell together in harmonious union! How unfortunate
that the day Of perfect peace, which believe VIII
vet come the unwse efforts Of abotonists to the con.
rary should have been postponed by this
new troubling of the pool Of bitter waters! How
much better it had been that CUTTING and BREcKINRDGE
had been spared tie strife into which they have been
plunged and which but the autype Of the strife on
larger scale between the antagonist interests OF the North
and the South that is to come on the proposed
peal is consummated This individual might have
been spared if the Presidential example Of Mr. Polk had
been folowed-the wise and patriotic example OF MIR.
PoLKvho in his annual message Congress- the 9th
December 1s4s said that the restriction north of the
only yielded the Of Missouri and Texas
upon principle Of compromise made necessary for the
sake Of preserving the harmony and possibly the exist
ence of the Union Whilst the cbiteraon OF that line
may have been proposed in the Nebraska bill for the sake
Of harmony, and may have been suggested from high
official with that expectation it is very unlikely
that any intelligent has failed to and be satisfied
by the development Of the popular opinion already made
manifest that depored discord, and not expected harmo
n.y. be the result and such fearful extent as to
him who suggested the repeal if he be patriot
to pause and think and if he be wise to desst 1t is
dsvouty to be wished as long the existing state Of
things the subject shall seem to require it, that
the same principle of compromise which constrained
the line to be yielded to in 1920 and 1s45 wi without
another ncpient struggle be suffered to be suspended
Is for the sake of harmony on the sub
ject Of such fiery elements that it cannot be touched
without being kindled into conaagration.
Wise Mr. Polks course and able as was his an
nual message Of December lS4S there one suggestion
in that message which have been able to under
stand having any appreciabe consistency with his
other views, or any sensible sgnifcancy to the sub
jec although distinguished Senator has in his speech
recently made and published dwet with appreciation on
the suggestion. 1t is these words in that message to
wit:
"But if Congress shall now reverse tho decision by
which the Missouri compromise was effected and shau
propose to extend the restriction the whole territory
south well north of the parallel of thirty sx de-
grees thirty minutes, viii cease TO be compromise, and
saust be regarded az an original question:.
How so? Why to be regarded as original question
The exclusion of negro slavery from the north side Of Sc
Boy to the territory embraced within that exclusion,
distinct proposition, approved and embalmed in
solemn legislation. Suppose Congress- in $780, refusing
they did, extend the line to the Pacific had, instead
of the compromises Of that year. adopted the policy of
excluding slavery from the south well north Of that
line in the territory acquired Of Mexico, would the law
making that policy authoritative to that territory
have taken away the right hold slaves the south of
limo in old territory which the legislation of
1920 and lS45 distinctly applied? Take the same prin
sPsi the other direction. suppose the legislation Of
1885, instead Of being it was, had determined that
slavery be introduced into the Territories
the north side Of gee 3O would such law, distinctly
applying the Territories, have given the right to
Introduce slavery into the territory from which it
distinctly excluded by the legislation Of ls202l! 1t
is that it "a principle Of compromise" which
was adopted when Missouri in but it is neverthe-
less that the extent Of the application Of that prn
cple the territory it to embrace to wit, all
that territory ceded by France the United Safes
der the Of Louisiana which lies north Of 3Go 3O
not included within the limits of the State contemplated
by this act" distinctly defined 10 those very words
Thus clearly it is not correct in fact in logic to say
Congress any time since 1921 had egated to exclude
slavery from the south introduce it north Of 36
3 any territory acquired that such legislation by
its simple strength would could have the effect to
reopen the question settled by the legislation to the
territory ceded by France" and hi, territory
make it to be regarded "as original question" 1t
might be urged the whole South in the Senate has
since urged that the principle Of compromise of 1920
ought have induced Congress extend the line to the
Pacific; but it is principle Of compromise" which ap
plies only where and when is made apply by distinct
legislation PUBLIUS
DAYTON (OHIo,) MARCH 25 1854
To tie Editors Of tho National Iatstigener:
As q non intervention Democrat of the North and an
original supporter Of the compromise of 1885,
protest against the issue attempted be made in the