The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-07-13

pclving On appropriation OF m0uey.
This motion was decided in the affirmative
yeas 101, nays IA.
| The question was then taken on tho adop
ton Of the resolution and resulted-yeas 100
nays So.
PARTY NAMES.
A friend in Illinois suggests that the name
Of the new Party of Freedom in process Of
formation, should be, the Peoples Party
This is pretty good. But he adds that the op.
posing party ought to be designated the @Party
| of Hypocrites." This is rather hard.
| PROCEEDINGS OF MEETINGS., &c.-Reports
of many Anti-Nebraska meetings were sent to
US while the Bill was under consideration.
Some we published, some were crowded out.
In looking over the report of meeting of citi-
zens of Boonton, Now Jersey, we find the fol-
lowing resolution in regard to MIR. SHELTON,
one of tho steadfast opponents of the measure
in Congress-:
Resolved, That our sincere thanks are due
to Mr.. SHELTON, from New Jersey, for the able
manner IN which he has opposed the Nebraska
bill in the House of Representatives.
Let the friends of freedom of all parties re-
turn thanks to Mr.. Shelton, by returning him
| to his seat
Our VENERABLE FRIEND AT LocKPoRT,
N. T., who wrote to US some time since, appre-
hending that the champions of freedom might
be discouraged by the odds against them, need
not fear. They were never in better spirits,
never more determined upon the re.establish-
ment of the Right.
MIR. KEPHART writes to US letter, in which
he says" The letter in the New York Tribune
was not written for publication, as | stated to
Mr.. Greeley in note at tho conclusion. The
object of the letter was to furnish few facts
in relation to Kansas Territory especially,
which might be of some use to emigrants about
to remove thither. These facts in relation to
soil, localities, SO, | told the editor he could
use, if he saw proper. The part of tho letter
you have quoted in the Era was merely Incl
dental, and did not expect it to be publish
ed.n
He says our comments upon it "seem to
charge an Intentional Misrepresentation We
did not intend to charge the misrepresenta-
ton as "intentional"-nor did we do 50.
MIR. Kephart proceeds
@The editor of the Era has, however, fallen
into one error. He says, Mr.. X. held that
Slavery would go into the Territory in spite of
it, (the Missouri Compromised If it is meant
that expected Nebraska to be constituted a
slave State, with the Missouri Compromise still
an force, that was certainly giving me credit
for great deal of stupidity. / fully believe
that, unless more virtue and moro of the spirit
of manly resistance can be aroused in the
North, the present free States will become
slave States, and that before many years, IN
spite of the Ordinance of 1887, or any other
present safeguard of freedom. But hope DR..
Bailey does not suppose me SO stupid as to
think such transition from Freedom to Sla-
| very will take place, and these safeguards, at
the same time, remain. Icertainly did believe
that tho Missouri Compromise would be re-
pealed or the same result attained in some
other way, unless the public attention could be
turned to the subject in time, and the North
aroused to resist it. IL was upon this point
that | thought DR.. Bailey, and other friends
of Freedom to whom mentioned those fears,
thought them groundless.
al confess however, that the repeal Of the
Missouri compromise, IN the manner at aras
done, was not the mode by which | had sup
From what had seen, | was led to believe that
their plan was to gain possession by pre- occu-
pancy, and then make the eristence of slavery
there kind of pre- emption right for its con-
tinuance. Thus they would forestal freedom
in that Territory until State Government was
to be formed, when there would be another
compromise, in which slavery, as usual, would
triumph. did not suppose the decision would
be made for perhaps ten or fifteen years yet to
come. In all this I was, Of course, as greatly
deceived in the recent hurried and astounding
transactions of Congress, as any one else"
Wehavc presented the only material portions
of Mr. Kepharts letter. They leave tho case
precisely as our comments presented it, except
go far as MIR. X. represents us as unapprehen-
sive of the introduction Of slavery into Nebras-
ka. So far from this we were full of anxiety
on that point, and expressly advocated the form
alton of a Territorial Government, as hold
ing out the best prospect for excluding it.
Without it the anti-slsvery restriction could
not be enforced-slavery could be smuggled
into the Territory--slayery insidiously grow up
there. With it, on the basis of the Missouri
Compromise, as was proposed, the law prohib-
ting il could be enforced. The Missouri Com
D, omise was the law, and would be just as much
in force, as a new Wilmot Proviso, formally en-
acted. IL the Shareholders would disregard the
former, so they would the latter. Mr. Kephart's
point was, not that the Missouri Compromise
would be repealed, but that it would prove IN
sufficient. Our ground was, that it was just
as good as Wilmot Proviso, if Territorial
Government were formed on the basis Of it. SO
thought the Shareholders, and therefore re-
pealcd it, which nobody in the spring OF 1852
dreamed Of
As to the necessity of calling "publie atten-
ton to the NATTER we wore so deeply I'M
pressed that we commenced the work forth
with in the Era, and arc not aware that We
were derclict at any time through over-conii-
dence.
But enough of this apersonal explanation"
THE RAILROAD DIsAsrER.-Inquests have
been held in the cases of several of the per-
sons killed by this disaster, and the verdicts
are generally of the following tenor:
"Afser duly considering the evidence in the
late collision case, the Jury find-1st. That the
special orders issued to conductors running
excursion and other trains between Baltimore
and point on the Susquehanna Railroad,
known as Riders Switch on the day of the
4th of July last, should have been more ex-