Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-09-02
MONDAY, AUGUST %, 1854.

lead his hearers or his readers as the case may be-
from the true question under discussion by present
ing something that resembles it. A labor of this
sort the sBoston Post has attempted in an elabo-
rate article on the subject Of the Missouri Restriction
It has quoted from the opinions Of all the Presi-
dents, from Jefferson to Taylor, inclusive, to show
that they denounced the compromise line Of 380 30.
whereas the most careless cannot fail to discover
that the burden of their letters related to the at
tempted restriction in 1920 the State of Missouri
President JEFFERSON conended that the regulation Of
the different conditions Of men composing State was
certainly the exclusive right Of every State which moth
ing in the Constitution has taken from them and given to
the General Government"
And he deprecated the existence Of g geographi-
cal parties such the late agitation Of the slavery
question has revived but he lid not spend his
anathemas especially upon the line Of 36o S0
President MADIsoa was decidedly against any restrc-
lion upon State, and said 81 that have
always leaned to the belief that the restriction issour
line Of S6o sO within the true scope Of the Con-
stitution."
But he even qualified this opinion in q subsequent
part of his letter.
President MosRoE February 16, 1920 in letter ad-
dressed to Judge Roane stated that he should veto the
billrcative to the admission Of Missouri if pre-
scented to him for signature. He says:
"y decided opinion is that all the States composing
our Union, well old, must have equal rights,
cedng to the General Government equal share Of pow
err and retaining to themselves the like that they cam
not be incorporated into the Union different principles
or conditions Should bill pass admitting Ms
souri, suso 70 restraint shall have difficulty in the
to be pursued shall in any future case,
specting the admission Of any other State to s
right as State"
President MosnoE (ays the Post prepared veto mes
sage for the bill then in Congress The rough notes Of
this message still in existence having been found
among his manuscripts Sc.
True but the answer to all this is, that Mr..
MONROE waived his objections to the bill Of March
6, 1920, after consultation with his Cabinet, of
which Mr.. CALHOUN was member, and signed the
blu It is useless, therefore, to bring up specua-
tire sopinions, given an anticipated state of
things, to overturn official acts
The opinions Of President ADAMS this subject
record both before he filed the Executive chair and sub
sequently to this period When the fanacal cry went
throdh the North, in 1920 Of slave States,
t is to his credit statesman and constitution
abiding citin that he used his influence against The pro-
posed restriction Tie State Of Missouri writing against
in the journals The question came up on the ad-
mission Of the slave State Of Arkansas after he had been
President food Of petitions remonsrances, and me-
MORALS poured into Congress against the admission Of
Arkansas slave State and many of these were sent
to Mr. ADAMS at that time s36) in the House Of Repre-
senta.ives He addressed the House on several occa-
sons in the course Of the debate Here his emphatic
words:
sI cannot consistently with my sense of my obliga-
tiors citizen Of the United States, BOUND BY
SUPPORT THEIR CONSTITUTION, cannot object to
the admission of Arkansas slave State cannot
pose agree to make it condition that convention of
hr people shall expunge this article avery cause from
Der Constitution
Note the fact that the opposition Of Mr.. ADAMS
Ras to The restriction upon the State of Missouri
Not word about the dividing line And this affords
another opportunity to repeat how unjustly the me-
mory Of Mr. ADAMS was assailed during the late
session for alleged opposition to the admission Of
Arkansas as slaoe State.
President JACKSON not called to act upon this ques
ton when he was President. His opinions empha
caly expressed during the Missouri controversy when
he indignantly denounced the principle Of the proposed
restriction Missouri In letter addressed to Pres
dent MONROE, 1920, he said:
81 sincerely regret the unpleasant situation in which
the House Of Representatives have placed the nation by
the vote rejecting the State Of Missouri Should the
House Of Representatives reconsider the subject shud
for the consequence The feelings Of the South and
West are aroused. The Eastern and Northern people
have fully unmasked themselves, and, II judge
recy, Missouri will not retrograde humble herself.
Missouri may seize the public property within her limits
What will Congress then adopt. Ihope the meo
ry w e spa Of this rash, dspotc act and admit the
State and prevent the evil"
This letter was written in January, 1921, and
not in 1920, when the attempt made by certain
Northern men to reneU the rcstriction on Missouri.
It did not discuss the line Of restriction upon the
Territory and therefore does not bear upon the argu
ment at all In his Farewell Address he claimed
for State, not Territory, the fright to regulate
Its internal concerns according to its own plea
sure" Not word about the dividing line, and
therefore the question has bearing upon the issue
President HARRISON is quoted from as late as
1877, when he said in Congress that the Northwest
ordinance could not apply to .State-that he could
not vote to put restriction on sosereiga State.
He also opposed the restriction Missouri; yet the
Democratic party used all their ingenuity to prove
that he was an Abolitionist. But, mark, he made
not the slightest complaint about the geographical
line fixed by the first compromise
As sequel to all this 1t is appropriate to intro
duce the views Of Southern gentlemen of high stand
ing in regard to this dividing line of36o 3O against
which an outcry was only raised after Mr. DIXON,
Whig, and Mr. SuMNxR, Freesoiler, "joined