Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-04-07
correspondence OF the Enquirer.

Objections to each Noticed.
WAHsINGToS, ArRsL ), lSSi.
For some weeks, engagements OF a pressing ci'arac'a:
have prevented me from writing you on the great gncsti'n
OF the day. Perhaps neither yourselves or your readef' f"s'
lost any thing. Ii may be, that this is the last letter shall
address you on the subject, and | therefore ask permission
TO present some plain, but honestly entertained views re
specting the new and extraordinary position 10 which the
question now stands.
cannot, after q careful view OF the whole subject, land a
very free interchauge of opinions with the members OF The
House, and examination Of the late vote taken, Inc classlhca-
ton, &c, Of that vote, which | enclose you and request you
TO publish with this letter. doubt the final passage OF the
bill. Its passage is only a question Of limo but the bill
caunot pass, and, / think. ought not 10 pass, with The CLAY.
ton amendment" For the life Of me, l cannot sec why the
rrue friends of the bill should ever have permitted that
amendment, TO be "tacked on" can readily understand why
the secret enemies, but proessed friends, should have de-
sired it bur, | ask, why should such an amendment, for the
FIRST time, be applied 10 this territorial bill, which was never
applied 10 any territorial bil2 Why, If il was JUS, and pro.
per, should the discovery BE- made at this late day! Can
any good result from il now? | humbly think not.
The badger amendment" however, is A very different
thing, and, under all the circumstances, n proper one, as /
think. 1 know, in expressing this opinion, am in conflict
sIsnds : fsSd5 Whose 9% p is9ssaty ~ an sn Y 'a satH TsIiSss9H'SsSS;f i
cannot even be questioned. They, however, Ike ali oi U.s.
NAV err in their judgment.
Who in Virginia can suppose that such men as Hunter
and Mason, Butter and Evans OF South Carolina, and other
sen,inels, ever en- the watch tower, would ever have snstain-
ed by their rotes and speeches, that amendment, II they had
not knoun Thai IL could rot De %prcJudiciol to the rights Of the
South.
tended, lst. Tha, the so-caled Missouri Compromise is IN
constitutional, and therefore void. Fl. That, even if con.
sli,utionaI, as q legislative act, il is odious--as it goes upon
the assumption of inequaiiy-and therefore shonld be re-
pealed. II is true the South has heretofore been Wiling 10
obssrrc i, in a spirit OF good faith, and would have been
willing 10 1850 to have carried out the understanding. bu'
l need not say 10 YOU or any one. con.s sisa ~ WIN nr r i've pro- n
acIinr in rood faith 10 the North-and denied that priv
Icae IIy The North. As | have just said, the South was will
Ing 10 do thls-not because of The binding and foiee OF the
act Of 1920, but upon the same principle which would actu.
ate two farmers, who held possession OF q plantation IN
common-one raised horses and the other sheep and as they
MIGHT not get along well together, they might very properly
agree that a fence should be made 10 Keep mem apart: ]
make this as an illustration. Blu, it must be borne 10 mind,
that the sfence' has been kept up against the SCUM, while
The North has at all times had the right OF crossing the line
and fully enjoying the benefits on the other side.
This was the position OF Inc TWO sections li many year.
At last, u sense OF justice, prompted a gallant son OF a
Western State 10 come forward with the "ollVe oraHch, ana
say, in substance TO The South, 1.-THE time has conc when
this odious distinction between US should be broken down J!
The South, without hesitation, replies, I'VE thinR co. too'
aud we are pleased the proposition has come from yoa"-
Thus mi alters stood, when some Northerh senlctnen, VINO
were every way disposed to render justice 10 all parties, were
induced TO fear, if tho Missouri line was repealed mat II
would be construed at home as ltgtslaItng slavery mo INC
territory, and as they denied the right of Congress to leafs
late against slavery, they did not wish, by any vote 81 theirs,
to seem to legisla,e in fauor Of slavery. The Southtthron@h
her wstchfuI representatives, al once said we offer you nm
assurance in this amendment, that we do not 'ratend by
this bill any such thing" This is the substance oil The 'bne'
ger amendment nothing more, nothing less. rc"pecttnl.
~ submit, 10 gu, Southern friends il 1t ia not just to our
Northern frieods, who have honest doubts OF the elect 0,
the bill, that we should cay thus much 10 them ! Inc SCUM
has ever commended that we hold our slave properly un"s,
the constitution, and do not require any positive enactment
to strengthen our rights. Let us not, by any act,ol ours
take any other ground, md let US not, by any siSnt once
tons, which a few gentlemen may have 10 tho bill AcopaIi-
izs a great principle, attempted to be carried out o. 1.-THE
principle Of mon intervention" That once firmly estao'
iished, and my word for it, we shall no more have those
"b,rLs Of i'll oncn,' The Stewards" The "Chascs,' the
"HaIes' and the Summers" in the Halls Of Congress, dis
,urbinq the pcuc &C and the prosperity of our much favored coun.
Try. The good sought TO be obtained by this hi! is OF 100 much
impor lance to be- lost by objections TO the details Of n minor
character, it, indeed, there be any well founded, which do
not believe, with the exception already named, the Clayton
amendment. "OBSERVER"
ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE ON MR.. CUTTINGS
MOTION OF REFERENCE.
We arc indebted TO q friend for The following RELIABLE and
carefully prepared analysis of the vote in the fIouse.of Rep.
rcscu,aiives on MIR. Cuttings motion 10 refer the senatc's
Nebraska bill 10 the Committee Of the Whole on thc>state OF
Iha IJnion: