Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-04
CORRECT THE RECORD!

proper to give, frankly, and with the earnestness
which so grave a question naturally impressed us
with but in terms free from all ayoidable offence
towards those who might differ from u.s. This OPT
Mon was adverse, of course, to a movement which
we felt confident must rekndle the fires of sectional
agitation, strife, and bitterness. The Editors of
this Journal the constant advocates of mutual con-
cession, harmony, and peace among the members OF
the Confederacy, could consistently entertain no
other; but having briefly as we could, expressed
our objections, we were content to leave the ques-
ton where it originated and to be decided, and
to those who are fully competent to discuss it. 1t
is true that opinion was we expected 1t would
be, denounced in quarters which we esteem, but
where reason and truth held, perhaps naturally
in subordination to sectional senstiyeness Making
due allowance however, for our assalants we pass
ed their censures by unnoticed.
The present is not the first time that we have
had to encounter demonstration. Denunciation
was quite as angry when it became our duty to ques-
ton the wisdom of movements, whether at Nash
Vile or elsewhere, which menaced the fraternity OF
feeling on which the sacred ark of the Union rests.
But, in the present case, we thought if soft words
have the power to turn away wrath" silence might
work the same good end ; and, having said our say,
we determined to speak no more upon the sub
ect Occasion has arisen, however, which forces US
to break this reserve.
It will not have escaped the observation Of the
readers of the proceedings in Congress that in the
House of Representatives on Friday, the 18th IN
slant, the course of the National Iateiyencer was
gravey arraigned in passage of the speech made
by Mr.. STEPHENS, of Georgia, of which the follow
ing report was published in our paper of the ensu-
ing day, and is repeated, in other terms in the re-
yised and enlarged report of his speech inserted in
this number, viz:
He noticed, few weeks since, in the National In
teigencer paper of long standing in this country IN
article speaking of this compromise not much less sa
cred than the Constitution itself 1t enough to make
the blood cold in the heart Of every patriot to hear OF
any attempt to disturbt Yet when JOHN Quincy ADAMS
in 1885, moved to disturb it, why did not the lntegen-
Ger sound the alarm that the Constitution and the coun-
try were in danger? When eighty men from the North
voted to disturb it, why did the Integencer speak
out? When fco recorded their votes against the
admission Of Arkansas because her constitution toera
ted slavery why did not this conservative paper then
speak out But he must pass on"
we nave AcEtlOlOlC lSliuAuSu iioii a'iuoi'0 "
this arragnment lest we should do injustice to Mr..
STEPHENS Sincerely entertaining for this gentle
sons character SO we'll ente tss a sH9u h have
been glad to be spared the necessity of repeling
injustice at hands; but as we have placed in
our own columns the imputation upon our editorial
conduct which his interrogatory on the floor of
Congress implies, an answer to it is unavoidable.
Wy Al l,,o poce;h1a
to show its injustice, of which we feel confident
that every one of our readers will be satisfied who
shall follow in retracng the history of the events
referred to in the above extract, and which are
somewhat elaborated in the fuller report contained
in the preceding columns.
The time mentioned, it will be perceived, is 1886,
and the occasion the admission of Arkansas as
State of the Union. Mr. STEPHENS asks "why
the Intelligencer did not speak on" when Mr..
ADAMS moved to amend the Constitution of Ar
kansas on her admission into the Union? Our
answer is very simple and very conclusive-the
extension or restriction Of Slacery ~as not on that
occasion made question By Mr.. adams; nor was
there at that time any violent sectional agitation,
such as existed in lS4S-50. There was, to be
SURF, soLc cAcilcLucnp, ChoouiaSSo ~ PoAieA'
abotionists, and countenanced by some other per-
sons at the North, growing out of a supposed IN
fringement of the right of petition IN regard to
slavery in the District of Columbia To this state
of things from which there was no reason to ap-
prehend any immediate danger to the country, we
seldom, if ever, referred in our columns, unless
incidentally, aui then, we believe, We invariably
spoke in terms Of censure of the factious and I'M
patriotic spirtwhch it indicated. One paragraph Of
this description will be found directly under the
Editorial head of the National Intelligencer of
the 10Th of March, 1886, and reads as follows:
+" In the SENATE the debate upon the questions
arising out of the Wtimed and M-considered memo
rails for the abolition of slavery within the District
of Columbia was brought to close, by the RE-
ELECTION BIZ Hrty-tour Uoes 10 sic Of the memorial
on that subject which the Senate had agreed to
ceive; and, after getting rid Of this unpleasant
subject the Senate adjourned over to Monday"
The proceeding here referred to was the decision
of the Senate in rejecting the prayer of amemoral
from Quarterly Meeting Of the Religious Society
of Friends, commonly called Quakers," held in Ian
caster county, Pennsylvania, on the 18th Of No
vember, 1885. They asked Congress to abolish
slavery in this District, and the motion by which
their memorial was definitely disposed of was in the
most direct and positive form, viz that the prayer
of the petition be rejected" The memorial, 1t is