Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-04-09
The Richmond Enquirer Its MisTepre-
sentation Of mr.. BcaIe--Its Reputation
af the CnmuFumise Qf $50.

The Richmond Enquirer Its Misrepre-
sentation Of mr.. Bcale--Its Reputation
of the Compromise Of 1850.
Our readers, and especially thosein Virginia,
will remember that, ON two occasions within
the past week, we have commented upon the
charge made by the Richmond Enquirer against
the Hon. j. NJ. ii. Beale, that he was "rOtten'
on tho slave question. In making this charge,
which has been endorsed by various anti Amer
lean presses, the following language was used
by the Enquirer, and to which we now invite
the especial attention Of the people of Virginia,
as it is our purpose to show, that the Enquirer
has misrepresented the action and motives Of
Mr.. Beale, and has imposed upon its readers
and the public.
TheSfollowing is Its language, in its leader Of
April I'd, viz: - s9 ,.#
"The Know Nothing Wing press are confound-
ed by the disclosure Of the fact that their candi-
date for Lieutenant Governor voted for the abolition
! Of the slave trade In tie District Of Columbia.
This instance Of treachery to the South cannot be
appreciated in all its enomity, unless recollsct
that Virginia, through her Legislature, had made
the abolition of the slave trade In the District Of
Columbia an issue Of union or disunon, and, in the
most solemn and imposing manner, had instruct
| ed her representatives to resist the measure at
every hazard and to the last extremity Mr..
Beale treated the declared viii of the State with
contemptuous indifference, deserted the ranks OF
the patriots of the South, In crisis when a man,
| even of his insigni6cance and imbecity, might
have controlled the issue Of the struggle, and ar
rayed himself In association with abolitionists
against the manifest interests and express nstruc-
- Al. 90
ate the criminaity OF his conduct by pleading OBJ
liquity of Judgment, for the State had clearly
marked out and imperatively enjoned a particular
policy on her representatives. His treachery is
aggravated by the guilt Of desertion in crisis OF
extraordinary peril and of uncertain ISSUE"
We have hitherto demonstrated, that if Mr..
reason of voting to suppress the slave trade
and slave depots in the District of Columbia
so also was Douglas and Cass, and Houston
and Dickinson, and sundry other leading Dem
ccrats equally "rotten," because they gave the
same vote as Mr.. Beale, and that even Thomas
Richie, then editor of the Washington Union,
had sanctioned and sustained this measure
But the points which we now propose to dis
cuss in this connexion are the following, viz:
Did Mr.. Beale in this vote commit an act Of
treachery to the State Of Virginia.
Was Virginia at the time this vote was given,
| pledged to resist this measure at every hazard
and to the last extremity"
Was Mr.. Beale under instructions, or even
under request, to vote against this measured
Did Mr.. Beale " treat the instructions of Vir-
GINA with contemptuous indifference" in Civ.
ing this voter
Did he array himself against the express
instructions" of his Statea
Mr.. Beale stands charged by the Richmond
Enquirer, In the above extract, with all these
enumerated sins. Is he guiltyf Or has the
Enquirer charged him wrongfullya This is
the issue now before US. 1t is not denied by
us, but admitted, that in ls49, during the pen
dency of questions arising upon the Wilmot
proviso, Virginia had instructed her represent
atives to resist this and kindred measures, "to
the last extremity" and had made the passage
Of any measure, restricting slavery or the slave
trade within the United States, IAN issue OF
Union or Disunion," as stated by the Enquirer.
But zoe sag, and zoe mean TO prone, that Pr
ginia had abandoned this ground, as to the
"slape trade in the District Of Columbia"
before Mr. Beale gaoe the cote, which was the
foundation Of these grave charges, and zoe say
further, and zoe mean to prooe, that Virginia
sanctioned and approved this Uery measure
after Mr.. Beale had poted for i'll
Do we not fairly meet the issue rendered by
H. H.
stoodf
1t is well known that in the winter Of 1850,
the Compromise bill was introduced into the
Senate of the United States, and that the origi-
nal bill embraced several contested PROPOSE
tons, and, amongst them, that one which pro-
yided for the uPpression Of the practice Of
bringing SLAVES into the District for sale as
merchandise, and tho Keeping Of slape-depots
for the sale Of slares IN the District. Il must
be borne in mind, that neither the original bill,
nor the separate bill now referred to, rs II pass
ed, affected slavery, or tho condition of slaveS
in the District, nor prevented residents or
scjourners from bringing in slaves for their
own use, nor prevented them from selling such
slaves, either within the District or outside the
District; but its only effect was, spd its only
eject Is, to prevent the practice above stated
1t is also known that whilst the general bill,
embracing the several propositions, was not
passed, all the different measures therein en-
braced were passed, in separate bills, and were
unitedly called the Compromise measures of
1850" They were passed in September, 1850
Pending tho discussion of the original bill in the
Senate, the Legislature Of Virginia being in
session, a joint committee was appointed by
the Virginia Assembly, ION the Wilmot pro
viso and kindred subjects" who made their
report, which was taken up and read, in the
House of Delegates, on the 9th day Of Febru-
AIRY, 1850.
The second resolution Of the series, as intro
duced by the joint committee Of the Virginia
Assembly, in February, 1850, road as follows,
to wit
Resolved, That in the event Of the passage Of
the Wilmot proviso, or of any law abolishing
slavery, or The slave trads in the District Of Column
bia, or between the States, Virginia win be pre-