Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-07-14
cprrenca in II vas immediately uspd AGAINST

CT on-believcd fully that no such thing had
occurred--and adhered firmly to the new dogma
of total denial cf all constitutional power in
Congress to legislate slavery from territory
This brought up rccollections to sustain the
tradition which told of the consultation-to
show that it took place-that its voice was
unanimous in favor of the compromise-and
consequently that Mr. Calhoun himself was in
favor of it. Old writings were produced.
First, facsimile copy of an original paper
in Mr.. Monroe's handwriting, found among his
manuscripts, dated March 4th 1920, 1.-TWO
days before the approval of the Missouri
Compromise act,) and endorsed " lnterroga-
-MiSsouri-to the heads Of departments
and the Attorncy-G General :" and containing
within two questions " |. Has Congress Il
right, under the powers vested in it by the
constitution, to make a regulation prohibiting
slavery in territory? 2. Is the Sth section of
the act which passed both houses of Congress,
on the Sd instant for the admission of Missouri
into the Union, consistent with the constitu-
ton ?"
iScc0ndfy, the draft Of an original letter in
Mr.. Monroc's handwriting, but without
signature, date or address, but believed to have
been addressed to General Jackson, in which
he says The question which lately agitated
Congress and the public has been settled, as
you have seen, by the passage of an act for
the admission of Missouri, as state, unreStrict-
ed and Arkansas, also, when it reaches maturity
and the establishment of the parallel of sc
degrees 80 minutes as line north of which
slavery is prohibited, and permitted south of
it. | took the opinion, in writing, of the
administration as to the cOnStitutiOnality of re-
straining territories, which was explicit in favor
of it, and as it was that the 9Th section of the
act was applicable to territories only, and not
to states when they should be admitted into the
Union.
Thirdly, an extract from the diary of Mr.
John Quincy Adams, under date of the Sd of
Mr.. March, 1920, stating that the President
on that day assembled his cabinet to ask their
opinions on the two questions mentioned, which
the whole cabinet Immediately answered unan-
mously and afiirmatively that on the 5th he
sent the questions in writing to the members
Of his cabinet, to receive their written answers
to be filed in the Department of State ; and
that on the 9th he took his own answer to the
President, to be fled with the rest all agreeing
in the affirmative and only differing some in
assigning, others not assigning reasons for his
opinion. The diary states that the President
signed his approval of the Missouri act on the
9th, (Which the act shows he did, and re-
queSted Mr.. Adams to have all the opinions
filed in the Department of State.
Upon this evidence it would have rested
without question that Mr. MOnroe's cabinet
had been consulted on the constitutionality of
the Missouri Compromise line, and that all
concurred in it, had it not been for the denial
Mr.. Calhoun in the debate on the Oregon
Territorial bill. His denial brought out this
evidence and, Notwithstanding its production
and concluSiveness, he adhered teaaciously to
his disbelief of the whole occurrence, and
especially the whole of his own imputed share
in it, Two circumstances, speCiOuS in them
selves, favored this denial first, that no such
papers as those described by Mr. Adams were
to be found in the Department of State
secondly, that in the original draft of Mr.
Monroe'S letter, it had first been written
that the affirmative answers of his cabinet to
his two interrogatories were unanim0us,"
which word had been crossed out and elplicjt"
substituted
With some these circumstances weighed no.
thing against the testimony of two witnesses,
and the current corroborating incidents of
lId(uIlOu III IuS ID iJSC VI CNSh' N-SCNCH lCdlS,
and in the changes to which our cabinet officers
and the clerks of departments are subjected it
was easy to believe that the papers had been
mislaid or lost-far easier than to believe that
Mr.. Adams could have been mistaken in the
entry made in his dairy at the time And as
to the substitution of explicit for unanimous"
that was known to be necessary in order to
avoid the violation of the rule which forbid the
disclosure Of individual opinions in the cabinet
consultations. With others, and especially
with the political friends of Mr.. Calhoun, they
were received as full confirmation of his denial,
and left them at liberty to accept his present
opinions as those of his whole life, uninvalidat-
ed by previous personal discrepancy and the
weight of cabinet decision under Mr. Monroe :;
and accordingly the newborn dogma of no
pooccr IN Congress TO egisiate upon tie eristcuce
of aqrery IN territories became an article of
political faith, incorporated in the creed and
that for action, Of large political party
What is now brought to light of the proceed
ings in the Senate in 1873, shows this to have
been mstake-that Mr. Calhoun admitted
the power in 1920, when he favored the COM
promise and blamed Mr. Randolph for opposing
it-that he admitted it again in 1888, when he
submitted his own resolution, and voted for
that of Mr.. Clay. 1t so happened that no one
recollected these proceedings Of '37-'38 at the
time of the Oregon debate of '47I4S. The
writer Of this view, though possessing a
memory credited as tenacious, did not recollect
them, nor remember them at all until found
among the materials collected for this history
"a circumstance which lie attributes to his re-
pugnance to the whole debate, and taking no
part in the proceedings, except to vote.
The cabinet consultation of 1920 was not
mentioned by Mr.. Calhoun in his avowal of
1888, nor is it necessary to the object of this
view to pursue his connection with that private
executive counselling.
The only material inquiry is as to his approval
of the Missouri Compromise at the time it
was adopted, and that is fully established by