Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-08-19

own antecedents, and his own views in relation !
10 the sacred character of compromise.
Mr.. Fillmore himself stands intimately con.
nected with another mpromise of more re-
cent date, and therefore one which should be
considered not less sacred at the least, than
the threadbare compromise of 1920. Yet Mr..
Fillmore, the session after the passage of the
compromise measures, expressed his willing
ness to modify, and repeal them when time
and experience should demonstrate the neces-
ton, it would be well to reflect for moment
on what changes or repeats can be made in
these several measures which Mr.. Fillmore en-
dorsed, and is willing to uphold for the present.
The admission of California is fact, and her
sovereignty complete, nor can Mr. Fillmore
ever, with all his loose ideas of State Rights,
and with all his former willingness to march a
federal army upon Texas, lay the finger of his
with Texas by which she sold her domain for
federal money is also an established and I'M
alterable fact The territorial governments of
Utah and New Mexico are settled; and thus the
only two remaining measures relating to slavery
in the District and the rendition of fugitive
slaves can be affected by the modification and
repeal Of which the sagacious Mr.. Fillmore
speaks. But what modification would he pro-
pose to the law affecting the slave trade in the
District of Columbia? Would he abolish the
institution Of slavery there entirely? 1t is
true he showed strong inclination to do so
in 1886. But lei him remember that he is
Would he renew the restriction to the slave
| trade there He not only looses Northern
votes thereby. but lays his profaue hand upon
the sacred character of compromise, or
how would he modify the fugitive slave Law {?
Possibly by extending to the fugitive the right
of trial by jury-the absence of which right in
the original bill, painfully affected the con-
| science Of the ex-Presdent, and as we under
stand almost induced his veto Of the BILL
Consistent Mr.. Fillmore! There is an old book
which you Know-nothing Sanherdim commends
to the careful perusal of all Americans in good
| standing, which warns US to cast the beam out
| Of our own eye, and then we shall see clearly
| to cast the mote out Of our brothers eye
| But when did Mr.. Fillmore learn to weep
| over the destruction of the Missouri Compro-
mise? If we are not misinformed, the first
blow that it received was from his hand. The
| Territory Of New Mexico to large extent lay
north of the line of $50 3O>, and by the resolu,
| tons admitting Texas into the Union was sub
jected to the Missouri restriction. AND yet
by the bill for organizing its territorial govern
ment, a provision similar in every respect ESQ
| far as slavery is concerned) to the Kansas bill
was made in reference to New Mexico. Where
then was Mr.. Fillmore's objection to the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise where then was bis
respect for plighted faith, where then we're his
tears for the disregard of "com promise of
| thirty years standing" We hate the sycophantic
tears of the murderer who can weep at the
| grave of him whom he has slain We have
no respect for the consistency of the man who
can thus affect virtue and position which
be does not possess. Regard his course and
say whether he or the author Of the Kansas
bill is more amenable to the charge of seeking
personal advancement"