The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-09-26
is Mr.. FILLMORE FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE
From The National Intelligeneer of sept.

MISSOURI COAPHOhiSE.
From The National InetigenecI Of SEPT. %, 1856
The political journals Of the State Of Georgia bring
from the Hon. c. j. Jenkins leading wing well
dieting urist Of that state In which, among other
for preerring Mr. Buchanan Mr. Fillmore for Pres
dent be assigns the fact of Mr. Fmores known opposition
10 the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise from which oppo
ston Mr. jenkins to infer logical consequences,
that he be in favor of its restoration by Congress
without presumng speak for Mr. Fillmore in this regard
may remark that the reasoning of Mr. Jenkins however
plausible at first sight, is not necessarily consequential
he to imagine II correctly informed, Mr.. Blu
chanan himself 10 not be claimed original friend of
the clause eDgrated upon the Kansas Nebraska bill for the
purpose OF repesng the Missouri restriction though as is
well known he, in common with the democratic party,
would resist any attempt the inhibition OF
involuntary servude north of the ancient compromise line
In the paragraph of the article the Latell
ysneer proceeds remind its readers that whilst It's ed
tors among the first and earnest in resistance
to its repeal they lso among the first to declare
themselves against any agitation with view to the
toraton of the Missouri Compromise" If it be true,
theu supposed by Mr. Jenkins that Mr. Fillmore is in
favor of the restoration of the Missouri Compromise it is
that the editors of the tengnc have been has.
after all in taking ground for him for they go on to
that it is no less the dictate of prudence than Ct patriot
ism seduously avoid all irritating dsasson which has
for its object the restoration of at line We think Mr.
Jenkins has good FOR regarding Mr. Fillmore in
favor of the restoration and that the editors of the Intel
gecer have placed themselves in the dilemma of support
ing candidate whose position is sanctioned by neither
prudence nor patrotsm But before proceeding allude
particularly TO this subject wish an
Gus impression likely be made by the remarks of the
teai5encer as to Mr.. Buchanans position.
not mistaken in the purpose of the telgencer
it would make the impression that Mr. Buchanan and Mr.
Fillmore agree in regarding the repeal of the Missouri
striction unwise and unfortunate According to our
understanding there is foundation for such an as
sumption We have information to the effect that Mr.
Buchanan at any time opposed the clause engra
ed upon the for the express repeal
the Missouri restriction but if he was very sure
his opposition to the repeal of that restriction
We know that many democrats preferred the original
Kansas-Nebraska bill as introduced by Mr. Douglas
Whilst that bill contained clause repeating in express
terms the Missouri restriction, 1t contained in specific
guage the nonntervenon principle of the Compromise
1885, which necessarily superseded the Missouri restr
ton The legal effect of the original bill was precisely the
same with that of the bill passed after inserting the
clause expressly repeating the Missouri restriction We
preferred the original BILL and objected the amendment
in the shape in which 1t first oerednot because we
were opposed to the repeal but because the original bill
by necessary implication effected its repeal and did it by
applying to the Nebraska Territory the principle in
the same language which had been applied by the Com
promise Of 1850 the Territories Of Utah and New Mexico
It may be true (but this rSint we repeat that y.
have no nformation) thst Mr. Buchanan like Gen Cass
and Others, woad have preferred the original bill and
would have objected to the amendment engraed for an
express repeal Of the Missouri restriction but such obiec
ton would not have indicated any opposition to the re-
peal itself. We do not speak conjecuredy when we say
that Mr. Buchanan regarded the Compromise of 1850 as
substitute for the Missouri Compromise that the prnc
pie OF non-iniervention adopted by the Compromise Of
1850 was inconsistent with and superseded the Misooa
Compromise, and that the principle e non-nterrer-
nou was Intended TO be inal and permanent set
hemtat of the question Of slavery in the Territories In
the autumn Of 1850 he declared expressly in one of
his eloquent letters that by the adoption Of the CON-
promise OF 1850 the Missouri Compromise had been an
perscded and had passed away In 1852 in his letter
70 Robert g. Scott esq, he recognised the principle Of the
Compounds Of 1850 FINAL and permanent rule for the
settlement Of the slavery question: and In 1856 he dis
tincty endorsed the KansasNebraska bill as containing
the came principle II win be recolleced that when Mr.
Buchanan accepted the nomination made by
~ e"Poauiy approved the resouuons OF the nominating
convention Of which declared that the principles
contained In the organic laws establishing the Territories
OF Kansas and Nebraska mbody the only sound and safe
solution Of the slavery question: viz: Observation-Disclosures
ny Cosensss Srarr AND TxRRToRY on IN
THE DIsrRrcr CoLUsm.T and chat this ra, ne bash q
The Compronie Of 1850, and rightly applied 10 he organisa
fon Of ne Territories 1884, In his letter accepting the
Cincinnati nomination he reairmed the same sentiments
and fully approved the ansasNebrssks act Whatever
therefore, may hare been Mr. Buchansn preferences as TO
the form Of the bill for organizing the Kansas and Ne
braskn Territories is wholly mistake suppose that
he did cordially approve the repeal Of the Missouri
Compromise either by the application in tcaer per5i Of
the principle of the Compromise Of 1885, In the original
bill by the Of express words OF repeal the bill
was amended and passed.
We turn TO Mr.. Fllmores position and II will be
clearly seen that there marked difference between him
and Mr. Buchanan not only the repeal OF the Mis-
sour Compromise but to the true import Of the Com
promise Of 1880 Unit, the recent speeches Of Mr. Fill
more albany and Rochester he supposed to have
approved the Compromise Of 1850 containing principles
which furnished hxed and permanent rule for the settle
ent Of the slavery question in regard all Territories
In his message to Congress in December 1851 he said
pressy that he regarded the compromise Of 1850
as "a final settlement Of INC question: But he says that
he did not that they final settlement as TO any
other Territories those OF Utah and New Mexico In