The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-23
MR.. FILLMORE'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF
THE MISSOURI RESTRICTION .a

THE MISSOURI RESTRICTION. asas
In tracing the agreements and disagreements between
Msssrs Fremont and Fillmore few days ago. repre-
sented the latter stopping short Of the former in pro-
posing remedy for the evils which they both attribute to
the repeal OF the Missouri restriction II Mr. Dunn OF In
diana, is to be regarded reliable exponent Of Mr.
Fllmores position land don't know why he should
not be- he is his electoral ticket in Indiana gave
the American candidate credit for conservation than
he is entitled to. The remarks Of Mr. Dunn in the House
Monday in which suppose he defined Mr. Filmores
position, as follows:
Mr Dunn, Indiana remarked that he came into this
Congress with very high expectations the Missouri Com
would be restored and exceedingly that
they had smaller and smaller until they entirely
dsspaed He was persuaded that there would be no
effort made to effect its restoration He believed that there
would be no peace in the country until should be restored
In substance or In fact The prohibition Of slavery
within the Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska thing
to be done, or there would be peace He spoke
iaa spirit Of taunt threat but sober truth Abiding
Kansas he declared that until question settled the
appropriation bills should pass BY his VOTE lie would
never give dollar tor any purpose unit, the great question
Of individual safety connected with Kansas affairs VAS set
lied. tCries Of good, good.l That the only way
10 which to insure complimentary the wheels OF govern
ment.
n the course OF his remarks he stated be did not in
tend TO support Mr. Buchanan. He should feel great df
hcuty in going for Colonel Fremont la his opinion the
only man who could give promise Of peace the admin
straton OF the government be who hailed from New
York and lived there, and not he who lived there and
hailed from California" ..
We think Mr. Dunn does injustice to his usual ssutenes
o. intellect in assuming that defeat Of the appropriation
bills would constitute efficient srgumen, in favor Of The
adoption by Congress of proposition to prohibit slavery
In the Territories The necessary effect Of Withholding
he supplies is TO bring the operations Of the eovernmsn,
In alta nA-atsn Ia l..
more us6abe than any other mode How he can csenas
that members who cannot agree with him in the policy Of
restoring the Missouri prohibition will be convinced by
such revolutionary argument is beyond comprehen
sion.
But Mr.. Dunns remarks are more important as ndica-
ng distinctly than II has heretofore been done the
platform which his avorite candidate for the pres
dsocy Is TO He says sober TRUTH that there
can be no peace until slavery Is prohibited In the Terrific
RES and be advocates the restoration OF the Missouri
Compromise, be means of course that slavery must
be prohibited in the Territories by Congress In 1850
u VI" said that there could be no peace unless slsve
~ was prohibited In New Mexico and Utah; but, IN
cad Of doing that the people Of these Territories wsr.
allowed to regulate the subject In their own wAy and there
his been peace there since Mr. Fillmore acquiesced
Ia that mode OF restoring peace and now bases all hi.
claims to the presidency the fact that the democrats
aided BY portion Of the wings helped his administration
to the credit Of setting aside the remedy now proposed
BY Mr. Dunn, and Of approving tina, now insisted on BY
the democrats II Mr.. Dunn speaks the views OF Mr. Fill
more in regard to prohibiting slavery the Territories then
Mr. Fillmore is not standing in 1855 where he stood In
1885, and ought longer TO claim credit for his approval
Of the Compromise OF 1880
After all Mr.. Dunns objection to going for Fremont The
ference between him and Mr. Fillmore on bi, question
seems to MS to be narrowed down to very close sppror-
nation to each other Mr.. Fremont wishes TO prohibit
slavery in Kansas BY admitting with the Topeka cous,-
Triton, which contains prohibition Of slavery Mr. Fi
would not recognise the Topeka constitution but
would have Congress to pass act directly prohibiting
slavery In Kansas and Afterwards admit Il into the Union
with constitution prohibiting slavery To democrat
then one remedy is about bad the other Both deny
to the people Of the Territory the right Of seRovernment
and both violate the great principle OF the equality Of the
States which the constitution and the Union are based
No threat TO withhold appropriations win ever have any
other effect on the public mind than show that the dem
ocrac party the only organization which can be relied