Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-08-16

soaiee which should disirasf deniei the II zht
10 examine, the privilege OF seeing in print a matter
which may negatively afiirmatively affect most
important interests, and cannot be heard. de-
cline to vote fol another reason which is that those
resolutions are forced upon us not for the pur-
pose OF allasing the excitement upon this most I'M
partant question a regards Southern interests but
for political purpose
The question was then taken on the first reso-
luton. which. be it remembered none of the
Democratic papers have Published with the vote
Of Mr.. Fillmore on if. but they have tnken special
care to suppress both the resolution. aud his vote
II i a. follows.
" Rssoired, That thu qorernfaenf gorernHaeaf 81
ttmte3 poT0S aud hdf5y he constitution of he fuue4
SftffT. toAgross has jrisdctaa nAatyper ORR the
sttafoH Of si9perg N sspergi Siaes of he egaie-
racg."
Willard Fillmore voted in the affirmative
From the detail above given, il is apparen, Tint
the introduction of the resolutions was a party
man"usre, aud intended more for political effect
than anything else. An examination Of some Of
them will also show this. Take,tor example. tho
third
Rs,oieei, That Congress has no right 10 do that
indirectly, which It cannot do directly and that the
agitation Of the subject of slavery in the District of
Columbia or the territories me1n, ami nth . ristr
Of d's'afkV NJ orertsor,1g 0af institution ~ tlf arr
0di Sims u npainst The true spirit aud meaning of
the constitution m Infringement Of the rights Of the
states affected, and breach Of the public flif ON
which they entered into the Confectionery
According to the true intent mud meaning of
this resolution, the agitation OF the subject of
slavery in the District Of Columbia or the terri
torres is unconstitutional only ,rhen used us a
mans or ruth a rism Of overihrowing that insti-
tuition IN the several States" il Is then aud only
then IAN infringement Of the rights of the States
dRecied.' II shys no. "A word Of rights affect
ed in the District, or tho territories" Now there
was no necessity for guarding the rights of the
STATES IN the third resoluton--that ,cds amply
done IN The first Why not hive declared the
agitation of the subj ct Of slavery in the District
of Columbia or the territories unconstitutional
per Sc, of itself unoonnecod with that institution
in the sevornl States WHY not have snid TINT
the abolition Of slavery ia the District of Colum.
lila Of the territories - per Sc, "an Infringement
Of the rights" Of the citizens of that District mud
the territories. Why say TINT il would be an
infringement of the rights Of the States affected.
when III truth aud IN fact, the Infringement, itself
would be upon the rights of the District aud Ter
ritories Why : Because the Northern Demo.
cfats did not intend to declare the abolition Of
slavery in The District Of Columbia and the ter
ritotes unconstitutional for the resolution does
admit, by nil fair rules OF construction, tho con
stitntional power of Congress 10 abolish slavery
IL the District of Columbia and the territories
when net done ms n means. aud with the view
70 abolish II in the States. And II was so under
stood, for in taking the vote on it, when the nnmo
OF addy Thompson culicd "he asked 10 hn
excused from voting because vote he could
gnu would oApiess hi, true opinion DO f,l Whit
the resolution positively asserted what L. ~
loved Il be true, that Congress has no right to
abolish slavery in the District with "a view 10
abolish ii IN the States" it implied by the strong
est negative pregnant, that Congress has tho
power to abolish it in the District. if it is not
done with II view TO nbolishing slavery in the
Siates-a proposition which he denied"
Much more might be said 10 show the chnrac-
ter, object aud intent If the resolutions under
consideration, but enough for the present They
were intended 10 provoke opposition from the
Wings, and, without giving them II chance 10 be
heard place them in false position. It was
dirty, party trick, conceived in sin and brought
forth in iniquiy,' mud it has lost nothing Of its
original character. il We may judge from the man
ner IN which tho deception il still attempted to
be prnetiscd upon thoso who nre not cnnyersnnt
with the history of the resolutions.