New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-07

IN pu, at all the bundles at impudentiy iaisc
-, N.snl,D. assumption vet put forth in be-
80, slavery, think Mcssrs. Gushing aud
Re-, Message the most reckless of truth and
pNTdc'N O,.n,.n ro,;
nan IN tho Ordinance of 81 concession of
chs, vast territory between the Ohio aud the
4. Mississippi to the Riersfs and opinions OF the
.,No,th,Un Statcs'" That Inhibition was devised
AMI drafted by Thomas Jefferson OF Virginia
r,,heut susrCstion or solicitation from the North
III WAS proposed and pressed without regard to
NortA er South. but in the interest OF justice,
pmscracy and Humanip-in the interest OF the
Stairs then 10 be- founded IN that noble domain IL
n natural mpcssiblity for Pierce and Gushing
4, conceive the existence of such considerations
such motives as thesei Let us thank them at any
rate for their unwilling admission that the Interests
ss WILL as the opinions of Free States require that
thnse hercai(cr 70 be founded shall be free also
Bu, these advcuturcrs deliberately falsely the
r,cori with regard to the Missouri struggle. The
North did wv propose, in 1920, to extend the
instruction Of the Jcaersonian Ordinance over all
ihe Louisiana Territory. The North raised no such
The SLAVERY sections of the State Constitution
ri Missouri. aud refuse her admission into the Union
until she should auuul them. TWAS the South, and
her Northern seryitOrs, who dragged the general
question of Slavery Inhibition into the Missouri
contest at ALL They said, Let Missouri come in
Ms Slave State and we enter into solemn COM
ract with you that there shall be no more Slave
Territory or States north Of 3Go 3O. That was
their otfer Of future contingent concession to Sc
cure present and positive advantage; aud it was
urgently pressed by nine-tenths OF the Southern
Members of Congress. and reluctantly accepted by
one.fourth Of those from the Free States-lust
enough to carry il. Thus Missouri came into the
Union as a Slave State, by what was pronounced
solemn and morally irrepealable compact between
the North and the South.
Now, say Messrs. Gushing and Pierce, this act,
SO far as it excluded Slavery from the territory
north of So 30, was open to repeal and liable to
oil the chances and casualties of any ordinary egis-
lative provision.
Let rs test the honesty of this assumption by
putting the case the other way: Suppose the
North had begun the Missouri struggle by propoS-
Ing TO exclude Slavery from all the Louisiana Ter
ritory, but had finally compromised the matter by
agreeing that Slavery might have free range in that
Territory provided Missouri were made Free
State. This point being carried by the reluctant
assent Of minority of the Southern Members, sup
pose the North had turned short about and pro-
posed to apply the Jefersonian Inhibition to all the
Louisiana territory outside of Missouri, how then
Would Gushing and Pierce have held 1t fair in us
10 establish the Restriction, yet hold on to the val
nable consideration for which we had covenanted
TO waive it? Is there den of robbers on earth IN
which this would be deemed honorable dealing or
not too outrsgeOusly dishOnOrablel lpause for an
answer.
A word now, on the questions shirked in this
Presidential petfogging Oft Slavery controversy
sHas any stakeholder right TO take his slave or
slaves into any Federal Territory organized or I'M
organized, and there hold them in Slavery under
the protection of the Federal Constitution aud
laws 2" This is the very gravcst question OF con-
stiutional power and privilege ever raised in this
country-it is question of the day-itis one which
must soon be decided. Z" If the stakeholder has
this inherent constitutional right, can he be legally
Invested Of il by any act of Territorial Le9lsla-
ture or Council assuming to prohibit Slavery with
in its jurisdiction 2" Here is another grave qucS-
tiou involving present, practical, positive issue
Mr. Gushing is the legal adviser OF the President
what does he say to it What does he tell the
President to say No answer They are both
dumb dogs when real question is presented but
how they show their teeth and grOwl over the
imaginary case of new State presenting herself
with Slave Constitution and being rejected by
Congress
So with regard to Kansas. The President knows
that her people are decidedly for Free Labor and
Free State--he knows how they have been robbed
Of their rights at election after election by success
i've inyasious of Border Ruiiians, He knows that
they have repudiatCd the laws and the officers i'm
posed upon them by those RuifanS, have held an
election of their own, sent hither delegate chosen
delegates to a Convention, framed Constitution,
and are now urging Congress to admit them into
the Union IA Free State. What say the Pres-
dent and his conscience keepers to all this They
who are so valiant against the imaginary aggressorS
on shareholders rights, how do they meet the out
RACES plotted by AtchisOn, Stringfellow " Co. on
the rights Of the Kansas pioneers what WORD oil
cheer have they for the defenders of Lawrence
against the invading banditti who threatened to
blot her from the face of the earth What assur-
ance do they give that the People of Kansas shall
,rey he protected against raid after raid by which
their elections are corrupted their property stolen
and their unarmed brethren feloniously murdered
III A. Mossaoc carefully American freemen