Washington sentinel., 1856-07-26

NEVER THROW STONES.
The Fillmore men of the South are con-
stantly harping upon Mr.. Buchanan's unsound-
ness upon the slavery question. They allege
he is not in favor Of slavery per se-that he is
in favor of squatter sovereignty-of the right
OF Congress to exclude slavery from the terri
tories-and actually presented a petition for
abolition in the District of Columbia.
From these charges we have already success
fully defended Mr.. Buchanan. But suppose,
for arguments sake, they could not be subsan-
tiated.
What is the value Of your argument? lfit
has any, il must be to persuade southern men
to abandon Buchanan and support Fillmore
1t would not be reasonable to do so, however,
unless the obnoxious opinions Of Mr.. Buch-
anan are repudated by Mr.. Fillmore; for
surely it can be no argument to urge a man to
refuse his vote to one candidate because of
certain opinions, and to support another who
holds the same.
We challenge the production Of any public
vote, act, or sentiment, in the career of Mil
lard Fillmore, which shows he is not ingrained
in his hatred Of slavery.
We demand the proof of the repudiation by
Millard Fillmore Of the doctrine of squatter
sovereignty.
We challenge denial Of the assertion that
Millard Fillmore believes in the power of Con-
gress to exclude slavery from the territories
and, moreover, is in favor Of its exercise.
We aver, without fear of any contradiction,
that he voted to receive, refer, and report upon,
and consider all petitions to abolish slavery
in the District, the territories, and the slave
trade between the States.
We aver, that he is opposed to the admission
of new slave States into tie Union, and de.
clared in respect to Texas, that he would al
ways oppose it, until she abolished it.
We charge, that he was in favor of the i'm
mediate abolition of slavery in the District,
eighteen years ago, and we call for his re-
traIit.
We call for the production of word or vote
in his whole congressional career, when he did
not evince settled hostility to the rights of
the South.
We call for the vote upon any question, in
volving slavery in Congress, when Millard Fill
mores name was not recorded upon the same
side, with Adams, Slade and Giddngs, or with
one or more of them.
When these and many other charges shall
be met before the southern people by Fillmore
men, we may think it necessary to repeat our
defence of Mr.. Buchanan from their charges.
At present we only add, that while in com
mon with most northern men, and with many
southern men, among whom was the leader of
the present southern defamers Of Mr. Buchanan,
our standard bearer is not an advocate of
slavery for Pennsylvania yet that upon The
other questions he is beyond reproach before
southern people.
He is not in favor Of squatter sovereignty.
He is opposed to the exclusion of slavery
from the territories by any but the supreme
power of the people when they come to form
constitution.
He is opposed TO the abolition OF slavery in
the District of Columbia; and though he pre-
seuted the petition mentioned, in the same
breath he mored that ats prayer be rejected.
Dosouthern defamers know, or knowing, make
it convenient to forget that part of the nara
tive?
We challenge the production OF vote Of Mr..
Buchanan which would throw his influence on
the side Of opposition to The rights of the
South, or ore which did not vigorously sustain
them.
He is in favor OF admitting slave States, and
voted to admit Texas, when Fillmore and
others opposed it, though they thus leagued
themselves with the British scheme for Texan
abolition, as a blow at the South
He never voted with the Abolitionists against
the South, but with national men from both
sections, for the rights Of the South under the
Constitution.
That the fanaticsl portion Of the North
should hesitate, and1k kRolitiouists should shrink,
from the touch Of SO nadDnal record, is not
wonderful but that the South should hesitate
between Buchanan and Fillmore is strange,
and passing strangel