The Placer herald., 1856-05-03

rzszxxnseaszxsscsaxzsssSrssksz
was made in the nature of compact be-
tween the State of Virginia and the balance
of the 'Old Thirteen" and all the republi
cans can claim from that is the moral force
OF precedent. Those who may be opposed
to the doctrines Of the Ordinance, can point
to the admission of all the slave states that
have been admitted into the Union since that
date, as rebutting evidence of the position.
With regards to the opinions of the great
statesmen, the influence of whose names he
seeks to attach to his party, we find some
evidences very much against his assumptions
contained in recent article of the State
Journal, and we will close this article by the
follow extract therefrom-
Now. what were the opinions of Jefferson and
Madison upon the ight of prohibition? In April,
1920, pending the Missouri controversy, Mr.. John
Holmc of Maine. then member of the Senate.
| addressed letter to Mr.. Jefferson. enclosing Il
copy Of his speech 1t drew ont an answer which
should be treasured in the heart of every true
American. We can only make room for brief ex-
tracts here:
L uutl, SlIu MI, JCutISpu, 'lOI II lOuS tllHc
ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention
to public affairs. confident they were in good
hands, and content to be passenger in our bark
to the shore from which am not far distant. But
this momentous question (Missouri restriction)
like u fire bell IA the might. aWdFened and fAed
me iciM terror. considered it at once as the
deafh kneH Of the Union. It is husAed mdecd,
for the moment; blH this is rcpriere only, not a
fnaf sentence. (Pr0phetic sageD A GEOGRA-
| PElCAL LINE. COlNClDING WITH y MARK
ED PRINCIPLE, MORAL AND POLITICAL,
once conceived and held up to the angry passions
Of men, WILL NEVtR BE OBLITERATED;
and eucry ne,c irritation UiN maize it DEEPER
But again he says:
'Of one thing am certain that as the passage
Of slaves from one free State to another would
not make a slave of single human being who
would not be without it. so their diffusion over
a greater surface would make them individually
happier and proportionably facilitate the accom-
plishment of their emancipation, by dividing the
burden on greater number OF coadjutors An
abstinence, too, from this act Of power would re-
move the jealousy excited by the undertaking
of Congress to regulate the condition of the diff
tprent descriptions OF men composing a State.
This certainly is the exclusive right of every
State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken
from them and given to the General Government.
Gould Congress, for example, say that the non
treemen of Connecticut shall be treemen or that
they shall not emigrate to any other State?'
Here, then, is Mr. Jeflersons opinion upon the
Missouri Compromise, given pending the discus
sion thereon. 1t admits Of no equiyocaton. it is
and to the point. Now what says Mr. Madison
perhaps the most perfect model Of a statesman
our country has produced. In 1920 he too gave
his views upon this question in a letter addressed
to President Monroe. lie says:
The question to be decided seems to be
lst. Whether territorial restriction be an as
sumption Of illegitimate power; or,
I'd. a misuse of legitimate power: and, if the
latter only, whether the injury threatened to the
nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or
from a Illustration of it. be the greater.
On the first point, there is certainly room for
difference Of opinion. though for myself must
own thatI hare ARRAYS leaned to the belief that
the restriction icas net ,Cithin the true scope Of
the Constitution"
Comment upon the above is unnecessary. We
have said enough to indicate the great fathers
of the Republic from the aspersion cast upon their
memory by the leaders of Black Repubcanism.
Ever since the passage of the Missouri COmpro-
mise the country has been agitated by fierce and
angry contentious. Prior to that time all was
peace and quiet. From the adoption of the Con-
stituton up to 1925, we had nonntcrventiOn and
mona citation. From 1920 to 1854 we had nterven
tion and continual strife. The Democratic party
woule bring the Government back. upon this
question, to the early practice Of its founders 1t
would bring it back to the principle upon which
our revolution was tought--the right of the peO-
pie whether Of State or territory, to form their
own institutions in accordance with their own idea
of propricty. Upon this platform they arc bound
to win