Washington sentinel., 1856-07-19


Will any good Republican inform as where
John C. Fremont stands, on the great ques'
tions which have divided parties during the
past four or the past twenty years. In his
letter accepting the Republican nomination.
he deprecates the repeal Of the Missouri Com
promise, as a measure to which we must attr-
butesthe present agitation of the slavery ques-
tion; but he very carefully avoids telling us
whether be is In favor of restoring that COM
promise TO the national statute book or not
Is he in favor of it? Will he speak out? Will
his friends speak out on this important subject?
1t is well known that when the Territory OF
Oregon was organized, the southern members
Of Congress asked to have inserted in the bill,
as an amendment TO the clause prohibiting
slavery, the words-"inasmu as the whole of
said territory lies north of $500 north latitude,
known as the line of the Missouri Compro-
mise" Every southern man in the House voted
for this recognition of the compromise line I;
and every northern man voted against it.?
| After the close Of the Mexican war; and we
had acquired new territory, the South pro-
claimed its willingness to extend the Missouri
line to the Pacific. The Wilmot proviso party
claimed majority in the House, and refused
to accede to the proposition. James Buchanan
was in favof of it. The Fremont party opposed
| it, and defeated It'll John p. Hale declared
that he would never, so help him God, vote for
that linel There was then nothing left but
the non-intervention doctrine which Mr.. Cass
had already proclaimed, and which the South
had objected to. The compromise measure of
1850 was brought forward, and was supported
and other prominent Wings, and by nearly all
Democrats--the aboltionists themselves hav-
ing killed the Missouri policy, and rendered it
impossible for the North and South to unite
upon any other ground. This compromise Of
1850 organized the Territory Of Utah and
New Mexico upon precisely the same doctrine
as that recognized in the Kansas Nebraska
bill and yet it was accepted and advocated
even by Horace Greeley himself, as more tavo-
rable TO freedom than the Missouri line! Yet
nolD there is great clamor about this Missouri
| Compromise. What we want to know is,
whether John c. Fremont is in favor OF restor.
ing it. Dare be speak out like an honest man?
But again: Mr.. Fremont in his letter of ac-
ceptance, says: Nothing is clearer in the his
tory of our institutions than the design of the
nation, in asserting its own independence and
| freedom, to avoid giving countenance to the ex-
word of truth in this declaration--the ques.
tion of independence Of and freedom from,
the northern country, as asserted by the ma
| ton, having not the remotest connection with
the question of domestic slavery-we will pass
| over what may be styled the rhetorical flourish
| OF the sentence, and ask this aspirant TO the
Presidency, Uhdt he proposes to do in the way
| OF preventing the extension Of slavery. He
| states emphatically that he is in favor of the
admission of Kansas into the Union as free
State. So are zoe. But if Kansas, or Nebras-
ka, or Utah, or New Mexico or Oregon, or
Washington, or Minnesota should ask to be ad.
mitted as slare State, what then would he do?
If bill, so to admit either of them, were
brought to him. ssould he refo as That is the
question which we want answered. Does he
plant himself upon the ground, "no more
Stare Satesr If he is an honest man, why
not answer this question? And why does
he not inform us whether he is in favor of the
Wilmot Proviso for all the Territories? Why
does he not say whether he would veto a bill
which should organize a Territory without pro.
hibiting slavery? And finally, since he con-
fines the slavery question to Kansas alone why
does he not say what he thinks of the Topeka
Constitutions Constitution which drives free
colored men from the Territory, and which
contains provision excluding the possibility
of amending it, in the smallest particular in
the next nine years?
On many other questions of interest, Mr..
Fremont is as silent as a stone post Four
ffths of the men who support him have been
clamoring for Six years against the fugitive
slave law. 1t has been their electioueering
steam engine, ever since it was enacted. Is he
opposed to it? Would he sign a bill to repeal
il? Slavery in the District Of Columbia used
to be matter OF some consequence. While
this John c. Fremont was a member Of the
Senate, proposition was made to abolish it,
with the consent of the people of the district.
He Uoted against IL. Would he peto such 6M
as he voted against
Once more. The party which has carried
this and most Of the other Northern States in
the elections held during the last two years,
has again and again proclaimed as its distinc.
tive principle, that no Roman Catholic should
hold any responsible civil office. Ii has pledged
itself, again and again, that it would not vote
for foreigner or the son Of foreigner. 1t
has advocated the disfranchisement Of men of
foreign birth, and such an alteration of the
naturalization laws as would require a resi-
dence of twenty-one years in the 'country be.
fore naturalization could be effected. Will
John c. Fremont inform us where he stands
on these important questions? He is the
american as well as the Republican candidate;
then ,chy does he not endorse or repudiate the
American pldtformf Not a sentence, not
line, not syllable has he uttered in relation
to it, since his name was first mentioned
in connection with the Office to which he
now aspres. Are we not entitled to know
whether he is or is not an American" in the
platform sense of that word? Is it not high
time that he broke this uncalled for and con.
temptiby dishonest silence on these questions
of vital importance to the country2 He is
called a Freesoiler; yet not a line from his
pen nor a sentence from has lips, wrttten or
spoken more than s'r months ago IN .fdror
Of Free-soH IN Kansas, or Free-soa any
,ohere, has been or can be produced He is
called an American; get no american dare
assert that in has ,ohole lifetime he has uttered
a single rord in .fdpor Of any one Of the dis.
tinctipc doctrines Of the american partyi Is
it not time that he hoisted his colors?
Kansas.
We give the following extract from letter
received by one of our compositors from rela.
tive who went out to Kansas with Major Bu-