The true Democrat., 1856-09-16
From tue Mississippian, Aug. 6. Fillmore's Revelation of his Fraud TJnon the So11th

In the whole range of political knavery there isnothing to parallel the fraud which Willard Fillmore practised upon the south in his con- duct as President in 1850. He is the betrayel of his own perfdy, so that there can be no es- cape from belief of his guilt | It is we'll known that the southern advocates of the compromise legislation of 1850, placed their support of it on the ground that st abro- gated aA restTds3ns over the territories and es'a- 6lished tue doctrine of no,- interuention. It was this construction of that legislation which induced them to urge the south to ac- cept the compromise and submit to the high. handed proceedings which led to her exclusion from the wide regions of the Pacific so admira- ply adapted to her institutions.
 The advocates of the compromise said, "it IS true we lose California, but in return for it., the Missouri restriction is done away with, and all the territories are henceforward opened up to slavery" Willard Fillmore who signed the measures comprising that legislation, was free ly quoted as favoring this construction. To show that we have correctly stated this to be the southern understanding of the com promise, we will submit proof in form which will not be questioned. In doing so, we must acknowledge our indebtedness to an able and ever active democratic friend in Columbus who has reminded Us of the facts and furnished a part of the testimony to our hand.
 On the 18th November, 1850, "union con- promise' meeting was held in Jackson, and by that meeting committee was appointed to send forth an address to the people of the State expounding and vindicatng the compromise J. L. Alcorn, T.J. Catchings, and Wm. Clark, at present members of the Know Nothing or der, and John D. Freeman and Dr. Picket, de- mocrats, constituted the committed The last named gentlemen joined in the movement at an early day for the reorganization of the de- mocracy and are vindicating their consistency by denouncing Fillmore for his modern con- struction of the compromise. The authors of the address in examining the territorial bills of Utah and New Mexico, say that by them, any portion of either territory shall be received into the Union, with or with out slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission"
 "That in all cases involving the title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be de- cided by the said supreme court, without re- gard to the value of the matter, property or title in controversy.''
 " That writ of error of appeal shall also be allowed to the supreme court of the U. $. from the decision of the said supreme court created by this act, etc, etc., upon any writ of ha- 6eas corpus involving the question of personal freeiom."
 These provisions are all contained in the Kansas bill, and any remarks they may have made, as to their effect in Utah and New Mex leo, ,otU equally oRply to Kansas a,ul Nebausko, tor Utah IS ulolly north cf 36.3O, and so is portion cf Neao Merico. just as much 80 as Kan- sas ond NeJraska. What do the authors of the address say:
 "These acts recognize directly the existence of slavery in the territories Can title to slaves, and question of personal freedom, be involved in questions of law, in territories here slavery does not exist? Are not these provisions cx- pllclt recogn!tons of slavery, and of the right of the southern immigrant, to carry his slaves into the terrtories?'
 The address continues:
 The constitution and laws are by express enactment, extended over the territories of Utah and New Mexico, and are declared to have the same force and effect, when not locally n- applicable, as they have elsewhere in the U S.; what authority, then, will the constitution and law of the United States exercise over the institution of slavery in the territories? Just the same as they exercise over it in the States ito recognize it where it exists and to protect
 
 for protection arises, the duty to protect is i'm perative."
 From this it appears hat the Missouri restric- ton was repealed in 1850; and duly declared :" Imperative and void' in 1854 The compro- mise asserted the principle of repeal in '5O and the south with the conservative men of the north, practically applied 1t to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska in 1854.
 (OrrObOratinU tpstimOnv is f0uO1 in tho views of Il. $. Foote, who speaking ill the Son. ate said
 "Ths bill opens he e0hole territory, to both sections of the Union alike" Con- Globe. l ses. 31 cong. P. 1273.
 Henry Clay, the author of the compromise said:
 "The field has been left open for both, (sec- hons,) to be occupied" etc. Ap. Con. G. l scs. 31 c. D. 6l4
 Again:
 Senators may go home and say that these uaSt territories are left open.''
 We would further refer the reader 10 what was called the great speech of Mir. Clay deli vered in the Senate, Feb. 6, 1850. Contrasting the compromise measures with the Missouri re- Strlctlon, he said:
 Sir, while l was engaged in anxious consi- iteration upon this subject, the idea of the Mis- sour compromise, as 1t has been termed, came under my review, was considered by me, aad finally rejecte1, as in my judgnent less acorthy of tue common acceptance of both parties of Ntis Onion ttan tue prgect aohich / cfer to your con- suleration"
 But, a0tsh to contrast the plan of occomaao- dotlon rhich ls proposed by se ,oih that ohich is otered by the Missouri line, to be eutended to the Pac!tfc ocean, and to ask gentlemen from the south and from the north, to which is most proper, which most just, to which is there tn. least cause of objection? What was done, sir, by the Missouri line? Slavery aoas positivelyi in- dacted north cf that lne. The question of the admission or exclusion of slavery south of that line was settled. There was no provision that slavery should be admitted south of that line. In point of fact, 1t existed there. In all the territory south of 36 degrees 30, embraced in Arkansas and Louisiana, slavery was then ex istlng. It was not necessary, it is true, to in- sert clause admitting slavery at that time.- But, If there Is power to interdict, there Is power to admit; and / put it to gentlemen from tue south, are they prepared to De satisfed ooih tue hne 36 degrees 50, anterdicting slavery north of Mat hme, and ga0tug them no security tor the ad- mission of slavery south of that h,eP
 When came to consider the subject, aud 10 compare the provisions of the line of 36 deg. 30-the Missouri compromise hne-wiM tue plan ,ohich Ihaue proposed yfor tue accommodation Of this question, said to myself, if offer the line of 36 degrees 30, to interdict the question of slavery north oft, and to leave it unsettled and open south of if, offer that which is ilusory to the south-l offer that which will deceive them, if they suppose that slavery will be re- ceived south of that line. It is better for them Il said to mysef-it is better for ue south, that there ShoUM De mon-action as to slavery both north and south of the hne-far better that there should be non-acton both sides of the ine than that there should be action by the interdiction on the one side, without action for the admission upon the other side of the line. Is it not so? What is there gained by the south, if the Mis- souri line is extended to the Pacific, with the interdcton of slavery north of it, etc.
 I hope then to keep the whole of these mat ters untouched by any legislation of Congress upon the subject of slavery, leaving it open and undecided. Non-action by Congress is best for the south, and best for all the views which the AL II