Washington telegraph., 1856-05-28

favor of the Wilmot Proviso after the su,
render of the constitutional question b
those trusted at the South? The lette
of Mr.. Buchanan of the 18th of Decem
Der last, published in the newspapers i,
this city few days ago, is striking il
lustration of the damage which that con
stitutional surrender has done to tn,
! South
Mr.. Buchanan had been an dvocate O
the Missouri restriction; he had lahore,
to extend the line prohibiting slavery. as
marked out by the Federal power, to tn,
Pacific ocean. He now agrees that sstht
Missouri Compromise" as he calls it. s.i
gone, and gone forever" s.But," he saws
''no assault should be made upon those
democrats who maintained it." cit i:
well known that 1 labored in con,pau,
a0ith Southern men, to have this line ex
tended to the Pacific ocean"
Now, mark the palliation, s.in compan,
with Southern mel" which this powerful
and trusted statesman feels constrained tc
make for his departure the true constitu
tional theory of the government, The
Federal Government has no constitutional
power to prohibit slavery in the Terrific
ries; and the true theory is now asserted
In the American platform, that the peo
pie of the Territories, in forming their
State constitutions, have the right to de-
termine this question for themselves.
But is it not little remarkable that
the same politicians and newspapers which
but few weeks ago were assailing the
American party for "pretermitting" this
question in the twelfth section of the
June platform, now assail me because |
assume that it was great error for Sou
thern men to concede that the Federal
Government had such powers? A few
days before the Philadelphia Convention
met, in February last, the Washington
'sUnion," assailing the twelfth section,
said:
at is fatal surrender Of the ground
acork Of true nationality to expressly
pretermit an opinion as to the power of
Congress to prohibit OF establish slavery
In the Territories" "Durino
this long struggle (for Speaker) we have
yet to see the evidence that Messrs Mar
shall and Zollicoffer, or any other of their
Southern brethren, conceded that the
Nebraska Bill was an obnoxious act, or
that the repeal of the Missouri restriction
was breach of plighted faith" <
s.How can these gentlemen now 90 into
the Philadelphia Convention, and agree
to allow the unsound classes in the twelfth
section, to which we have directed atten-
ton, to stand as the rule of their nation
ality ?'
This is but one of many examples
Now, however, when we have a platform
which does not ''pretermit" this question,
and it is disclosed that the most exalted
and trusted Democrats openly assert the
Federal power to prohibit slavery, l am
assailed for pointing out the danger of
such doctrine to the Southern States
My colleague attacks the gentleman
fom Pennsylvania, Mr. Fuller for whom
l voted for Speaker, charging that in 1S49
he was ''Wilmot provisorist up to the
hub" and "nominated on an Abolition
platform" and that last year he defeated
Mr.. Wright upon the ground that he Mr..
Wright) voted for the Nebraska. bill
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
has been absent from the Capital for
more than month, and is not here to
defend himself Ihave no means of fknow-
ing anything of the reliability of the
grounds upon which my colleague makes
these charges but, when here, the gen.
tleman from Pennsylvania stated in his
place in the House that he had never been
called upon to affirm or deny the consti-
tutionality of the Wilmot proviso, and
had "never taken any public position up
on that subject before" but was "willing,
in all frankness and candor, to do SO now" /"
and then proceeded to say s'I hold, in
the absence of express authority, that
Congress has no Constitutional right to
legislate upon the subject of slavery
Again, he said, "I am opposed to any leg
islation on those Subjects" (alluding to
the restoration of the Missouri restriction,
and to the prohibition of slavery in the
Territories As to beating Mr.. Wright,
he said, at was not the anti-Nebraska is
sue which determined that election. -
My colleague makes, therefore, direct is
sue with the declarations of the gentle
man from Pennsylvania, and does not
disclose upon what authority he does so,
or furnish any evidence that it is genu-
i inc.
My colleague defends the strange and
important part he took in the late election
of Speaker, in moving and voting for the
plurality rule, and thereby securing the
election of the present incumbent of the
chair. I am not at all surprised that he
should do so, after what l have seen in
the newspapers, and what l have read in
my letters from home and recollecting
that my colleague has recently been at
home, and heard the thunders of disap-
probation which are being visited on him
for making that movement-I say that
am not at all surprised that he should
seize the first opportunity, without wait
ing for an attack here to defend himself
as well as he can, in that particular &C
ton. u
I propose, Mr.. Chairman, to look at the
political record connected with this action
for moment. We had been enpaped II