The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-09-26

ehauans understanding OF the Compromise Of 1850. He
supposed that il be regarded fixed permanent
and fna' rule applicable to all Territories Mr. Fill
more however, whilst he recommended the Compounds
as final settlement only that il final as &c
Utah and New Mexico and that il had applicability To
any other Territory He removes all doubt this sub
ect by saying in his speech Rochester that when he a
proved the compromise measures he had sgsp.efon
that the Missouri Compromise was 70 BE- ai.sturbed
This remarkable de- in view of the fact that
in his messa he had pronounced the compromise
ures final settlement" and especially in view OF that
other fact that Of the compromise bills actually
braced portion of the territory covered by the Missouri
Compromise Dees Mr.. Fillmore that the principle
Of intervention in that bill did disturb the opera
ton of the Missouri Compromise in the territory
cred by that bill If Mr. Flmores construction of the
Compromise of 1850 be the one then il must be
essed that it of much less importance than have
supposed Ia Mr.. Flmores view Of that compromise il
temporary expedient for the final settlement
of the slavery question in Utah and New Mexico In Mr.
Buchanans view il great Of final and per-
manent pachoaion, to be applied TO all that might
afterwards arise involving slavery in the Territories Upon
Mr. Flmores view he free to oppose the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise whether by implication, in Mr.
Douglass original BILL by express terms in the bill
amended and passed. Upon Mr. Buchanans view of the
Compromise Of $780, he felt bound approve and did APP
prove the application of its principle of nonntervenion
to Kansas and Nebraska and, of course approve the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. To have taken any
other position he must have been unfaihful the Com
promise of 1880 AS understood by Mr. Fillmore the Com
promise of 1850 little than fraud upon the
country AS understood by Mr. Buchanan and the demo-
cratic party, it was great measure of paclGcadon.
We turn next to the question whether Mr. Fillmore is in
favor of the restoration OF ;he Missouri Compromise is
certain that he supported the North and at the South
with different opinions to his position. In his late
speeches nothing is to he found which is conclusive the
subject At Rochester he explicit in declaring his OPP
position TO the repeal and beraI in suggesting bad
motives to those a the North who contributed it. and
was prouse in attributng to it all the evils that have
lately afflicted the country-but he careful TO stop
short at the very critical point remedy for these
evils Why this studied silence? He advanced exactly
the against the repeal which all the black republic
give and which they have brought about the ag
tation which SO alarms Mr. Fillmore. He said it was a
breach Of faith to repeal sacred compact and that
"his repeal to have been Pandoras box out of
which have ssued all the political evils that now afiict
the language of the aboli,ionists but they go on to sug
gest remedy, whilst Mr. Fillmore casts his eye over to
the South and says Many perceive ready to attrb
ute all these evis southern brethren and instead
ofsuggestng remedy for the evils enters upon defence
of sour southern brethren" And such defence Listen
to him: 1t must be borne in mind" says Mr. Fillmore
"tha this measure originated with northern man. and
was sustained and sanctioned by northern President
and hop could southern members Of Congress re-
fuse BOON thus offered By the North the South 1t could
ony be done by sacrificing themselves upon the altar of
their countrys good and this Is certainly expecting TOO
much Of political times like these" This is the
apology which Mr.. Fillmore makes for southern men,
The meaning of it is plainly that the North had the
exclusive right to the Kansas Territory that two north.
ern men rendered to the South participation in this
property; that southern knew they bad right it,
and that il only boon rendered and that ii would be
unjust to the North to accept it. yet that they could
resist the temptation receive the stolen property be-
cause If they had refused the people Of the South would
have sacrificed being 50 honest and Just as to re-
ec! what rightuly the property of the North No
abolionist offered deliberate insult to south
than is implied in these remarks of Mr. Fillmore
He ssy plainly that southern congressman had not
age enough to reject boon unustly offered them be-
their constituents would have sustained them In
SO honest and patriotic counsel We repel and repudiae
Mr.. Fmores claim that the North had an exclusive
right in Kansas do his insulting insnuaon that the
people Of the South dishonest that they would sacr
fee their congressman for rejecting boon unusy offered
to them. The standard Of political morality is low
at the South he suppose Whenever Re show that
the people Of the South had right fair and equal
participation In territory purchased alike by their blood
and treasure they will to accept such par
cpaton boon. IfMr Fillmore now show that the
repeal OF the Missouri Compromise unjust to the North
and deprived them Of rights and OF property which
exclusively their own the South will instantly the
"stolen property and rebuke their congressman for
doing act of injustice TO the North. Mr.. Fillmore
occupies the indefensble position Of maintaining that
the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise unjust to
the North. What then, ought the South 10 dol Hold
to what 1t has rightly gotl Would that be hon
es7 Mr.. Fillmore says be is not for quarrelIDg with
the South for accepting the unjust acquisition but he does
say whether the South ought to give II back
What would he do under similar circumstances Suppose
he bad got part Of his neighbours land unjusy into bis
possession. When that neighbor said 10 him; You
have got my land unjusty II is mine but won't quarrel
with you about it. What would Mr.. Fillmore dol Would
he still hold 10 the land or like honest man, give II
up? We have but indifferent opinion Of bis code Of
morals indicated in his Rochester speech but cannot
doubt that be would promptly give up his neighbours land