New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-12

a
within the jurisdiction of another, even for tho
transit Of property. But Mr.. Montgomery asserted
In his report that the right Of transit already
",ecured 10 the citizens OF the savehoding States
"by the laws of nations and the Federal Constisu-
"tian.p Here ia a contradiction; both declara-
,iops cannot be true If Slavery is exclusively
State institution then the Federal Government and
the laws OF nations have nothing 10 DO win IT, as
il rests wholly on State authoIhy
On the other hand the right OF transit for slave
nrCn.rty through Free State depends exclusively
upop tie policy Of the State itself. The rights OF
states are equal; iD one the public policy may be
for Slavery. in another, Freedom; aud in both
cases the law governs; but It will not be doing
much violence 10 the spirit oil our institutions II
say that wherever Freedom and Slavery are
weieted in the balance the former should kick the
beam on the latter Mr. Montgomery may take
either horn of this dilemma he ple4ses.
Another retolutiOn, reported by Sir. Dawson,
and intended as an Endorsement Of his own act, as
serts that in the repeal of the act known az the
Missouri Compromise Act, and the passage OF the
"act Organizing the Territories OF Kansas and Ne
"brssks, 1ree from uncons nt2tional restrictions,
" the last Congress performed work OF patriotic
"sacriice in meeting the demands OF sectional ex-
element by unshaken adherence to tae fdhda-
"mental law"
This certainly is cool, and worthy the efforts Of
men. who. to gain notcriety, disturbed an act OF
CONGRESS which was passed 81 years before; and
what is not remarkable, this act seems to have
been specially offensive to Ar. Dawson, because
its tepdepcy was toward Freedom-was the bar
rier erected by as wise and patriotic men as Mr..
Dawson and his associates, who struck 1t down.
How singular i is that men from the Free States
lave so little sympathy for Freedom The reason,
however, is plain enough; they are generally dem
aeogues-panderers to eDy sentiment which will
elevate them above their fellows. Who d. nanded
the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise act' Not
the South: not the men interested in Slavery, for
they were content with the law as it stood 1t
was done by the representatives, from the FREQ
States. But il is alleged in the resolution that the
act was unconstitutional ard therefore it should
be repealed. Who makes this allegation Why.
John l.. Dawton-a man about as well qualified
to settle that question as he wonld be to sesrch
the starry heavens through telescopefor new
world 1t il well known that President Monroe
and lis Cabinet considered this question with ref
eTenCe to its cOnstitu:iOnality, and they decided
that it was. Mr. Calhoun was member OF the
Cabinet. and acquesced in this decision; and no
attempt was ever made to repeal II or set /, aside
by the action of the Supreme Court. II was re-
served for such men as Dawson, j. Clancy Jones
ard II. b. Wright to make the discovery.
In rejecting upon the proceedings Of this Con-
ventioD, ] have been puzzled 20 determine what
would be their effect upon the prospects OF Mr.
Buchanan. President Fierce, II is SAID, is unpOpu
lar, and Why Because he has failed III something
to meet the prblc expectations. In our foreign
relations tie Administration seems to be poPu-
lar, at least to maintain respectable standing be-
fore the country. This, then is not the source of
diequietude which agtates the people, and even
parii.ans; it must be found in some other quarter,
some other department of public Affairs. What,
then, is il, What question divides and distracts
the country Slavery The origin of this excite
mtnt is the repeal OF the Missouri act, which has
always been fayOrite measure with Mr.. Buchan-
an. The Democratic party are fearful to renonl-
mate fierce but Buchanan is put exactly upon his
platform. In this condition of things it is quite
PLAN that the country will gain nothing BY the
election OF buchanan over Pierce, not even the
politicians who seek for plunder alone, for his
chances of success will be better than the pres
ent incumbent. But in all this there is some
crumbs Of comfort. Mr.. Buchanan has nat yet
expressed an opinion to the policy of repeating
the Missouri act; when he returns home an oppOr-
tunity may be afforded him, and then we shall see
what he thinks upon the subject. Another thing
Mr.. Buchanan has never expressed his opinion as
to the power Of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the
Territories belonging to the United States.
PENNSYLVANIA.