Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-12-19
Rsnenlinx Re.,rlc.ion..

uncing, in pointed and emphatic terms, on both
oral and political grounds, any idea of repeal.
the law of 1903, against the foreign slave
ade Although but fifteen Democrats, all
Id. could be mustered in the House, with
uck enough sternly to repudiate the proposed
w aggression of the slave power, yet one hun
ed and ffty-two votes were obtained in that
idy, in condemnation Of the full blooded mod
n Democratic doctrine, of the constitutional
zht of slavery to extend itself, equally with free
I'm, over all the national territory, and the cor
spending constitutional . right of the South
perfect freedom of traffic in slaves, foreign or
,mestic, unrestricted by any statute or Congress
But two members from free States Denver and
.erbert of California, Democrats) voted with the
outhern Democracy against Etheridge's resolu-
on, many Northern Democratic members dodg-
.g the question 50 that the supporters of the
.solution were confined exclusively, with the ex-
ertion of fifteen Northern Democrats, to Re-
ubicans and Americans, the Fillmore men,
Jorth and South, coming up to the mark pretty
we'll on that occasion. These fifteen Democrats
were - Barclay, Cadwallader, Hickman, and
Jones of Pennsylvania; Kelley and Walbridge
of New York Vail Of New Jersey; 7. L. Harris,
S. S. Marshall, and Morrison, of Illinois Mil
Ter and English of Indiana Peck of Michigan;
Hall of Iowa and Fuller of Maine. The Fill
more men voting with them twenty-one
in number, as follows :-Etheridge, Ready,
Rivers, and Swope, of Tennessee; Paine and
Puryear of North Carolina; Ricaud of Maryland;
Smith of Alabama; Cox, Humphrey Marshall,
a. K. Marshall and Underwood of Kentucky
Kennett of Missouri; Cullen of Delaware;
Broome and Tyson of Pennsylvania Haven and
Walk of New York: Harrison and Moore Of Ohio;
and Scott of Indiana. The remaining one hun
dred and sixteen, voting for Etheridee's resolu-
ton, were Republicans. We rel, ice to find
she Republicans, aided by the votes o. Thirty
aud IfHatside Of their party, in Aust cen.
SIX members o>-s rN4r--'es ard Whitinsville the
s ure, as being immoral and unchristian, Ci-.a--
proposed attempt to reopen the foreign slave
trade, by the repeal OF the restriction Of 1908
against it, IA restriction, however, as plainly sun
constitutional as the Missouri compromise re-
striction of lS2O,) and we are curious to see how
long such pointed condemnation of that pro-
ject will be suffered to remain ON record unre
pealed. in the face of the legislation of 1854 re-
pealing the Missouri compromise.
The vote on the milder resolution of Mr.. Orr
of South Carolina, " that it is inexpedent, I'M
wise, and contrary to the settled policy of the
United States, to repeal the laws prohibiting the
African slave trade" unaccompanied with any
censure of the project, on moral grounds, is still
more pointed condemnation, in the house OF its
friends, of the bcasted "popular sovereignty"
''strict construction " theory and policy of the
vof do all In xvbia
slavery is concerned. Only eight men could be
found (four from Missouri, two from Alabama,
and Brooks and Keitt of South Carolina to vote
az inst Orr's resolution. That but six straight
out opponents of all " odious and unconsttution-
al restrictions against the free spread of slavery
and the free trade in slaves :" all over Gods her-
tage," besides those model champions of Democ-
racy, Brooks and Keitt, could be mustered in the
House, is indeed strange. in the view Of past
votes in that body Where, in the Constitution,
warrant is found for the +" restriction " of 1908,
any more than for that Of 1920 repealed two years
ince we are at a loss to discern. g Inexpedient'
unwise and contrary to the settled policy of the
United States, is it, indeed, in the almost unani.
nous opinion Of the House, to repeal the restric-
ton of 1908! So was it equally contrary to the
"settled policy of the United States from 1920
to 1854, aye, from the very origin OF the govern.
ment to the reign of Franklin Pierce, for the
thirty. third Congress to repeal the Missouri com
promise. But what of that The expediency''
and "wsdom" of that "policy" soon accom-
modated itself to the demands of the Southern
oiigarchs, and il was repealed forthwith. So,
in the present instance in reference to the repeal
of the law Of 1903, whenever the slavery propa.
gandists require it, may that, too, not be done'
with equal degree of piausibility as being abso
lutely necessary in order to carry out the "exact
provisions of the Constitution which instru-
ment nowhere gives power to prohibit the free
dom of traffic in slaves. from whatever mart
whether Virginia. South Carolina, or the King
dom Of Dahomey. When Virginia shareholders
demand enc Thousand dollars head for good
likely negroses." why be 40 cruel rs to stand in
the way of replenishing the new States and ter
Titories with slaves. at cheaper rate. when they
can be had for one hundred dollars a head from
Africa
As to Mr.. Ethridge's resolution, which de-
nounced the s'reyival OF the slave trade as a hor
rid and iuhuman traffic. and as shocking to tho
moral sentiments Of the enlightened portion Of
mankind" its introduction was the cause of grea
excitement among the administration members
in "prematurely" bringing them right up to the
mark, against their own protestations Of its pre-
matureness, thus making them show their hands
in this nefarious business. 1t was test which
they wished to stave off. A Washington cor
respondent writes concerning it:
"Mr, Etheridge's resolution relative to the slave
trade, introduced into the House on Monday
caused great excitement. Messrs. Orr, Jones
tennessee, and many other Southerners strovt
hard TO evade direct vote against the trade on
the grounds Of humanity, but wanted to declare
the trade impolitic only. Throughout the strug
gle the greatest excitement prevailed, which was
evinced more in looks and manner than in words
Mr.. Cadwallader and other northern Democrats,
protested bitterly against the compulsory dose.
Several Soulherners, despite the rules against
debating the question, persisted, amid vehement
calls 10 order in apoogzing for their votes against
the resolution by declaring it ill.treatment. A
comparison Of the yeas aud nays mot yet receved)
will show that many northern Democrats voted
with the South on every preliminary question, al
though forced 70 vote ior the resolution when
brought to the rack. Many on both sides lodged
the vpte"
Thss It was very difficult matter for even
thirteen Northern Democrats 10 stand oui
against their Southern brethren on Etheridge's
resolution, But on Col. Ora resolution
which def them free 10 reverse their action
At any future time on the mere plea Of expediencJ
or policy, az but eight members, from bott
North and South, could 20 for It without III,
the least backwardness. SO in the late Southern
Consenton, In sessioD at Savannah, aresolu.ior
demanding now the repeal Of the restriction