New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-15

Mr.. Charles Upham, at present member OF the
Senate Of Massachusetts, took occasion of the dis
cus,ion in that body Of the resolves for contin-
gent grant Of pecuniary aid TO Kansas to favor the
public with very elaborate historical dissertation
On the subject of territorial cessons by the States
and the ordinance of l767, IN which, however, he
falls into some remarkable mistakes.
He represents il as the sole difference between
the Anti Slavery provisO originally offered by Mr..
Jefferson in lisa, and that adopted IN l1o7 on the
motion Of Mr.. Dane, that the latter was rendered
paatable to the shareholders by having annexed to
il proyiso for the surrender of fugitive slaves,
whence Mr.. Upham insists upon regarding the
ordinance of 1757 as a compact between the slave
holding and Notwithstanding States, by which the
South agreed to be satisfied with the future restric-
ton of Slavery to the States in which it then
existed in consideration Of the agreement OF the
North to allow the reclamation of fugitive slaves
within their limits.
But in laying the foundation for this conclusion
upon which Mr.. Upham appears to pride himself
as great historical discovery, be makes
two singular Oyersights. The prOvlso as
originally offered by Jefferson extended to all the
Western territory-both that already coded north
Of the Ohio, and that which Virginia, the Carolnas
and Georgia were expected to cede south OF the
Ohio; whereas Daness proyiso extended only to
the territory north Of the Ohio; and We are in-
clined to think that it was this ditference-this
leaving all the territory south of the Ohio out of the
proyiso-wbich reconced the Southern members
to vote for it, twas, in fact, territorial compro-
mise precisely similar to that made afterward,
in 1870, with relation to the territory west of the
Mississippi.
But the bluuder into which Mr.. Upham, under
the delusive idea of great historical and consti
tutional discovery has suffered himself to fall re-
spectDg the rendition Of fugitive slaves, is still
more glaring The provision on this subject con-
tanned in the ordinance of 1857, SO far from giving
TO the Shareholders as Mr.. Upham seems tosuppose,
a right of reclsiming their fugitive slaves any
where in the Free States, is expressly limited in
terms to reclamation within the territory north
of the Ohio. II has indeed been conjectured with
plausbility that the clause on the subject of the
rendition Of fugitiSes from service now contained
in the Federal Constitution, was borrowed by its
= e,.,. A., ,-,',rsnce of 1857, which had
been adonted little wh;s beiors; III: Il so, this
was to give to it an entirely new appIc''0n' 'nu
all extension which, as it could not have been for
seen by the members who voted for the ordinance,
could not possibly have served as any inducenent
for coDsenting to the prohibition of Slavery north
Of the Ohio.
Not content with stripping poor Mr. Dane of all
the credit of the Anti Slavery prOysO for the bene-
fit of Mr.. Jefferson, Mr.. Upham seems anxious to
fix upon him the eternal stigma of the authorship
of the save-catching clause. For such stab un-
der the fifth rib as this, the proof produced by Mr.
Upham that the AntSlavery proviso as it stands
was really offered by Mr.. Dane, the original draft
of it in bis own handwriting being now in the pos
session of Col. Force, must be taken as very I'M
satisfactory equivalent.