Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-09-29
Senator Claws Letter.


 Il We copy from the Delta portions of letter written by Senator Clay, of Alabama, to his constituents, with the comments of the Delta \ thereon. The opposition know-alls, or know nothings of this ilk, having attempted to show that the English conference bill was one by which the south lost, we commend the remarks of Senator Clay to the consideration of the peo- pie Of Arkansas, so that they see what the opin- ions of man of ability and patriotism are in re- gard to that measure:
 The bulk of Senator Clsy's letter is occupied with an examination of the Senate Lecompton and the English Conference bills of last winter. Senator Clay supported and voted for the Eng fish bill, and he notices the fact that he was tolerably extensively and severely criticised by his Alabama constituents, for so doing; but he does this without petuance, without one ex- pression of resentment, or the use of one invidi- ous epithet. Far from chahng at the criticism Of his course, in regard to the Kansas question. he expresses his qualification at such an evidence that his constituents are jealous of their rights | and determined to hold their agents to a strict accountability for the manner in which those l rights have been guarded by them. We quote Senator Clay's own language; he says: "The criticisms and complaints of those con- stltuents who condemn that measure, never dis pleased or disturbed me, nor estranged me from those who uttered them. On the contrary. they have rather pleased me, by evincing that jealous and watchful regard of their rights, so necessary to secure and maintain them. The south has suffered more from the folly or falseness of pro- fessed friends than from the maleficence of her enemies; more by the confessions of the former than bv the extortions of the latter. In fact. she. has yielded no right by compulsion, but many rights by compromise. Hence, and be- cause of the failure of the Senate bill to admit Kansas, in the House of Representatives, (which was a southern defeat,) 1t was natural for south- ern men, remote from Washington, at first blush. to condemn the conference bill, (which passed by aid of northern democrats, who had voted against the Senate bill ) as compromise of the southern rights. Idid not, aud do not re- gard it. but thought, and still think, the con- ference bill involved no concession of our rights or interests, and no abandonment of sound prin- ciples or good policy. If the Senate bill was acceptable to the south the conference bill should be, in my opinion"
 Such sentiments are worthy of dignifed, earnest and candid representative ot southern constituency. It is only conscious weakness, or guilt, that fears to be frank before constituents; it is only aspiring ttleness that chates at honest criticism and censure The conscientious and faithful friend of southern rights, whatever his public capacity, has no nervous dread of attack, on the one hand, and exhibits no intolerance or petulance, on the other hand, for those who may occupy extremer positions than he does in regard to southern policy Senator Hammond's conduct accorded with this character when in his late speech in South Carolina, he justified. himself for having voted for the English bill, and at the same time vindicated Mir. Bonham from censure for having opposed that measure. It is such a spirit as this that Is most likely to become the medium of harmonious thought, purpose and action in the south-a spirit that rises above cant of every description, that scorns and loathes alike the cant for the Union, and the cant against southern extremlsm,' and that regards as good enough friends of the south those who strenuouslv advocate constitutional Union, and as good enough friends oi the Union those who desire to defend at every hazard the constitutional rights of the south Thanks to Senators Clay and Hammond for giving us shin ing examples of this spirit.
 The argument of Senator Clay in justification of his vote for the English bill, is both able and in some respects original. He contends that, whether the Lecompton or the English bill had passed, Kansas would have had the option to come into the Union under the Lecompton con- stltutlon, or to stay out, lnasmuch as act for admission of a State must be accepted and pursued by the State to be admitted as an es- sentlal preliminary to admission. But, argues Senator Clay, the Lecomption bill was encum- bered with the prenicous Green amendment; it ratified an unjust and extravagant reservation of public land to Kansas; and it made no provi sion for the future in the event that Kansas should refuse to come in with the Lecompton constitution. The English bill, on the other hand, he says, was stripped of the first two ob- jectionable features while it possessed the posi- tive advantage of containing the provision that. if Kansas failed to come into the Union on the terms designated she was not to be admitted until her population had reached the representa- tive apportionment of 1000.
 Still more than this, Senator Clay believes the south would have been an actual loser by the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton bill and that she is an actual gainer by the indefi. nite exclusion of Kansas by the operation of the English bill. If that is not true, it certainly looks very much so, and until we can see more reason than is now apparent for so doing. we will not dispute its identity with the very truth itself. Bat we will let Senator Clay speak for himself in this connection:
 "I rhiuk nothing was lost by the south in the conference Kansas act either in the abstract or the concrete in principle or practical resuts.- It maintained the right of the people to form a slavehodng State in the territory north of 36 degrees 50 minutes, proposed to admit such State on equal terms with other new States. and offered her strong inducements to come into the Union, by declaring, if she did not accept the terms proposed, she should stay out till she at tained the population that would entitle her to one representative. What has the south lost by its adoption aud the rejection of the Senate bill? If Kansas had entered the Union under either bill, she would have added two votes to the black republican force in the United States Senate immediately, and shortly after another vote to the same side in the House of Repre- sentatives, and would soon have expelled slave. ry and shareholders by law from her limits: for a majority of members elect of both houses of the future State legislature were of that party. Our rights have, at least federal law to sustain them in territory which, in most non- slave holding States has been, and in Kansas, if ad- mtted as State, would soon have been nullif- ed by State legislation. In that event we, who voted for any act by which she entered the Union, would have been censured as much and with equal justice, for admitting an abolition community or put 4OOOO people, when, by law, 93,42O were requisite to entitle a State to one member of the House of Representatives. The simple and sad truth is that the north, impell- ed by hate, has done more to prevent slavery in Kansas than the south, impelled by love- has done to establish slavery there. The north has sent more men and money than the south has into Kansas, and thereby controls its destiny The north--by which f1hean the majority there, who govern it and stamp its character; not all, for their is yet small minority of just and loyal citizens-the north, whether impelled by hatred of slavery or ofthe south, by ambition or by avarce, is resolved to admit no more slave States aud, in my opinion, never will admit another into this Union. unless paid for it an exorbitant price, in the shape of bounties to commerce, to navigation and to manufactures"
 From the Evansville Ind. Enquirer.
 Short and Filthy Sentences.