Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-08-13

Il
platform, and the end Of all agitation. IL
can not be denied that in the North the true
Union party have faithfully stood by the
pledge Here, any who required any express
sion of opinions outside the Constitution,
has been held to be an enemy to that sacred
instrument, and of course q traitor TO his
country
But while all agitation of the slavery ques-
ton has been hushed in the North by the
Constitution, just as nurses hush children
with "bugabooe,' what was our surprise and
| grief 10 observe that in the South the
Bell-wethers spit upon the Constitution as
the sole platform, and that Mr.. Bell is sub
mitting TO be catechised on his opinions on
slavery, and is making out a pro-slavery
record which quite takes the wind out of Mr..
Brsckinridge Mr.. Dawson, Chairman of the
State Union Committee, Of Alabama, not
having the fear Of the Constitution before his
eyes, recently addressed letter to Mr.. Bell
asking the following questions
81. Does Territorial Legislature possess
the power to inhibit or establish slavery
80. Does Congress possess such power2
"3. Ia the owner of slave property in the
| Territories entitled TO the same protection by
the Federal Government in the peaceful en-
joyment of his slave-property as the owner
of any other property
Now, we submit to all good Union men
whether Mr.. Bell could, under the platform of
the National Union Convention, make any
otherreply to Mr., Dawson, than to send him a
oor,, ,f tha Oop.t;tut;or no oontainipo, ali tha
opinions which Union men could have on
any political question. But, instead of this
Mr.. Bell gathered up compilation from his
speeches and votes in Congress, and sent to
Mr.. Dawson, by which he showed that he
had consistently denounced, and specifically
voted against, the doctrine that either pop
ular sovereignty or Congress could exclude
slavery from the Territories and that, in
1850, he had voted in favor of Senator Davis's
proviso to the then pending Compromise
measures, declaring the duty of Government
to protect slavery in the Territories. Mr..
Dawson says:
"On this proviso, Mr.. Bell voted yes, thus
asserting, under oath, the duty Of protection,
when necessary.
point, perspicuousness, and power. Let those
who doubt his devotion TO the South read
and study his answer, and they can never
doubt again."
In fact he shows that be was Congress-
ional-protection man at time when Douglas
was voting for the Wilmot Proviso, and long
before Mr.. Breckenridge came over to In-
diana and Illinois to preach popular SOW
ereignty. The collection also contained an
extract from speech of Mr.. Bell, with, Mr..
Dawson says, ian elaborate and unsnswer-
able defense of the institution of slavery,
sttributing to it the grandeur aud glory
which we have attained as nation Upon
he extension of slavery Mr.. Bell said:
Humanity to the slave, no less than justice
to the master, recommends the policy of diff
fusion and extension into any Territory
adapted to his condition"
Mr.. Dawson makes point on this, 10 show
how much safer Mr.. Bell is for the extension
Of slavery than Mr.. Breckenridge, and as a
comparison he quotes from Mr.. Breckinridge's
speech in Indiana, in 1856: ~ belong to no
party which has for its object the extension
Of slavery"
The Mobile Advertiser, Bell paper, copies
these extracts, and remarks on them:
"Those extracts and votes express his pre-
sent opinions, and we appeal to every candid
man in the South-are they not all that
could be wished2 He Is opposed to the
Douglas doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty
be declares it the duty of Congress to pro-
tect slavery in the Territories, when neces-
sary, and he denies the power Of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia
or in the Territories. What more can any
Southern man want9"
We have no fault to find with these opin-
ions of Mr.. Bell, though we think his friends
ought to be charitable to Mr. Breckinridge's
popular sovereignty in 1886, since he has re-
canted 1t, for Mr.. Bell voted against the
repeal Of the Missouri Compromise, which
was In principle and practice voting fol
Congressional prohibition of slavery. Be.
sides, this proving opinions by past record,
allows the widest latitude: by 1t Mr.. Douglas
is proved to be Wilmot Proviso man; Johr
Bell is shown to have been in favor of Con.
gressional abolition in the Territories
thing which his men now say would dissolv,
the Union; and we suspect that by the sam
rule Senator Davis could be shown to hav
been an Abolitionist.
But what we do complain of is that Mr.. Bel
has broken faith with us Union men on thi
side of Mason and Dixon's line. The agree
ment was that Union men were to keep mum
and when questioned in regard to our view
on slavery, we were TO turn turtle and dray
our head within the cover of the Constitu
ton; but while we in the North are bracin
ourrelentivepower to suppress agitation, an
are pointing to the Constitution as the oul
rule of faith and practice, Mr.. Bell, on tn
other side Of the line, is digging up an
spreading abroad his record in favor Of th
extension of slavery--the very question thi
our Union Party was formed to ignore--an
Is proving himself better slavery-exteusio
man than John G. Breckenridge.
People at the North may think that if NJ
Breckinridge is so very pro-slavery as to Ell
danger the Union, and if Mr.. Bell is vastl
more pro-slavery, we had better try Breckii
ridge first, and if the Union stomach stant
: that, it win be less likely to reich at Mr.. BE
afterward. o.,
We feel that we Union lambs at the Mort
{ have been the victims of misplaced conf
dence, and that we had better have con
A.. koLa oho..,o oc oru ...oos poI