Lewistown gazette. [volume] (Lewistown, Pa.) 1843-1944, 1860-08-02
Mr.. Bell and the Missouri Compromise,
Mr. SeWard &c.

Mr.. Seward, &c.
The Lewistown Democrat is one of those
papers proverbial for making wholesale
denials of anything from which it expects
to realize party advantage, and often does
this in the face of facts that must be known
to many of its own readers. Last week,
with an effrontery for which there can be no
excuse, it boldly proclaimed that Mr. Bell
had voted against repeating the Missouri
Compromise throughout, our charge having
been that he had voted for its repeal. The
facts of the case, as any one can see by ex-
amining the Congressional Globe for 1894,
are: On the 18th of February, 1854, the
amendment of Hon. Stephen A. Douglas to
the 14th section of the Kansas Nebraska
bill, was adopted by the Senate, MIR.
BELL VOTING for it, along with Mr.
Douglas. This amendment repealed the
Missouri Compromise. (See Congresslon-
al Globe, vol 2S, part lst, lst Session, 33d
Congress, page 42l.) Immediately after
the Compact was repealed, Senator Chase,
of Ohio, desirous of letting the people reg
ulate their own institutions, offered the
following amendment, to be appended to
said 14th section:
"Under which the people Of the territory,
through their appropriate representatives,
may if they see fit, prohibit the existence OF
Slavery therein"
Mr.. Bell again voted with Mr.. Douglas
against this amendment, denying the peo-
pie the right to be their own territorial rul-
ers. (See same Globe, pps. 5l9-520)
In reference to its call for proof that it
had misrepresented VIM. H. Seward, We
Law our hands on its file and at random turn
up the Democrat of Nov. II, 1859. 1t
contains long article in which the follow
ing TRADE against Mr. Seward is uttered:
Had VIM H. Seward, or any other High
er Law Black Republican, occupied the Pres
idential chair, the likelihood il, that instead
of promptly opposing the federal officers
would have encouraged and perhaps even as.
sisted old Brown, in his nefarious purposes"
Is not this abuse? Is not this misrep-
resentation? Is it not shameful libel ?
For while Mr.. Seward may err in his
judgement, no act of his has ever given
color to such case as is supposed proba-
Bile by the Democrat. No! we should look
for such things to favor the extension Of
slavery from the Yanceys, the Rhctts, the
Keits, and thousand other unhung trai-
tors to this Union who even now are mouth
piecesin the democratic party, but from such
patriots and statesmen as VIM. Ii Seward
never-not even to free single slave where
he is lawfully held in bondage Let it
turn to its paper of December p, where Mr..
S. is termed notorious abolitionist,
and then to twenty different numbers in
publican party" are either directly or indi-
rectly connected with John Browns invas-
ion Of Yirginia-and if eyesight is evi-
dence the editor must feel strangely in hav-
ing called for proof that the Democrat had
ever assailed Mr. Seward.
In reference to the tariff its remarks saw
or of the same cast. The editor of that
paper well knows that both the Douglas
and breckenridge wings of the patent dem
ocraey agreed on the resolution adopted al
Cincinnati in favor of free trade, thus max.
ing that doctrine part of the creed Of
the democratic party, yet he talks as if pro
lection was one of his hobbies