Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-08-03
From the Richmond Wing.
More Blundering.

Our neighbor of the Enquirer is the most rrodige-
ous blunderer in either hemisphere. He excels in
this respect all other editors on earth For example
witness the following extract from its Friday issue
"On principle, so far as regards the great test
question Of the day--slavery in the Territories
Bell and Lincoln occupy identical positions Both
are pledged TO Constitutional power of Congress TO
abolish slavery in the Territories. Both are pledged
TO sanction by their official action the exercise of
such Congressional power"
We have only to say, in reply, that Mr.. Bell is
not pledged to the Constitutional power of Con-
gress to abolish slavery in the Territories" and
neUer pasi And he is not pledged to sanction by
his official action the exercise of such Congressional
power land neper wGs
To Mr.. Bells record in proof of what we assert
and we invoke the attention of the Enquirer to it
On the 5th of June, 1850, upon regulating the
Territories acquired from Mexico, Mr.. Chase, of
Ohio, offered 10 the Territorial bill the following
amendment
"That nothing herein contained shall be constru-
ed as authorizing or permitting the introduction of
slavery the holding of persons property with
in said Territory"
Mr. Bell votedagain it, as discriminating against
the rights and property Of the South.
On the same day, Mr.. Seward moved the "Wilmot
Proviso," in the following words:
"Neither slavery or involuntary servitude, other
wise than upon conviction for crimes, shall ever be
allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and
New Mexico"
Again, Mr.. Bell voted against Mr.. Stewards
amendment as discriminating against the rights and
property of the South.
On the same day amendment was proposed by
Mr.. Berren, forbidding the Territorial Legislatures
to pass any act either establishing or prohibiting
African slavery" Mr.. Hale moved an amendment
by adding the words " or allOwing," which would
have clearly forbidden any Territorial protection of
slavery property when carried there
Mr.. Bell voted against the Hale amendment there
by insisting, by his vote upon the right of the South
to protection in her slave property.
On the next day, the vote was taken on an
amendment offered by Mr. Walker-"that peon
slavery is forever abolished and prohibited"
Mr.. Bell voted against the Walker amendment as
interfering with slavery.
On the same day, Mr.. Baldwin moved an amend
ment that the Mexican Laws abolishing African
slavery in New Mexico and Utah should be con-
sdered as still in force and should so remain until
repealed by Congress.
Mr.. Bell also voted against that amendment, en-
dorSing by his vote the principle of non-intevention
by Congress the subject of slavery, and, also, the
principle contended for by Mr.. Calhoun, that the
common Territories were the common property of
all the States and that the Mexican laws were not
in force in the Territories since they became United
States property. Hence the amendment was uncall-
ed for, and had for itsobject wihal discrimination
against slavery.
We ask, in all candor and fairness does such re-
cord show that Mr.. Bell stands where the Enquirer
without proof or the shadow Of proof has seen fit
to place him? Does such record show that " Bell
and Lincoln occupy identical positions" on the
"queston Of slavery in the Territories"
But see further evidences from Mr.. Bells speeches:
ait is contended that the South is secured in the
full benefit of the doctrine held by of the most
distinguished champions of its rights, who maintain
that the Constitution, vIGoRE, that the flag
of the Union protects the citizen in the enjoyment
of his rights of property of every description, re-
cognized as such in any of the States, every sea
and in every Territory of the Union. The sound
ness Of the general doctrine held this point THINK
cannot ,oeU be questioned dsproved and If the ques
tt0h reGdteG 10 JeTTuOTT atudted as oregon tcdS,
,chen the United States into possession Of it, prop
rty in sqoeS acoud be entitled TO the protection Of The
Latos and the Constitution Of the United StateS"--
JOHN BELL.
am in favor of the principle of non-interven-
ton.Such non-terUenhon as woald hare given 10 the
South Cuba as siaUe State should ii be dnnered
10 the United States; such non-interventoa that II
there had been no compact 1ch regard TO The admission
of STARE States 10 be cdrUed out Of TerdS cOud hare
scared 10 as those sldpe States independent of the
compact by which the United States are bound TO
them--JoHN BELL.
But, sir, humanity to the slave not less than JUS
tce to the master, recommends the policy of ditu-
sion and extension into any territory adapted to
its condition, and the reasons too obvious TO be
misunderstood by the dullest intelect--JoHN BELL.
We inquire again, does any man in the South, of
any party, occupy higher and more impregnable
position on the question of slavery than John Bell
Is not his whole record without spot or hlemish? ?
We suggest to the Enquirer that slip-shod asser-
ton is one thing and fact quite different thing
And we defy it to produce even the sembance Of
proof in support of the charge it has brought against
Mr. Bell in the extract we have quoted from its
columns.
VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS GoNG FOR BELL.-The last
Rockingham, Va, Register contains long commu-