New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-09-25
uR CLAy,s COmPROMIsR.

When Hunt Duer, Briggs, Brooks, aud Hiram
Ket,hum, are asked, " How do you reconcile your
present course and attitude with your repeated,
Z" persistent recorded declarations and votos 10
favor of the positive exclusion Of Slavery from
the Federal T, rritOres l'-they have but one an
swer: "Tbe Compromise Of 1850: We went in tor
{" that and thereby pledged ourselves to maiotalh
,ts principles and oppose all further agitation re-
Z" specting Slavery" Well, gentlrme how is
" it that we now find you in league with Stephen
"a. Douglas, the very man who first broke that
pledge, ripped up the settlement of 1850, and re-
opened the food gates of Slavery agitation' He,
indeed, says that the Compromise Of 1850 IN
"voysd be overthrow of the Missouri Restrict on;
/" but you not merely know better, as he does, but
''yOu have hundred times condemned hi. Nebras
aka bill as wabton and uDjustfable reopeOiog OF
" the Slavery controvery-a violation of toe guar
"anteed Rights Of the North-so his false pretense
cannot avail you. What, then, do you sayf"
And there is no answer.
In the Spring of 1854, during the tendency of
the Nebraska bill, and nearly four years after the
Clay Compromise of 1850, the Editor of this paper
wss asked to address an anti-Nebraska meeting In
this City. lie declined, simply because his views
on the subject we're well known, aud bis speaking
at such meeting could do no good, urgiog the in,
yiter to call instead on men Of known conservative
views and attitude-amODg others, on Hiram
Ketchum. The suggestion was adopted, the call
made-apd this was reported TO us as the re-
spouse: "Mr. Ketchum declines to speak, saying
"that it is rot possible that this Nebraska bill
"should pass in its present or in any shape nyolv-
"iLg repeal of the Missouri Restriction
"that they might as well attempt to repeal the
Federal Constitution" No doubt Mr.. Ketchun
then believed what he said-tbat be regarded vio-
lation of the Missouri Compact as beyond the
str, tch of human hardihood. Yet this same Hiram
Ketchum is to-day in close alliance with the re-
spODsibe author of that great wrong and is labor
ing to save him from the retrbution he has richly
deserved
We have time and again refuted the false pre-
tense that the DOugasites Of 1860 are at all sus-
tanned by the Henry Clay doctrines of 1850. Of
course, this does not stop the iteration of the IN
truth; but it weakens its baneful effect. In this
conviction, we recur to the subject, and call atten-
ton to the facts:
Mr.. Clay introduced his project of Compromise
on the 18th of January, 1850. Here is the second
Of bis pIOpositions-the Only one relating to the
matter DOW ia controversy
49, Ro That SGreyy does NOT eri't BY lao inl and
likely Introduced any Of the territory scquired
by the United from the Republic of Mexico ineIpe
dent for Congress provide By law either for its introduction
into exclusion iOm part Of the said teory aud that
appropriate itor Governments ought to be estab hed by
IN all the said Territory, not assigned within the
boundaries Of the proposed California without
adoption of any restriction condition the subject Of
Slavery"
Mr.. Clay, it will be seen, based his repugnance
to any prohibition of Slavery in the Territories ex
pIessly on the ground that had no eriStiag legal
rights therein other words could only go into the
Territories under the protection Of affirmative, pos
tive law. This doctrine-in support of which he
had previously been brought into sharp collision
with Mr.. Calhoun, the inventor of the antagonstic
theory that The Federal Constitution carries Slavery
in Il absence of positive exclusion, into all parts
of our cOuntry-bad already been more fully elabo-
rated by Hon. Greene C. Bronson, formerly one
of orr highest Judges, now Corporation Counsel of
this CITY, who, 10 lo4o declined an invitation toat-
tend Free Soil meeir &, giving these reasons:
Siarp eannot eri't rhsye there poitve lao uphold
10 nor mar should forbidden; IL enough that
10 Is specially aWkoi If the Of slaves
with sends them into say country, State Territory where
SLAYER d. not exit by law they vii from that b.
cor flee en- and win have as GOOD right 10 command the
master as he will haze to maDd them State laws have
entraeiri orisl auhoy ard Law OF Virginia with makes
men ave there cspuot make him slave To Ne~foIk
beyond the ROCKY MoOntains
teitsLs doubt upon that question can see no o.ca
sion for aAiug Congress 10 legse against the extension 9f
aTsiy lno e tsrtory and as question OF policy think II
Their slaves to Org New Mexico California they will be
BE- In free states the m.asue as cannot
doubt they would With unwayehpg hrmnes
exciting bstGI- which tnds sectional division aud may do
horn people woUo leave Il to the Svehodns States
decide Tor Themselves and their responsibility whsn
eyer hs matter shall be asated 10 Congress. 1t be tht
they will sct whey and AZ all especially a. II
SCENE pretty generally ageed ns, niher Oregon New Mexico
mol California 70 well adapted to lave labor But ,uh
EN- brethren shond uEie b. question, shall have hllos
bot to Itst &, " then aha ever consequences may follow
sIstr os ns s;yery on single foot OF soil where Is
very respectfully your SSS sRs sS ; BRONSON
ITO Mssas j. CocHRiSE, aud other, Committee"
That this was Mr.. Clay's view throughout, we
do positi'ely know aud, accordingly, his plan
OF compromise was assailed so soon as presented
BY the PrC-Slayery Senator's az giving the Nor.
the meat OF the oyster aud the South barely the
shells Said Gen Henry s. Foote of Mississippi:
Resolutions the hor orabs Senator assert that Slavery
dotpot -xi.. by Law Ia he Territories recently aequir
iea republic carried the Coastuion eta al ~ gasanTs 20
oil ID. enory obtained by usty ard secured the psge to
ever. South ~ slaw n d- TO enter ny pat e It, by
hs slave opeIty aud 10 ENJOY the thereto NEE from all
molssta Ion OF hrdsnoe whatsocvtr"
Here you The vital question plainly presented.