Pomeroy weekly telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy, Meigs County, Ohio) 1860-1866, 1861-02-22

2. An amendment Of the Constitution
50 that Congress shall never be permittet
to interfere with slavery in the States
until every State consents.
3. A modification Of the Fugitive
Slave law, securing 70 the claimant al
his legal rights, while it removes Ger.
tain offensive features, and would really
increase rather than impair its efficiency
The material difference between this
scheme and that of Mr., Crittenden. is il
respect to the Territories. The only
disputed territory is that between the
Indian Territory and California, south
of the line of go so and north Of Mex.
leo. It is conceded that slavery never
can go north Of $50 3V, consequently
its prohibition IN that region is mere
matter of form. South of the proposed
line of partition, there are few slaves.
Mr.. Adams proposes the immediate
swallowing up all ground of controversy
respecting the territorial question in
State sovereignty, and throwing the
subject out of Congress. This should
be completely satisfactory to all fair men.
Why is it opposed by the exclusive par
tisans of the Crittenden COMPROMISED
l. 1t does not say slavery ''shau Be
protected in New Mexico and Arizonia.
3. 1t does not provide fer further ter
ritory in which slavery ''shall be pro-
tected."
They have slave code in New Mex.
leo now, and Mr.. Adams would invest
the people Immediately with the prerog-
atives Of State sovereignty. Conss-
quently, if they did not want slavery
they could abolish it. But this is not
what the slavery flibusters want They
would have the Federal Government
pledged to protect slavery in certain Ter
ritories, whether the people want it or
not. They desire the whole weight Of
the Federal Government employed to
implant slavery in New Mexico and Ari.
zouia, in spite Of the will of the people.
Thus it appears that the superiority of
the Crittenden proposition over that of
Mr.. Adams, in this particular is this
Mr.. Adams would permit the people to
have slavery if they want it-Mr. Crit
tenden would force them to tave It if
they don't want it. Yet Mr.. Douglas
accommodates his doctrine of popular
sovereignty to the support of this COM
promise. Daniel Webster would no.
vote for the Wilmot Proyiso over New
Mexico, because he said the law Of God
had excluded slavery from that region
and he would not undertake to re-enact
the law of God. Messrs. Crittendeu and
Douglas urge that the Constitution Of
the United States be so amended as to
repeal the law of God as expounded BY
Daniel Webster. The Wilmot Proviso
provided that slavery should be excluded
from all territory acquired from Mexico.
The Crittenden Proviso is that-slavery
shall be recognized as existing and pro
tected, in all territory to be acquired
of Mexico. Mr.. Douglas, ten years ago,
voted, under instructions, for the Will
mot PrOviso. Now, without instruc-
tions, he supports the Crittenden Pro-
viso. The editor of the Enquirer voted
in Congress for the Wilmot Proviso-
now he supports the Crittenden Proviso.
Then he was for the exclusion of slavery
from all territory acquired Of Mexico.
Now he is for the establishment Cd
slavery in all territory to be acquired
of that power. This might be called
completing the circuit.