Newspaper Page Text
V
Agents.
J. W. HEARD,
•HE ATLANTA SUN
KDER H. STEPHENS, Political Editor.
„ WATSON. News Editor.
gENLY SMITH, General Editor and Business
Manager.
Traveling
U. W. HILL,
Agents for the Sun.
Lot Allen Smith, Knoxville, Tenn.
|Tts Bell, Athena, Ga.
Tl. Weight, Woodstock, Ga.
[c.CALSvrKLL, Thompson. Ga.
t C. Hamilton, Dalton, Ga.
G«en CO., Ga.
Smith, Chattanooga, Tenn.
. Pabham, LaGrange, Ga.
L„. Vabhedoe, Th. om *£J^t' G * -
r q. Williams, Union Point.
THE ATLANTA SUN
DAILY and WEEKLY.
YOL. 2, NO. 34.} ATLANTA, GA., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1872.
WHOLE
N U M B E B
86.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
Dnlly-singie Copy—Twelve Months, $10 00;
Six Months, 5 00; Three Mouths, 3 00; One month,
100.
Clnlii for Dally—Per Annum—Three Co
pies. $27 00; Pour Copies, 35 00; Fivo Copies, 43 90;
Kight Copies, 68 00; Ten Copies, 84 00; Single Copy,
5 cents.
Weekly for Six Months—Singlo Copy. $1 00;
T^J W L Copio8 ’ 2 601 FiT0 Copies. 4 00; Ten Copies,
.60; Twenty Copies. 15 00; Fifty Copies, 34 00; Ono
Hundred Copies, 6$ 00; Singlo paper 5 cents.
CONTENTS
Atlanta weekly sun,”
ros the week ending
I ivPIDNESPA Y, .1 A 5* 1* A It Y 31at, 1872.
Inge Yc Hi rue of Ye Ancient Mariner. The
[Missouri Compromise. Radical Politics. Record-
■’« Conrt.
, ‘i A Mean Attack on Georgia and Tress-
• Angler. Pendleton and Stephens—Demo
tic Policy. The County Court. Good Templars.
Matters. Ban-Strokes. Local Notes.
Telegrams, etc.
. a.—Suggestions for Consideration. The Sale
of Public Offices. Supreme Court Vacancies. New
k Correspondence—The Democratic Platform
the Best Democratic Candidate for 1872. A
l Between the Single Republic of Romo and
be Federal Republic of the United States. Leet,
President’s Young Friend. Sun-Strokes.
Matters. List of Acts and Resolutions
1 by the Legislature at the late Session, and
Approved by the Governor. Another Radical
Falsehood Exposed. Death of Dr. Scales, of Gwin
nett New York Fashion Notes. Immigration,
letc.
■ge 4.—Kimball’s Financiering—More of tho
suits. Present and Prospective. Bowdon. Gcor-
Matters. Washington Notes. Beautiful and
Touching. Shooting of a Negro Legislator by a
Newspaper Correspondent Water-Works’ Cele
bration at Rome—A Hostof Visitors. The Woman
sho Shot Two Men in a Street Car. Cost of Cob
Meeting the Revenue. Local Notes. Tho French
nblic. Telegrams, etc.
5.—Persecuted Mexico. A Prond and Hon-
eMan. Hieroglyphics. Washington Corrcs-
ence—Meeting only to Adjourn. Noesltur a
-Proud and Honorable Man. Sun-Strokes,
To onr Exchanges. Local Notes. Georgia Matters,
politics in Mexico. Telegrams, etc.
jje O.—Telegrams. From the University—Tho
System—Tho New Professor—Important In
^cetigation . Lectures, *c. Sun-Strokes. Wash-
ngton-Lce University—Colobration of the Gra-
n-Lee University. Washington Matters. What
it Mean? Visiblo Supply of Cotton, Made
by Cable and Tolegraph. The Confederate
jjometery at Marietta. The Secret of Bret Harto’s
.itcrary Success. Georgia Matters, etc.
7.—Book Notice. Special Washington Cor-
apondence. Agricultural and Horticultural Con
Mention. Secretary’s Bulletin. Local Notes. Da-
rid J. Meado, Esq. The Bonds of Georgia—Offl-
|lal Notice to Bondholders. Sun-Strokes. Telc-
, etc.
Lge S.—An Interesting Letter from Montana,
ommerclal—Advertisements, etc.
Written for tho Atlanta Sun.
Be
£)e ftime
Ancient (Carpct'-Baggcr.
iXaliek A. IK, 1900.]
The Missouri Compromise.”
for the admission of the State of Maine, I Many others, of the Strict Construction
• Now Rebhy, quit your play, and como
nd climb upon your gran'ser’s knee;
be sun is sotting, don't yon see?
Jis time to stop tbat noisy drum.
l top and knife ? ah, whose aro they?
fours ? Yes, they are very pretty ones—
fou prigged ’em both from Tommy Jones?
|Ha! Ua! you mind me of the day
When 1 was in my golden prime.
And went a-carpet-bagging.
' What’s that ? You do not know, my lad.
| ’Twas thirty years ago,.or more;
I Your mother was a chit of four,
I And was the only child we had.
There had been a tremendous war.
And many thousand men had died;
Some fell jipon tho Union side,
And Borne the South-side perished for.
But, oh 1 It was a goodly time
To go a-carpet-bagging 1
“You see, my boy, these Southern men,
I Somehow, grew mad and discontent,
When Lincoln was made President;
So they seceded. It was then
Tho war began. It lasted through
Four bloody years, and General Lee
[ Fought for the North, and Graut, you see,
| A wicked Rebel was. They two
Were leaders—’twas a goodly timo
To go a-carpet-bagging.
••What is that, mother ? did you say
I Lee was the Rebel ? Ah, well, well I
It matters not! 1 meant to tell—
I'm getting old, you know, and may
Forget exactly how things were.
And how the generals fought, aud how
I The South compelled the North to bow.
1 Eh ?—wrong again ? W ell, this is clear.
At least—it was a goodly time
To go a-carpet-bagging.
“The winter time of sixty-five,
I When Johnston marched dowu to tho sob
1 And captured General Sherman, he—
[ Still wrontf ? Well mother, sakes alive,
I I'm getting old and things will mix,
I Some how or other, in my mind.
[But I. the army marched behind—
| A euttler, with some Yankee tricks,
Ah, sure, it was a glorious time
I went a-carpet-bagging!
The Rebels fled to left and right
(Like just so many crazy loons.
|You mind you, lad, those silver spoons
on stirred your coffee with last night ?
‘ lose pictures on the parlor wall?
saddle in the shed, on Grey
love to ride so every dsy ?—
hat pistol? Yes, I got them all
In Georgia, in that goodly timo
1 went a-carpet-bagging.
"Timesare not now as they were then.
II call you Rebel, do you mind ?
I Aud hobby ?—’tis because I find
I It pleassnt to call up again
I Tue memory of those prosperous daysl
lit was, indeed, a golden time;
I My life was in its summer prime,
I And led me into prosperous ways.
oh, but it was a goodly time
When I went carpet-bagging.
“I held r seat two years, or more,
[In Georgia’s Legislature. ’Twas
I Rare fan to see ns making laws:—
ton thought your grand'aer was a boor.
But not a man upon that floor
~ould better draw his pay than I,
: gran’aer—I do not deny
I sometimes drew a little more—
But it was in that goodly time
When I went carpet-bagging.
us had been hard before the war:
[cobbled shoes in Natick then ;—
(fas poor among the poorest men,
nd many things we suffered for.
ut now yon see this farm and he*—
neee horses, cattle, sheep and hogs:—
be money of thou Rebel dogs
[ think has made me pretty rich.
I got it in that goodly ti™.
When I went carpet-bagging.
• little grandson, on my knee,
fon*rb ten years old. Yon do not know
t gold on bushes does not grow.
fou:U soon be older—then you’ll see,
Sow fortune often goes amiss,
Jideas she's fairly understood.
For you, my grandson, if I could,
I’d have no better fate than this.
That you, in some iair, goodly time,
May go a-carpet-bagging."
iS
f
serve It.—We suggest to our read
i preserve this issue of The Sun. —
lie history of the Missouri Compromise
[-called) which it contains will be use-
for future reference. The facts there-
| set forth are of great historic value,
“The evil that men do lives after
them,” and political errors often do great
mischief long after their day, if not cor
rected and exposed.
We deem it not inappropriate, there
fore, at this time, to prevent serious mis
chiefs of this sort by correcting many
grave errors on the subject of the famous
Missouri Compromise.”
The following is a brief, but accurate,
history of the nature and character of
this “solemn compact,or covenant,” as it
has been styled:
A Bill for the admission of the State
t of Missouri into the Union, came up in
the Lower Houso of Congress for action,
on the 13th of February, 1819. To this
Bill Mr. Tollmadge, of New York, moved
an Amendment in these words:
“ And Provided, That the farther in
troduction of slavery, or involuntary
servitude, be prohibited, except for the
punishment of crimes, whereof the
party shall have been fully convicted;
“ and that all children bom in said State
“after the admission thereof into the
“ the Union, shall be free at the age of
twenty-five years.”
The announcement of this Amendment
produced a great sensation in the House,
which soon extended to the country
everywhere. It opened anew the ques
tion of the powers of the Federal
Government over Negro slavery in
the States; which had been consid
ered as put at rest by the Besolntion of
the House of [Representatives of 1790,
upon the first petition presented upon the
subject. From that day to this
movement no attempt had been made
in the Congress to bring the subject of
Negro slavery, as it existed in the States
or Territories, within the sphere of Fed
eral Legislation, under the new Constitu
tion. Territorial Governments had been
instituted in Tennessee, Mississippi, Lou
isiana, Alabama and Missouri, without
any such claim of power. The States of
Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana and
Alabama, all tolerating Slavery, had been
admitted, without any such claim of pow
ers. The right to impose the restriction,
moved by the Amendment, upon the
State of Missouri was denied by the
Strict Constructionists everywhere, North
as well os South.
A bitter debate arose. Although an
overwhelming majority of the House
claimed to be Republicans, or Democrats,
yet, during “the era of good feeling,
party lines had not been closely drawn in
the late State elections; many, therefore,
who had been returned to the Fifteenth
Congress as Democrats, or Strict Con
structionists, sided on this question with
those who held the Centralizing princi
ples which had marked the Administra
tion of the elder Adams. The question
on the Amendment was divided in the
House. On the first branch the vote was
87 for it, and 76 against it; on the second
branch 82 for it, and 78 against it. The
Bill, with the restrictive Amendment,
passed the House. The Senate disagreed
to the Amendment. The House adhered.
So this Bill was lost between the two
Houses,
The application of the people o% Mis
souri was renewed on the 9th of Decem
ber, 1S19, on the opening of the First
Session of the Sixteenth Congress. To
Bill, offered in the usual form for thispur-
pose, the same restriction in effect, but
not in the same words, was renewed by
Mr. Taylor, of New York. This gave
rise to a renewal of the conflict of the
Session before, with increased spirit and
vigor. Never had any discussion shaken
the foundations of the Government from
its beginning as this then did. It was
conflict of principle. The friends of the
Constitution and Union under it every
where became alarmed.
Mr. Jefferson, in his retirement, said
the news of this Amendment fell upon
his ear as the sound of a fire-bell at night.
He was well known to be opposed to
Slavery, as it existed in the States, and
was anxious for the adoption, by each
State for itself, of suitable meas
ures for emancipation. But he
held that it was a subject on
which Congress had no Constitutional
power to act; and believed that the whole
movement of its introduction into that
body was instigated by the arch-leaders
of the old Centralizing party, by an art
ful appeal to the passions of the people
on a popular issue, to ^revive their
principles, on which they had been so
utterly defeated for years. To Mr.
Pinkney, he wrote:
“ The Missouri question is a mere
“party trick. The leaders of Federal-
“ ism, defeated in their schemes of ob-
“ taining power by rallying partisans to
“ the principle of Monarchism—a princi-
“ pie of personal, not of local division—
“ have changed their tack, and thrown
“ out another barrel to the whale. They
“ are taking advantage ot the virtuous
“ feelings of the people to effect a divis-
“ ion of the parties by a geographical
“ line; they expect this will insure fhem,
“ on local principles, the majority which
** 4'Kott sasiT-tl/1 rvrrnf rtLfrtin An
they could never obtain on principles
" of Federalism.”
While the discussion was going oe, in
the House, on the Missouri Bill, an Act
passed that body, on the 3d of January,
in the usual form, without any restric
tion. When this House Bill went to the
Senate, a motion was made and carried
in that body, to tack on to it a bill for
the like admission of Missouri, in the
usual form, without any restriction. To
the Amendment thus made, by tacking a
Bill for the admission of Missouri to file
Bill for the admission of Maine, Mr.
Thomas, of Illinois, moved another
Amendment in these words:
“ And be it further enacted, That in all
the territory ceded by Frqpoe to the
United States under the name of Lou
isiana, which lies north of thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes North lati
tude, excepting only such part thereof
as is included within the limits of the
State contemplated by this Act, Slave
ry and involuntary servitude, other
wise than in the punishment of crimes,
whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for
ever prohibited: Provided always,
That any person escaping into the same
from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any State or Territory of the
United States,such fugitive may be law
fully reclaimed, and conveyed to the
person claiming his or her labor or
service, as aforesaid.”
This Amendment passed the Senate on
the 17th of February, by a vote of 34 to
The Maine Bill, with these two Sen
ate Amendments so put upon it, came
back to the House on the 19th of February,
Its consideration was there postponed.
The House went on discussing its own
separate Bill, for the admission of Mis
souri. Before coming to a final vote on
that, however, they, on the 22nd of
February, took up the Maine Bill, with
the Senate Amendments. They disagreed
to both the Amendments of the Senate
the one tacking on the Missouri Bill to
the Maine Bill, as well as the Thomas
Amendment to the Missouri Bill. On
agreeing to the Thomas Amendment to
the Missouri Bill, the vote in tue House
was only 18 in favor of it, while there
were 159 against it. They then took up,
and went on with, their own Bill for the
admission of Missouri, with the restric
tion on the State in it. Pending this
discussion, still going on in the House,
a message was received from the Senate,
on the 28th of February, stating that
that body insisted on their Amendments
to the Maine Bill. This message was
taken up, and by a vote of 160 to 14 the
House adhered to their disagreement to
the ThomasProvision. The House, mean
time, went on with their own separate
Bill as to Missouri. The Senate asked
a Committee of Confeience on the dis
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
Maine Bill. This was granted on the 29th
of February. But on the same day, the
House adopted Mr. Taylor’s restriction
in their own Bill, by a vote of 94 to 86;
and, with this restriction, passed and sent
to the Senate their separate Bill for the
admission of Missouri, on the next day
(1st of March) by a vote of 91 to 82.
On the 2nd of March, Mr. Holmes, of
Massachusetts, from the Committee of
Conference, on the part of the House,
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses, upon the Bill for the admis
sion of Maine, reported. Their
recommendation was, that the Sen
ate should recede from its Amend
ments to the House Bill for the admission
of Maine, and that the Honse should
strike out the Bestriction as to the State
in their separate Bill for the admission
of Missouri, and insert in lieu of it the
Thomas Provision, imposing the terri
torial Restriction proposed. This was
the “Compromise” reported. By i^
Maine and Missouri were both to be ad
mitted under the separate Bills which
had passed the House without any Re
striction as to either State; but with the
territorial Thomas Restriction, so to bo
incorporated in the Missouri Bill.
A similar report was made to the
Senate on the 3rd of March, which
was agreed to in that body with
out a count. But in the House
the yeas and nays were taken on both
propositions of the report. The test vote
was on striking oat the Restriction on the
State as it then stood in the Honse Bill
for the admission of Missouri. On this
question the vote was 90 in favor of
striking out, and 87 against it; so the Re
striction on the State was stricken out
by a majority of 3. The question then
came np on concurring with the Senate,
in the insertion of the Thomas Provision
for the future line of division on thirty-
six degrees and thirty minutes, North
latitude. This was passed bv a vote of
134 to 42.
The eighty-seven votes which had been
given against striking oat the restriction
on the State, were on the last question
given in favor of inserting the restriction
on the Territory—not as a “Compromise”
for the admission of the State without
i restriction, but as the next best thing
that conld be accomplished on theis un
yielded line, as {results showed. The
forty-two votes against the insertion of
the Territorial restriction, were given by
Strict Constructionists, upon the ground
that Congress had no more right, under
the Constitution, to impose a Territorial
restriction than a State restriction.—
Party, however, viewing the question in
a different light, accepted the Thomas
Proposition, aud voted for it, upon the
principle of a fair division of the public
domain between the two great sections
of the Union. By them, in this view, it
was agreed to as a “Compromise,” under,
the belief that it would be an end of the
agitation of the subject; but in this they
were greatly mistaken. The result was,
that the separate Act for the admission
of Maine received the approval of the
President on the 3d of March, 1820, and
that State was admitted into the Union
nnder it on the 15th day of that month.
The separate Act in relation to Mis
souri also received the President’s ap
proval, on the 6th of March, 1820. It
was entitled, “An Act to authorize the
“People of Missouri Territory to form a
“Constitution and State Government,
“and for the admission of such State
“ into the Union on an eqnal footing with
“the original.States, and to prohibit
“Slavery in certain Territories.
ButMissouri was not admitted under this
act. She was denied representation in
the Senate and in the House, as a
State of the Union, at the next
Session of Congress, though her Peo
ple had formed a State Constitution and
orgauized a State Government, under the
provisions of the Act so passed, and in
pursuance of the understanding upon
which these provisions were based
They had, as Maine had, elected
Senators and members to Congress,
and had voted in the Presidential
election of that year. . But on
a resolution to allow her representation,
on the 13th of December, 1820, the vote
was 79 for it, and 93 against it. Of these
93 votes against it, seventy-two were
given by the identical men who, on the
2d of March, had voted against striking
out the State restriction,' on the test vote
in the House, on the Compromise report
ed by the Committee of Conference, as
before stated; and sixty-seven of them
were the identical men who voted imme
diately afterwards for the insertion of
the Territorial restriction, which was
carried by 131 to 42, as stated. This
shows that and the Centralizin
k . •
party with which they acted! never con
sidered the adoption of the Thomas Pro
vision as “a compromise” for the admis
sion of Missouri', without any restriction
upon the State. So, Missouri, in point of
fact, was not admitted into the Union as
State under the so-called “ Compromise.
Tho conflict for her admission after its
adoption, and her-organization under it,
was fiercer at the Session of December,
1820, than it ever had been before.
It was at this stage of the proceedings
that Mr. Clay threw himself into the
breach, and exerted his transcendent
powers in efforts at conciliation and har
mony. He moved, on the 2d of Februa
ry, 1821, that a Committee of Thirteen
be appointed to report such action as
shonld properly be taken in view of the
situation. A committee was raised, and
reported on the 20th of February.
The pretext for the opposition to the
recognition of the State in December,
1820, was, that a clause of the Consti
tution of Missouri, about the immigra
tion of free Negroes and Mulattoes into
that State, was in violation of the Con
stitution of the United States. This,
however, was nothing but a pretext; for
if the State Constitution contained any
thing inconsistent with the Constitution
of the United States, it was, of . course,
inoperative, null and void.
The report of Mr. Clay's Committee of
Thirteen was in substance^ That Missou
ri should be recognized as a State of the
Union upon the“FundamentalCondition”
that her Legislature should pass no law
in violation ot the rights of the citizens
of other States; and'that the Legislature
should also, by proper Act, give its assent
to this “Fundamental Condition,” before
the 4th Monday in November nextfensu-
ipg;and tba the President of the United
States, up-*u she receipt of jthis assent of
the Legislature, should announce the
fact by proclainatn.u, and then the State
was to be considered in the Union. This
report was rejectee iy a vote of„80 for it,
and 83 agu_ -t it. This shows very con
clusively what was the real objection
to Missouri at tbat time,:and that the Re-
strictionists had not agreed to any com
promise of their views upon the subject
of slavery, either in the State or Territo
ry, by which they considered themselves
bound, or intended to abide. The Par
ties, in the meantime, continued to stand
as they stood at the Session before. The
passions on both sides waxed warmer as
the conflict was prolonged. The strife
was really one between Centralism and
Confederation. The rejection of Mr.
Clay’s resolution was reconsidered next
day; but; when it was again put on its
passage, it was again lost, by a vote of 82
for it, and 88 against it Discordant
opinions now prevailed as to what was
tho actual status of the people of Missou
ri, in their relations to the Federal Gov
ernment. Some ^ield that they were still
eral authority; while others maintained
that they constituted an independent
State, out of the Union. The withdraw
al of other States seemed imminent.
Mr. Clay, undaunted by his previous
failnr6, again came to the rescue’of the
Union. On the 27th of February, he
moved that a Grand Joint-Committee,
consisting of members of the House and
Senate, should be raised to propose
suitable action for the alarming crisis.”
The Committee, on the part of the House,
was to consist of twenty-three members.
This was agreed to, and the twenty-three
members were elected by the House.
The Senate'concurred. The Grand Joint-
Committee was raised. Mr. Clay, as
chairman of this Grand Joint-Commit
tee, on the part of the House, made the
report from it on the 26th of February.
It was a joint resolution, substantially
the same as that reported by him before
from the Committee of Thirteen. This
resolution passed the Honse the same day,
by a vote of 87 .to 81. It was sent to the
Senate,'and passed that body the ne:A
day, by a vote of 26 to 15; and was ap
proved by the President on the 2d of
March, 1821. The Legislature of Mis
souri readily passed the indicated Act, on
the 26th of June thereafter; and on the
10th day of TAiignst, 1821, the President
issued his Proclamation accordingly, de
claring the admission of Missouri into
the Union as being complete.
This is the true history of “ the Mis
souri Compromise,” so-called, of 1820,
from the beginning to the end, so far as
related to the admission of Missouri.
A general idea prevails very extensively
at this time, that Missouri was admitted
as a Slave State in 1820, under an agree
ment with the Restrictionists or Central
ists, proposed by Mr-Clay,that she should
be so admitted upon condition that Ne
gro slavery should be forever prohibited
thereafter, .in the 'public domain north
of, thirty-six degrees, and thirty minutes,
North latitude. No greater error on any.
important historical event ever existed.
The truth is, Mr. Clay was not the author
of the Territorial line of thirty-six thirty
degrees, incorporated in the Act of 1820;
nor was Missouri admitted under the
provisions of that Act. On the contrary,
she was admitted on the 10th of August,
1821, by Presidential proclamation upon
the “Fundamental Condition;” in sub
stance: That the State Government, in
all its other departments, should be subject
to the Constitution of the United States, as
all the State Governments were, and are.
The position of the Restrictionists
and Centralists, that the Democratic
Party violated a “solemn com
pact,” or any compact at all, to which
they, the Centralists, had ever agreed on
this subject, by organizing Territorial
Governments for Utah and New Mexico,
in 1850, without regard to the provisions
of this Thomas Amendment of 1820, af-
terjthe repeated refusals of theRestriction-
ists and Centralists at that time as
well as before to abide by it, was
but adding insult to injury; and fhesame
is true of the same position of the same
party in their charges of a violation of
faith, on the part of the Democracy, in
adhering to tho principle acted upon by
them in 1850, when they came to estab
lish Territorial Governments for Kansas
and Nebraska in 1854.
The foregoing, as we have said, is a full
and accurate history of the “Missouri
Compromise” line, so-called, up to the
admission of the State into the Union.
It is not pertinent to our object, at this
time, to go into a minute detail of events
attending it afterwards. We will here
barely add that, in 1836, the Restriction
ists, in a body, refused to be bound by it,
or to recognize it, on the admission of
Arkansas; though that State was organ
ized in territory acquired by the same
Louisiana cession; and lay entirely South
of the line of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes, North latitude. They did
the same in the admission of Texas in
1845; and the same on the organization
of a Territorial Government for Oregon
in 1848. They did the same on the or
ganization of Territorial Governments
for Utah and New Mexico in 1850.
It was then, after these repeated and
persistent refusals of the Restrictionists
or Centralists to be bound by this line
of division of the Public Domain be
tween the two great sections of the
Union, and their unyielded claim of
rightful power to put the Restriction
upon all the Territories of the United
States, South as well as Noi;th of this
line, with the expressed determination to
carry their policy out, that the Strict
Constructionists were thrown back upon
their original principle of Non-Interven
tion by Congress on the subject, either
North or South of any line.
The principle of a division of the com
mon territory between the sections, which
had been attempted to be established
in 1S20, was thus abandoned by them;
and theprinciple of complete Non-Inter
vention under the .Constitution pro
claimed. This was the old principle of
the Strict Constructionist, re-estab-
tablished in 1850, both of the then
two great political parties of the country
did afterwards, in their General Con
ventions, in 1853, pledge themselves
solemnly to stand to, and abide by, in
the future; and this is the principle to
which the Democratic Party did adhere
in good faith, in 1854, in organizing Ter
ritorial Governments for Kansas and Ne
braska.
So that it is utterly untrue that the
Democratic Party began the agitation of
anj of these exciting questions within
the periods stated. They simply opposed
their agitation all this time.
This they did in 1790. They did the
same in 1818, 1819, 1820 and in 1821.
This they did in 1836, in 1843, in 1850
and in 1854.
Our object in this review is not to re
new the agitation. All these are among
what we freely admit to be “deadissues."
Our purpose is simply to vindicate the
truth of history; and this wo intend to
do under all circumstances to the last.
This high public duty neither “prin
cipalities nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come,” shall ever prevent
us from doing,so long as life ami strength
to do it shall permit.
When Centralism and Empire shall
come, with the peace of Political djath,
if such is to.lj6.-Qur ultimate destiny, tho
record shall stand for all time to come as
a perpetual monument, showing .that the
sad catastrophe can never be justly
charged upon the Strict Constructionist
or tho Democratic Party for anything
they did in regard to the celebrated
“Missouri Compromise,” cither in 1850
or in 1854. A. H.; S.
in a Territorial condition, subject to Fed- j fished in 1850. This principle, so re-es-
Recorder’s Court—Panoramic View
of the North Pole.—The curtain rose-
yesterday morning on one of the most
startling panoramic scenes in all nature.
Human icebergs stalked the stage with-
the demeanor of young continents sports
ing on the Arctic Sea. Some of these
were anomalies in nature, being tilack as
the ruins of Chicago. His Honor exr
plained this phenomenon by saying he
supposed old master forgot to clarify
them.
GEORGE DAVIS,
through the intercession of a “big man,”
was only charged costs for some Sunday
misdemeanor.
JACOB STAFFORD,
walked up to a beef stand, claiming to
ne a meat inspector. He wanted to know
if the market man had any dog meat.
The proprietor picked up his knife, and
had not Jacob made a precipitate retreat,
he would have added to liis stock a lot
of savory negro meat. Jacob cursed $5
worth.
JOHN RAMSEY
doubtless belonged to an aristocratic
family, and.could not compromise his
dignity by appearing before His Honor.
He sent word he had the “ager” the day
before, and pleaded tho following excuse-
for his non-appearance : •
"And to-day the swallows flitting
Round my cottage see mo sitting
Moodily within the sunshine
• Just inside my silent door,
Waiting for the ager, seeming
Like a man forever dreaming.
And the sunlight on mo streaming
Throws no shadow on the floor;
For I am too thin and sallow
To make shadows on the floor,
Nary shadow any more!’’
His Honor thought he could discern a
flitting shadow—of some person having
been drunk; and as a guess charged
John §5 and costs,
“scott”
was a superannuated negro rebel. While
intrenching on the coast he had contract
ed brain fever, and had recovered with
the loss of his sense of hearing. He was
drunk Saturday night, and ran up tho
street worse than 17,000 demons ; but he
didn’t know he was fermenting a young
earthquake % so his Honor dismissed bim
with “costs.”
OBACIAH LEE
claimed to be a relation of the illustri
ous deceased, aud affirmed that the spirit
of the departed would rise up and vindi
cate him.
‘‘Yes,” his Honor said, "I hear it now;
And sure his head is level.
For he rises up and says as how,
You’ve played the very devil;
and accepting his admonition I charge
you 85 and costs.”
An unknown individual, whom John
son mysteriously called “No. 56,” sent'a.
private telegram to His Honor:
“ I went np town on Sat’rday night.
To see what I could see;
The boys they got me in a fight,
And put tho beer on me,
I den went home to write mine pies*-,
And vile away der time,
But that duraed beer, yer Honor see,
Has knocked it all to—rhyme!’’
His Honor said poverty was a better-
poltice stimulant than beer, and charged
him $15 and costs.
JON HUZE
got so happy in church on Sunday he
could not restrain himself. He said he
felt so much better there under the soul-
inspiring Gospel than he did at the beer-
shop, which he had just left. His Honor
informed him that shouting at church
was a barbarous eastern, and charged him
810 and costs.
SOME POETASTER
then appeared, and while the icicles
formed on the spectators’ noses, sang:
•‘And somewhere from over the meadow.
On the fitful bree/ts borne,
There floats to my ear tho thrilling note
Blown out from a distant horn,
And a raptur-us soug of thanksgiving
Swells up from my heart’s deep core
To the giver of stng and sun shine,
And summer’s beautiful store.
The entire audience, like the desert Cara
van chasing the mirage, rushed forth,
hoping to revel iu a bright summer’s sun,
but—“our hat” took wings unto itself,
and we were not able to note any more.