.AO
,
To Uir. IVoplrjor.IIic South-
- em .Male: .'4.-.
S .wrral r. wou!d Late rcxrrnted me
fna taJu? any notice of Cd. Benton, if hi
attack ia htv bit? aprath iM ire rod In the
Cbj ital cf Missouri had bYn dirveted carlo-
ariy agaui tac- 1 iLc l:xs cl conduct I j
hare p rcscTital.to tu.clf, iq rx& rcxice to j
Lira ks l bare as litllo (a Jo with hiu I
rw-Vef .aa J, laccorJInrlv never notice I .
wLi! come fn ta biro,' tun ia Li character J '
ju Senator,: when I can avoid Jaiog so am- other r Congress, would not only be is vio
(uentl. with my pallia dut. I regard Utiow of tbe constitution, but in direct con-
ua ia a biatterr d.Stttat rro wuat be
.v:ut to mrird tac, f t cut jcJj from
4iie fnxii'0-r aaJ riwitne of Lu mlUcka on
tm lid cw lJ tLInk I in LU wav,
&-J ilut I cv-' gwJ in some xLctue
to p-u Xun daw a.- I, oo tlx oi&trarj, Lart
pTr, r a ta-jsoeat tiouht of raliti aim
xvaiuImJ it of anj importanos to lu,
htiwr tiuTJ put ilovn or not. He
a oil ti:ak joactliio to jrain ly a-
iaii-o fc-l; I, o tLe ootnrj, il-1 tkoi I
Jut njtLn .j pw'o by n-tkia liica, anl
wln eoTupeikd to J.j i) ant tlalf if 1
mp5 tritlttt numoiowa' of rlf rwinxl" "I
Ltr aa 4lk r rvaoa fur nt dcyinnjr la n
In8 Lira a t!' jrv-vut rx4.4n.; All bi
htrg i-unitw, with fcvtsJ triSinjcx-
dfji.jct, tr bt tLe rviu-rctioa of tbote of
tn taaJt bTfcfr bjr Liuie!f anJ other,
3. J wbkh I ban? met and stuxcssfallT rc
roHI ia mr lUeo in " tle Senate. Tint
tlrfj mo.k D- iinprriAn againt roe at tlie
Lu, euLer in tbe Se-tut or emuinunitr.
' i
lacn? nn h Wtter proof than U a5rJol cbarpable with di.unKu ? CV1. lien ton baa
in tbe Uborioo and iireorae e2-rt be made hw own wny of proving things which ap
Itr bis pe:nt pech to revive ao-J give them pears to bo very satisfactory to himself, but
circulation. " n one, who will take the pains to exam-
UuJt t!r it.Saenee of tlu'sc rert"n, I iue hi artions and nraaons.
woulJ have rvcuinsd nik-nt ha I I alme bven iKpoiring of finding any thing like di-eooficmL-
llA siieh i not the eae. Hi union in the resolution thctnelvca, be ick.
blow uwm'J murU more at you than me. .
lie stnif at me K-r the double rumwe of '
wraVfoia roe in your cjuEdcTxe, and of - rat axrt., that they arc the prototype of
s.rILin ai voa and yn:r cau thoa-h tn ; ih alipteI by the'lMature of Miou
wluh be thiui tin dne more cff-.-ttnal. ri at thnr bt slinn, aivl then aswert that
j io-lirxflr, tlucdireetly. Tbu rrgnrdin the only ditfercnee between them i. that
hit aJttrk, I f 1 h to be a daty I owe Jimi mine aim directly at disunion, and their ul
iii'lrcttr ea-He la rvpl it. i titnaUly at the same thin, for which he
Tbe.clT-Trt of (VI. Ilcnton, from the U- offer no rex-ton, except that their pletlgeil
pnxx'o to the end cf hh npchf i to male ; the Sute to co-ofcrate with the other slave
cat that I lave ever bei-n onfaithftd to your I holding Slate.. He thu avurae, that yonr
eanse, aa l true t that of the free soiler aim a well a mine, i disunion ; and tin,
and. abotitlonlstf ; whn. on tbe contrary, while he is exerting biiuAclf to the utmost
frnx in V.za an unkorwn but faithful to discredit me with you, as a disunionist,
fneo-1 on all occaeiuai. He aume, that f.rit i apparent his speech wx intendevl to
j -xx anJ the have been both mistaken in I have it effects on you generally a well a
reference tJ lay oorse: yon in rrgarding his own constituent. particularly He then
las as a friend and supporter of your eaue,
aa-1 the ra reirdicg mo as hostile to their.
Judd b ap'xearanje, hi object would
l"m tj l to iLjm I this ik-liuioo, while in f
las as a friend and supporter of your eaue,
Ircth tt i. to rive ya and your caa wh-t
he boj" will prcr dealltl jw. Tlii the
ali!Itjoolta anl ftee m.ilvrs well underjlaml. j
them, but decrive voa. Tbey understand '
trr; and bare Lnd with acclamation hi
fpetxh, 2U"vi r ULhl it and circuU'cvl it far
aal near, alg!'riSl itwtrvJ it au'h. r to
lb akie. Tbey r-jo:e-? ia theKlnf, tUt
it ta. dctuo!ihd tu. an-I th's l o, while it
bolls oe op as the truest and bot friends '
U' Ikif u: It remain; to be seen,
whether yea will un drtand btm a rfect-
It a tbr d", and will ncet tbe r,cth. s.j
las!el by tbnt, vtitb the rtrrolation due
to -tffruou-ry and decrtin. It is n t the
Crst titn; thai a deserter lix ba.1 the avur-
a&c ta address thw be de.rteJ, and while c-ant and uneompmmising course, that I of
pofneing regarl f r their cause, dcnmneel fcred my resolution". It wx, then, they
thefe wb j rectaJu ! faithful to it. The h:s- and not me, who took groun-l against com
loey 'cf oar rrr.dati.Tn farni-hes a ntcrioas pfmic or adjustment So far from this
tnsUncc of th kind. The deserter in that being true. I have even been in favor of any
iostacce, foiled to deceive those whom he fair adjustment, which was consistent with
addressed, or to !toke their confidence in your constitutional rirbts. Of this I gave
lbce wla rvmalttcd faithful to them, an-J Tery strong proof at tbe very next aeswinn,
urvtum fvT" bis effrontery alid desertion, by supporting that bill reported by Mr.
Lave sent bis name down to posterity with Clayton, which left the decision to the adju
rrprobaa. It remains to be seen, whether d .cat ion of the courts. Tbe Kill would have
rich will l tie fate of the deserter iu this , passed but for hi associates, the abolition
las'asce. ; I its and free-filers, and. the question in con-
He oimmcnoed bi speech with attacking trovcrsy between the two sections in rtf tr
ibe rraoUtijos I cffercl to the Nrnate the
19ib February, 1S47, aadehargt that they
wrre introduced for the purpose of dlmnion.
That joa mar jadge fjryourselrca, whether
they are liabXi U tha charge or oot, I insert '
lVeC3 . - , mg the Lnion.
'.--2rsv That the territories of the J Hut all these assumptiona were but pre
Uoiuxl Sutea belong to tbe several States . liminary to a charge, still more audacious;
eosnpung this Union, and are bell by them j thai I am the real author of the Wilmot
aa their joint and common property. j IVoviso. He calls it the Calhoun proviso,
i .Vst That Congress jml nJ says that I am better entitled to iU pa
a nt artd representative of the States of this ternity, than Wilmot himself, which he ac
if&ion, baa tv right U make any law, or ilo companied by strong denunciations of the
y act wbaterer, that ahatl, directly or by , provi and a long enumeration of the many
U effect, make anT discrimination between and great evils it baa inflicted on the coun-
tLa State cfthli lnion, by which an or try I What cllrontcry l tie, iue avowcu
Ihera shall be dejrivcl of its full and equal ; advocate of the Wilmot Proviso, accuses me
-Sit la anr iernUrr of the United States, of beine its author, and denounce it in the
acquired or t be acquired. '
ij-rsorrcUY That the enactment of any
Li w which shocld, directly, or br it effixts, j
deprive the eitlxena of any of the States of
t Union frw trn'rrantin with their pro-
- . . ..- m .1 . -.1
t-rx into aar of tbe territories of the Unit-
ed fc':ateji, wul raale rach discnmination,
and we add then Tore, be a Ttolation cf the
constitution, and the rights of the Stales
frota which such eiUtetn emigraieJi and in
tie rogation cf thai perfect equality which bo-
; - - t thenl a roetn&crs ot tne union, an
woaii UsJ dlrectl toirabTert the Union it
r a flmcrJ TbaQ as a fandamental pnn
cjv in onr 'p-'Hucal creed; a people, "in
fru;"?5 cctistitotion, bare the uncondition
al rl-bt t form and adopt the government
wblsH thy tuay think: best calculated to se
ctu liberty, prprity andbapplna; and
that, ia cesf rnlt thereto, to rAhcr condl
txti t4 i'ar?el bt 'the 'federal coastitatioa
en a State, iaorder" to bcr aamuaion into
this Union, except that iu constitution bo
republican and that the impositkm of an
HA- 10 Mil
X J I 11 II 11 w II J II M VI II li; II. J I 1 ' ,
VOLUME I.
1 fiKtitb the trincinle on which our political
I fjtou rests.4
iLcj are. aa joa eef confined w asacrung
yriiK"if.I appertaining to tbe nature ana
.
character ol our jjsteia of government, and
ual;io inferrncca clcarljr deducible from
tbcm ; and which are of vital importance, in
tbe oumtion betvren jou and tbe North, in
rrULioa to tbe Wilmot Proviao. If tbe facta
be, a tbe nmolutioos stated, there is no de
njin the inferrnce; and if both be true,
then rour right to emigrate with your slates
into the territories become unquestionable
under the constitution. This be felt, and
becce hU bitter denunciation of them. But
be bx4 confined himself to denunciation
without maLiog an effort to refute tbe reso
lution b showing their cantain error, either
aa to the facta avrtcd, or inference deduc
ed. He koew that to be beyond bis power
and prudently aToidcd it. liut, if the re.v
lutio!t. be tnif, x he is compelled to admit
they arc by hi silence, bow can they be a
firebranJ. as he rail them, or be justly
-j
for it in the motive, which he gratuitously
ai'ms to me fr
drag in the Aecotumac redutions to prove,
drag in the Accommac redutions
Uiat the object i a Convention of tl
crn State, arxl that ho a-wumes to
coneluive, that dUunion is intende
the South-
be proof
led by my
reflation. He L ouite horrified at the idea
of your meeting in Convention, in order to
commit on tbe bet mmle of saving both
tna Innw of fanatics, and the treachery of de-
s.-rte should not make tbe latter irajjossi-
ble. He next assert., in onler to prove that
dUuniin U their object, that they render
ihc alju.f mcut of the territorial question
inipractia b'e, and that was my motive
for infroilaciog them. He makes this a.-
rtion, in the face of fact perfectly well
known t him ; tht the Northern members.
with a verv few honorable exrcptins, h wl
rejected every efforts at compromise, and
had declarol their fixed determination not
to accept of anr. It was a;amt this arm-
ence to temtones finally adjusted ; and yet,
he knowing all this, baa the effrontery (to
call it by no harsher name) to charge me,
and not them, as opposed to any adjustment,
and that too for the base purpose of destroy
most unmeasured terms in the same speech,
in which he praises it and declares himself
to be in its favor! lie would seem to be
perfectly indifferent of the recoil on himself,
when bis object was to assail me. There is
. .1.1 1 t t 1. -
no term in the language, by which such a
combination of insincerity, inconjustency,
and brazen effnmtcry can be characterised,
The way, in which he attempt to make out
bis assertions, are in keeping with their
character.
He first assumes that the Wilmot Proviso
and the Missouri Compromise arc identically
the same, and then undertakes to prove, that
I am the author of the Utter, and, of course,
also, of the former. This must bo a piece
of strange intelligence to Mr. Clay and his
frienda; and admirer. I had supposed that
thorq was' no doubt whatever as to his being
the real author of the Missouri Compromise.
It was he who devised the measure,- intro
duced it into the House of Representatives,
carried it through, "by his address, and glori
ed in the reputation of being its author, It
is a little cruel to strip him of the honor of
ASK. XOTJIIXQ THAT IS HOT RIGHT
LINCOLNTON, N.
being Iu'autLorat UiU Utedatc. inJ to'besl
iiw iff ai TMiTi rfi ii vnn Yin rnf pvit kiik- i
pected of being so until CoL Beaten discov
ered it, " ' " - ' ;
But, if he could really make out. that
am the author of the Missouri Compromise,
he must go one step further to make me the
author of tbo' Wilmot IYoriso. He must
prove tho two measures to be identical; this
he has not done or even attempted. Instead
of that, he has adopted his usual course of
i' . i - . ? r ;
assuming wuai ue is incapauie ot- prunug.
It is a very easy way to reach a conclusion
that is desired. In this, too, he has disclos
ed his wonderful aptitude to see .what no one
eTer before saw, or suspected. JXeretofore all
bad supposed that they were veriliffercnt
thing that a compromise was'essential to
one, while the other necessarily" crcluded it
that one pro-supposes a conflict of opinion
between parties, on a question of rjgbt or
expediency to have been adjusted on ground,
in which neither surrendered its right or
m ' at i
Opinion. iue oiuer, on iue comnirjr, prc-
SU ppOSCS a positive u.wi uuu ut rigui, ui
I r. . .i. i. r-n : .
opiuion, u toe exeiiiMou 01 an vuiupuiuisc.
Thus in the case of the Missouri Compro
mise, tha North and South differed on the
constitutional question, whether Congress
had the right to prohibit the introduction of
slaves, as a condition of admitting a State
into the Union. One contended, that Con
gress had the right to iuipiso whatever con
dition it might think proper on a territory,
about to become a State, and the other, that
it had no right to impose any, except that
prescribed by the Constitution: that its gov
ernment should bo republican. The North
on that case waived the claim of power, on
the proposal made by Mr. Clay to fix the
Northern limits of the territory, into which
i i i i on n ti.:..
slaves migm ue miruuucvu, aiuu. ov. a ma
proposal, although made by a Southern mem
ber, was taken up and carried by the vote
of the North, and thus became, in fact, their
offer to com promise. The South acquiesc
ed, without, however, yielding her principles
or assenting, or dissenting, as to the power
of Congress, to exclude slavery from the ter
ritories. It was a compromise, in which
both waived, but neither yielded its opinion,
a t the power of Congress.
Very different was the case in reference
to the Oregon bill, passed at the session pre
ceding the last. There tho North contend
ed for the absolute right to exclude slavery
from all tho territories ; and announced their
determination to do sn, against the efforts of
the South to compromise the question, by
extending the Missouri Compromise line to
the Pacific ()ecai. The offer was scornfully
refused, and the bill passed, without any
compromise. It was intended indeed to be
the practical assertion of the maked princi
ple that Congress had the power to claim
for it, by tho 'Wilmot Proviso. It was the
first act of the kind ever passed, and was car
ried by the desertion from your cause by
Col. Ilenton and Gen. Houston. It is not
surprising that tho former should be desir
ous of confounding this far more odious
measure, with the Missouri Compromise, a
much less odious one, iu the hope of mitigat
ing your deep indignation, occasioned by
his betrayal of you, on a question so vital to
the South. But ho hal another motive
which will be explain d, hereafter, and which
makes it still more desirable to him, that the
two should be confounded and regarded as
identical. When it comes tole explained,
it will bo seen, that it was necessary that
they should be; in order to extricate him
from a very awkward dilemma in which he
has placed himself. Job exclaimed, "Oh
that mine adversary had written a book;"
and well might I have exclaimed, "Oh that
my adversary might make a speech." His
adversary must have been very much like
mine. Wo have never heard whether his had
the folly to accommodate him as mine has
liad to accommodate me. '
I have now effectually repelled his prepos
terous charge, that lam the author of the
Wilmot Proviso; for it is uterly impossible
that he ever can show that I am tho author
of the Missouri Compromise, or that, that
compromise and the Wilmot Proviso are the
same. But as he has made it the position
from which to assail me with the charge of
disunion, and thro mo you, including his
own constituents, I shall follow him step
by step, through the long process, by which
he makes the desperate endeavor to establish
his preposterous charge, by attempting to
show, that I have changed my opinion, as
to the powers of Congress over the territories.
But my purpose is more to expose his incon
sistency .contradictions and absurdities than to
refute what he advances as argument If he
could prove to a demonstration, that I have
chanfnnl my opinion, it could have no weight
whatever towards showing that my resolution
aimed at disunion. Nor do I deem it a mat
ter of any importance, in this connection,
whether my opinion has or has not under
gone, a change, in tho long period of 30
rears, since the adoption of the Missouri
At that time, the power of
Congress over the territories had received
but little consideration, while for the last
few years it has been a subject of vital inter
est to you, and, as such, has been thoroughly
investigated by myself and others," whose
duty it has been to defend ' your rights -in
the councils of tho Union, in reference to it.
To substantiate the charge of a change of
opinion, he introduces a copy of what pur
ports to be a draft of a letter found among
V
SUBMIT TO
XOTHIXCJ TnAT- J8 'YROiQ-Xlcl:son.
C, JULY 27 f 1 849.
the papers of Mr. Monroo. It is said to be
in bis hand writing. It is without date.' not
signed, or addressed to any person by name
dui contained expressions, wmcu leave . no
doubt, that it was intended for General
Jackson. This paper was found filed awav
with another endorsed Interroiratories--Mis-
souri March 3d 1820." "To the heads
of Departments and Attorney-General." It
contained two Questions, of which the one
pertinent to the present subject is in the fol
lowing words : "Ilas Congress a right , un
der the powers .rested in the constitution to
make a regulation prohibiting slavery .in a
territory t" Tbe 'only material sentence in
the draft c-T the -letter, in reference to, the
point under consideration is in the following
words : "I took the opinion m writing oi
the administration, as to the constitutiona
lity of restraining territories, which was ex
plicit in favor of it." These are the exact
words of the sentence as finally corrected by
its author. It is explicit as to tbe state
ment, that the administration, as a body,
vas in favor of the constitutionlity, but fur-
nishes no proot wnatever ot its members
being unanimous, and of course no evidence
that I or any other particular member of the
Cabinet, in its favor.
Tlu3 deficiency Col. Benton undertakes
to supply, first from the interlining, and next
from a statement purporting to be from the
diary of Mr.' Adams. First, as to the in
terliniug, instead of the expression, which
was "explicit" as it now stands, is read in
the original draft, "and the vote of every
member was explicit." These words were
all struck out except "explicit," and in their
place the following words were interlined
in the first Instance, "which were unanimous
and," afterwards the words "unanimous and"
were struck, out, which left the paper as it
now stands. Now I hold it to be clear that
the interlining and striking out, so far from
strengthening the inference that the cabinet
were unaniiuous, as Col. Benton contends,
it strengthens and sustains the very oppo
site. Sj fir then it is certain, the draft of
the letter, standing by itself, instead of fur
nishing proof that the cabinet were unani
mous, furnishes proof directly to the con
trary. Even Col. Benton himself seems to
have been conscious, that it furnished no
satisfactory proof, as to the unauiraity of
the cabinet,, and endeavi rs to supply this de
fect from statements purporting to be taken
from the diary of Mr. Adams. From these,
it would appear that a meeeting of the cab
inet was held on tho 3d of March for the
first time, to consider the compromise bill,
and that, According to the statement of
Mr. Adams the cabinet were unanimous
upon the; question of Constitutionality,
upon the question of constitutionality. ; It
also appears that the President sent him the
two questions, on the 5th of March, inform
ing him at the same time that he desired
answer In writing from the members of the
Cabinet, and that the answers would be .in
time if received the next day. Such is the
substance of the statement purporting to be
taken from his diary.
Connecting this with the draft as it origi
nally stood, and the subsequent alterations
including the date of the memorandum filed
with it, the natural interpretation of the whole
affair is that Mr. Monroe drew up interroga
tions, and the draft of his letter intended for
General Jackson on the 4th of March, the
date of the memorandum' It could not have
been earlier according t the diary of Mr.
4 J t-Vl 1. TT. J" J . . J ..
vaam3 nor pruuaunr later, ncumuvi uaw
tho draft because the letter could not be fin
ished and transmitted to General Jackson, un
til after he had signed the bill. The draft
was drawn up as it stood, in all probability
on the basis of the opinion expressed on the
third of March, tho first day of the meet
ing of the Cabinet, and which, at the time
as the'diary states was "unanimous," and
the doubts and uncertainty of opinion were
expressed by some of the members on the
two subsequent days (the 5th, and 6th of
March,) which caused the interlining and the
first modification of the draft as it now stands.
It it difficult to give any other explanation.
I now turn to Col. Benton's reasoning up
on the subject. He alleges that the words
" vote of every member was explicit" were
struck out and "explicit" inserted, evidently
avoid violating the rule of Cabinet secrets
not to tell the opinion of members which the
word " unanimous" "would do. His state
ment contains two errors, as to fact. ' Ex
plicit' was in the original- draft, and never
struck out. Unanimous made no part of
the original draft, as he supposes. It was a
part of the interlining at first ; but subse
quently struck out. All this i3 apparent
from a certified copy of the paper now be
fore me. Thus his reasoning falls to the
ground. . He carries the rule of Cabinet se
crets very far, much farther than he does
the same rule applied to the secrets of the
Cabinet Who ever heard that it was a vio
lation of any rule of Cabinet secrets, to say
the administration was , unanimous or divi
ded ? It is constantly said- in reference to
their meetings, and yet he would have yon
believe, that it would have been a breach of
confidence in Mr. Monroe in writing a con
fidential letter to a friend of high, standing,
to say that his Cabinet were unanimous; and
especially, as the question was one of consti
tutionality,' and not of policy. What mem
ber of any f Cabinet would be so base and
cowardly, as to desire to conceal his opinion
on a constitutional qu,estion ? Who, accor-
. , - r , v. .... ... ...v...
II I:.. J I M J 1 - 1 I " ' VI II
NUMBER 33;
dmgly, did not know at the time, that the
opinion of the Cabinet of General Washing
ton was divided on the quesion of chartering
a bank, and what side every member took ?
Col. Benton's explanation is destitute of even
plausibility, and leaves tke draft to speak for
it sen, as it stands ; and that clearly is against
mu vauinei ueing unanimous, ane-diajy
of Mr. Adams furnishes the only opposing
-.1 XT TL11?. . l ,
cvweuw. o, a noia u io Dea sound rule
that a diary is no evidence of a fact against
any one, but him who keeps it The opposiie
rule would place the character of every man
at the mercy of whoever keeps a diary It
is not my object to call m question the verao-
1 ty , of, JJIr. Adams, but . he was a- rnau-of
strong prejudices, hasty temper, and much
disposed to view things as he desired. From
f ? . t" 11
uis temperament, ne would De liaoie to no-
tics and mark what fell within his own views,
and to pass unnoticed what did not. I ven
ture little in saving that if his diary should
be published during the lifetime of those
who were on the stage with him. its state
ments would be contradictod by many, and
confirm all I havej stated. But few state
ments from it have yet been brought to the
notice of the public, but even of these few,
two have been contradicted: one. (if mv recol-
ection serves; me.) related to General Jack
son, and the other to a Mr. Harris, of Phila
delphia, during the administration of Mr.
olonroe.
Opposed to the statement of Mr. Adams,
stands the fact, that no opinions as is admit
ted by Col. Benton, are to be found on the
file3 of the Department of State, nor any ev
idence that any such, opinions were ever
filed ; although the statement purporting to
be irom the diary of Mr. Adams says, that
Mr. Monroe directed them to be filed. One
of two things would seem to be clear ; either
he fell into an error, in making the entry,
or that he failed to place them on file, in
consequence of some subsequent direction
from the President. It is hardly possible,
if they had been placed on file, but that they
would still be there, or soma evidence, in
existence, that tuey had been there. My
- ' 7
own recollection is, that Mr. Monroe request-
mo vpiuiuu u mc lucuiutsia oi uis uauiuei
in writing; but that in consequence of want
ot time to prepare a written opinion some
other cause, none was given, and this I stat
ed in the Senate, when General Dix brought
up the question as to the opinion of the Cab
inet of Mr. Monroe, before tho fact was dis-
closed, that there was no .written opinion on
the files of the department I have entire
confidence, that if any was given; it amount-
ed to no more, than the simple affirmation.
or negation of the power. " The time did
not admit the preparate of elaborate opin
ions, and if any such had been given, it is
impossible that I should forget it; and next
to impossible, that it should so long have re
mained concealed from the public. As to
the insinuation, that I am the only member
of the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, who has since
been Secretary of State, and ail others of
like character, I pass them with the silent
confunpt due to their baseness, and the
source whence they came.
There is beside, a fact which clearly shows,'
that there , had been a considerable change of
views from the 4th. to the 6th of March ; I
allude to the fact, that the draft of the letter
intended for General Jaekson was never sent.
It is inferable from the fact, that there is no
such letter to be found among the paper, af
ter the most diligent search. - It is not impro
bable that the same change of circumstances
which caused the striking out and inserting,
and which induced him, also, finally , to dis
pense with a written opinion and will ac
count why no such opinion is found on file.
But suppose the case to be as Col. Ben
ton contended ; of what importance is it, or
how does it enable him to make out his charge,
that the resolutions which he so vehement
ly denounces, were introduced for the pur
poses of disunion? The opinion of the
Cabinet, whether for or against, whether un
animous or divided ; whether written or un
written, were given under - circumstances
which would entitle them to but little weight.
In the first place, there was no time for con
sideration. But one day elapsed from the
time the questions were put and sent to the
members of tlje Cabinet, until a final deci
sion was made. In the next place, the sub
ject was little understood and had at that
time received but little consideration. The
great point in the discussion of the Missouri
question, was whether Congress had a right
to impose any other limitation on the admis
sion of a State into the Union, than that
prescribed by the Constitution. The ques
tion of its power over the territories did - not
come up until the end of the discussion ; and,
according to my recollection, was scarcely
noticed, much less discussed. So loose, in
deed, was tte prevailing opinion at the time,
that the power of legislating over them was.
believed to be derived from that portion of
the Constitution, which provides " that Con
gress shall have power-to dispose of, 'and to
make all needful rules and ? regulations res
pecting the territories and other property be
longing to . the : United States." Such it
would seem;to have been the' opinion of Mr.
Monroe, judging from his manner of propoun-'
ding the question. He puts it in" language
borrowed from' the provision t( to make a
regulation prohibiting slavery in the terriip-
nes ana not . w -maae a uiw vj jnuii;uit.
But since then, a more careful examination
has established beyond all reasonable doubt,
that this provision was intended to Ve limi
ted to the disposition and regulation of the
territories regarded simply as land or prop
corty, and that at .conferred no gpower Whatv
ever "beyond, aaueh' less, that of frxoliihifjng
slavery undersuch circumstances, even if it
could be made out leyond akaw of doubt
that Uiet cabinet was unanimous, and that its
members gave written pinions in the 'ifSr
reative, iteould haW little weight in settling
the constitutional ' question ;; and jet Cob C
Benton,1 in t zeal ? to f strike : at r tte," anl ;
through me at yon and I your cause, tnsista
that the epmioa of Mr. Monroe's cabinet for
ever foreclosed the question against the Soxlvh.
To establish a fdoctriae 0 absurd, he, by im-
pb'catiojou laidoara a role, that the opinioi
of Congress, or aay department of tke coer-
ernmert, once expressed ea a constitutional
question, settles it forever; and this, too, ,
wkea it is well known that it was in direct'
contradictSoQ to the : course he. pursued ia
reference to the Bank of tke United States.
The right of Congress to charter such a bask
had again and again been sanctioned by Con-'
gress, and by every department of the gov
ernment. Thahejlid not consider all thia
as settling the constitutional " question, the '
long war be waged agaiast the institution
proves conclusively.
. It is his fate io involve himself In di1ni.
mas at every step he takes, and which ho is
either too blind io see, or too reckless to re
gard.. He has labored through many col-
umns to prove, that the cabinet of Mr. Mon
mf was nnam'maiia in favor nf rhft
Congress to exclude slavery from the territo
ries, and that they gave written opinions to
that effect, in order to prove, that I am the
real and responsible author of the Wilmot
proviso, without apparently perceiving, Uiat
if he could succeed, it would destroy his con
clusion j for if the Cabinet was1 unanimous,
how could I alone be responsible. lie seems
to have felt the dilemma after he got into it
and has made ai desperate effort to escape
from it. For that purpose, he had to falsify
the Constitution and to assert, that the ve
to power was vested in the Cabinet, and aot
in the President,! when that .instrument ex
pressly provides, ) that " the Executive pow
er shall be vested in the President ;" and
that every bill shall be presented to the Pres
ident for his appi-oval or disapproval : and
that, if he approves of it, it shall become a
law, and if he disapproves, it shall not, un
less passed by tvo thirds of both ! houses' of
Congress. He rollows up this false asser
tion by another, jthat I had one fifth of the
veto power in my. hands, when, in ' fact, I
had no part, and I when the paper, on which
he relies to make out his charge, shows on its
face, that the Cabinet consisted, of six and '
not nve, ana oi course, u i& naa tne Teto
power, but one sfxth part vas vested in me.
But this double mistake is not sufficient of
itself to support his charge. The question .
would still remain. . How could I be soleljr
responsible, wheii according to his own sbow- '
in 2. 1 had but a fifth of the , newer ? ITnoa
what principle bfj justice, icoukl :J be mada :
responsible for the acts oJftheot her three, or
as the fact really is -the other four f To
escape from thisi dilemma he attributes to
me the mosteoinimanding influence over the
Cabinet -so commanding as to be. able to
draw over to my I side; a sufficient number of
members to make a majority ; and this too,
when it is apparent from the; paper from
which he draws his statement, that Mr. Mon
roe had no doubt as to the. power of Con
gress. I then, in order to command a'' ma
jority, woidd have had to controll three oth- 4
er members against him, which Cob Benton
seems to think L could have done very easi
ly, if I had thought proper He seems"" to
have a most exalted opinion of my abilities,
far more so than1 I have of his.' Wherever
I am placed, whether in-Mr Monroe's or in
Mr. Tyler's Cabinet ; whether in the Senate
or the House of Representatives or in : the
chirr of the Vice President, I alone, in his
opinion, am responsible, on , , all questions.
I have now. traced him through the long
process by which he attempts to, prove that
I arnhe authprjof the Wilmot proviso, and,'
by consequence; of all the mighty evils that'
have followed in jits train and which he ..ex
hibits with so much. parade ; but, after all,
mighty as he represents them to be, the are
not so much so, as to prevent him from de
claring himself to be a Wilmot proviso man.
He follows up his charge by' asserting v that
the effects of disclosing the opinion of the ,
Cabinet by Mr. Dix, introducing the paper
compelled me to close my lips, abandon mjr
resolutions, and to give up my intention bt
making them the subject of a general debate
at the next session, with the intention,' ;to
use his own language,' to make & chance for1
myself at the next presidential election," by ?
getting up a -test which no Northern fnan -could
stand. 11 this is just as erroneous,
both as to facta and mferenceas are "hi8
statements and reasons in his Vain f attempt
to make me the author of the Wilmot pro
viso. . ' . .,: - r... ,-.
If by abandoning mjr iesolution8f be
means that it compelled me to abandon their
principles, on a sjhgle position taken by them'
or to be silent, as to the constitutional pow-,
er of Congress "oyer ; the territories, ids as-"
sertion would be false throughout. , The res
olutions were introduced,1 as he states,, the
19th of July, 1849, near theclose of the
short session. So far from abandoning them
or from keeping silent, I discussed the prin
ciples on which, they reit in the . debate, on
the bill to establish, the -Territorial, govern-i
ment of Oregon at great length, at the next
session, and established them bv.argument4
that have never yet, and, I . will venture !to , ),
sa, never wiU.lSe refuted r Fewhave nn
dertaken to 'refute them, and jtboee, who
hay6 under taken it, signally failed.;-lOjthers
like uoL' l5enton,have taken ibe more pru
dent course to cry ; out fiwbrand-disxmion,.
instead of attempting to refute them, 'r : 7
But if he means that I was deterred from -
mtfoauQing my resolutions at tne next
-1