{"character_count": 4360, "word_count": 755, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9883999824523926], "ccnet_perplexity": [1649.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
A portion of our remarks made in the last Advocate have been misunderstood, and some gentlemen in the Legislature are there by made to stand on different ground from what they occupy in reality. Whenever we do wrong to any man, We are willing and glad to make reparation, and in this case we are now convinced that We have done unin- tentional injury to some of our best friends

 In stating that the question of slave repre- sentation was under discussion, and that it was an unfortunate question, we simply meant to state our conviction that the mem. bers of the House of Representatives came here prepared and anxious to act in concert and to go side by side in the question of State Government-that they would, we thought, have agreed to almost any apportionment which was not glaringly unjust, for the sake of harmonious action on the main question: that the question of slave representation was one not involved in the amendments offered, or in either of then-and that therefore 1t was unfortunate that the apple of contention was thrown down in the House, by the deela- ration of Mfs Walker of Hampstead that the object of his amendment was a property or slave representation. It was not our inten- ton to say that the South and East went for that object. We simply meant to say that the introduction of this question was the sole cause of the violent and acrimonious debate of which we spoke, and that therefore it was un- fortunate. .4t that time we thought that there would have arisen no violent debate on the amendment of MT. Walker of Hampstead, had he not declared slave representation to be his object. It was therefore that we con- sidered the question unfortunate, because of its arraying the sectional divisions of the House against each other, and because we. thought that the members from the North and West only opposed the amendment on the ground taken by Mf. Walker of Hemp- stead. His declarations were calculated to influence their opposition, and we thought, at that time, that they were the whole cause of the excitement. With this view of the sub ,ect, we called the question of slave repre- sentation the main question-not as being the dividing line of principle, but as being the sole cause ef excitement and quarrel,

 It is due to cur friends that we should briefly state the grounds on which the South ern and Eastern members supported the amendment of Mir. Walker of Hempstead.- Upon introducing the amendment, that gen. tleman made speech to the House, in which he defended his position of property repfesen- tation, by the argument that were it not for the slaves in the Territory, we have not the requisite population to entitiie Us to admission into the Union. He was answered by Messrs. Fowler and Walker of Washington, who were warm and impassioned in their op- position to slave representation, and argued with zeal and ability against it. Mir. Cum, mins protested against the discussion of that subject, and alleged that he did not support the amendment on those grounds. He SUD- ported it on the ground that districts ot coun- tr-y, as well as the people by numbers, should be represented in Convention.

 After the amendment of MT, Walker of Hampstead was supplanted by that of Mir. Walker of Washington, Mr. Cummins offered an amendment, giving each county one dele gate, and each five hundred free white males one delegate This amendment he support ed by an argument drawn from the Constitu- ton of the United States, showing that dis tricts as well as inhabitants should be reprea sented. That amendment was opposed as strenuously as the first amendment of Mir. Walker of Hampstead, and lost:

 In conclusion-from the fact that Mr

 Walker of Hampstead was the author of the amendment, and avowed his object to be slave representation, we naturally inferred that most of the members who voted for the amendment were in favor of his views. It was mistake, and one which we are glad to be able to correct. In subsequent converse ton with many members from the South and East, we have been assured that Mir. Walker of Hampstead stands nearly if not quite alone in this matter. The amendment was carried on the ground taken by Mir. Cnmmins, that 1t gave Convention combining district and individual representation. Whenever we do

 wrong to any man, unintentionally, we shall

 be prompt to render him justice. We are