The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-03

trust, modify and molly his views mi, W here rsa,
ihe draIght OF the veto message approximations II
II may be that this draught for the bill oil 1920,
some have so Supposed as il refers to provisions tc
Territories in the bill Of 1920 and that Of 1919.
It passed the House. though was supposed while it
pending, such provision would be inserted President
Monroes letter to Judge Roane, dated February 49, 1870
note g. appendix but 20 days before the bill Of 1870
signed, would seem TO indicate that he had not then fully
"made up his mind, and authorizes the presumption thai
ne prepared this daught after he wrote that letter, and
that he intended to reject the bill of 1920 II the
thority is strengthened The force OF the compromise
act of 1920 if such be the fact directly weakened
BY this veto message although the President and his cab
met may subsequently to his decision to reject the bill
have felt themselves constrained by considerations OF ur
gent expedency-nay of such momenous character and
overwhelming force, involving, perhaps, the existence
OF the cOnederacy-iO acquesce in the arrangement
made by Congress, and allow the bill to become law
Under these circumstances, can there be man OF IN
tegence, from Maine 10 Texas who will venture to say
that any OF the distinguished citizens of the South
who were MIR. Monroe's chosen constitutional counsel.
Tors in March, 1870, would in contemplation OF what il
now attempted, have assented 10 that COMPROMISED Had
they habored the suspicion that the contest would be
cedent for and additional outrage of gevous
character, would they not all and at have met the
difficulty by spurnng the compromise and adhering to
the constitution their shield Would, in such case
aahsr cns 81 them have remained in Mr. Monroes cabi
net an hour after he should have approved the bi Nc
man who reads Mr. honroes draught OF his veto mes
and who reads his correspondence can doubt thai
he sacrificed his opinions to preserve the harmony and
peace OF the Union If he violated the constitution ii was
to the constitution And yet this act is urged
precedent! It, forsooth is admission OF the power that
es0ps the South from further denial admit that, with
respect to the Territory covers is reiinqrlstme as
far riaquted OF all contest as to the claim
OF power and this those who insist the exclusion oil
slavery northwest of 36e 30' in the territory then pos
sessed by the United States, and to which that bill APP
plies may have the benefit of. This does not preclude
us from insisting, insisted in 1920, that the act OF
exclusion was an usup1tiOn The South yielded to such
usurpaon rather than contend with you the question
of abstract right to Territory where its concession
nv ,yout he Nv worthless tn them Rut NJ
the validity OF the act of 1929 was less doubtful is not
under the circumstances Just precedent for the measure
insisted upon, and now resisted as one of cumulative
usurpation The exclusion now proposed as to Callfor-
MIA and New Mexico, large portion OF these Terri
tories not only outrages the rgHs OF all but INJURIES
the Interests OF portion of the southern States The
act of 1890 though it wrong effected but little
practical injury, was the with the ordinance OF
! 1887 over the northwest territory.
During the recess. and before the meeting OF the first
session of the 10th Congress, in December, 1919, many
of The most influential citizens OF the middle southern,
and western States exered themselves to alay the alarm
ing excitement that pervaded the whole country Con-
Citation by mutual concession deemed best, and the
compromise bill OF next session Sl92O) was the result
1t was reported by select committee at an early day of
that session Mr. Crawford then Secretary OF the Treas
ury, and other leading southern statesmen, originally
insisting the strict constitutional rights OF the southern
States. and that Congress had no power TO nhbt them
and the apprehension OF having more odous measures
forced upon tbcm and by the consideration, ALSO that
with respect to the territory north OF 36' 30 il was not
practical question, to favor the plan of compromise.
CAS- to Mr. Crawford see letter in appendix, note +, No
80 There is little doubt Notwithstanding the strong OPP
position of Mr. Monroe to the principle OF the attempted
restriction either to Territories States he also was
constrained the crisis approached by the same con-
sideratons to iorego his own opinions and yield his
Judgment and also acqucsce in such compromise. Nay,
as The danger became imminent, have little question
his erertions used to further compromise have
before alluded TO evidence, afforded by the annexed
letters, that article in the Richmond Enquirer in ia,
vor OF compromise was either written 6y MN
or with his countenance and approbaon.-( Note F.,
Nos !, $, 10, 20, and 2 These papers show that the
bill of 1920 acceded to a compromise merely. The
bill was reported December Q, 1919 and after violent
debate of several weeks, and various amendments offer
ed some of which adopted and others rejected, it
passed the House March l. 1920 and passed the Senate
with amendments March 3 1920 which were concurred
in by the House same day, and It was signed by Mr.
Monroe, March 6, 1S20.-(See Sd vol. Stat. at Large,
chap. %, p. 5I7D
The sth section of this act, before quoted applies
terms only to territory acquired by the Louisiana treaty
from France, north OF 800 80 Ii excludes slavery from
| it forever.
This embraced all the country to the eastern base Of
the Rocky mountains. Beyond those mountains, IN Or
egon, had not then the exclusive possession We did
not obtain it from France. We claimed it by right OF
prior discovery and occupation.
1t is true after the compromise bill had passed on
March, 1920, the South were disposed to regard 1t as
final settlement of all contest on this topic, and to let 1t
rest undlsurbed 1t deprecated then, as 1t depecates
now the agitation OF this topic in any way as productive
of penicous effects at home Some OF the other sections
doubtless do not appreciate this feeling, and from their
want of knowledge, do not abstain from those courses
that outrage and excite the SOun. I0cTe however,
those who do know, and melted by such knowledge
to such agitation The South trusted the agitation was
settled by the act of 1920 But at the very next session.
the country witnessed the eager renewal of the efforts OF
those who to consider it most laudable vocation
to excite discod and hostility between the different sec
tons of the Union. The "free white male citizens OF
the Territory of Missouri, authorized by the act OF
1920, (not the Indians negroes and mulaoes formed
their Stale constitution in June, 1920. They delegated
their State legislature power to pass laws to prohibit
the nOduciionst, of tei0n slaves I'd, OF slaves for
sale or speculation merely; 3d. Of slaves and their Oft
spring Illegally imported from abroad IN any State or Ter
rtory 1th of free negroes and D,MdHoes. Her adms
sion was opposed on account OF TINS fast provision
Thrice was a resolution in the same terms as OF that
finally adopted, and which allowed her admission,
rejected in the House of Representatives. once in Com
mIltee by vote of 10 to 81; and once IN the House
by vote OF SO to So and, again, upon reconsidera-
ton, and several days fierce debate by third vote.
A select committee of both houses was, however, APP
pointed who reported the resolution again, and 1t was
adopted February 25, 1921 by the House, by vote OF 81
to 81 and by the Senate bya vote OF % to T. ide res
oluon, vol 3, Stat. at Large, p 645.) To Mr. Henry
Clay has generally been given the reputation OF effecng
its adoption 1t allowed the admission OF the State but
provided that law should be passed under the clause Of
its constitution Directing to nhbting Citizens of any
the question of citizenship to judicial decision in any
that might arise and leaving also the validity OF the
restriction in the act to be tested in the way.
The South willing to adhere in good faith to all
those measures for the have before stated She
was even disposed 10 leave their validity unquesoned, if
those who constrained her TO acquiesce in them
compromise would in good faith restrain from further
attempts TO encroach upon her.
Suppose Missouri had been rejected by Congress on
count of the provision in her State constitution ercepfed
10 what would have been the consequences Can any
one doubt that she would have remained an Independent