The North-Carolinian. [volume] (Fayetteville [N.C.]) 1839-1861, 1850-06-01

occasion even to talk Of compromises Other
than those that were made in the formation
Of that admirable constitution under which
we live. Both reflection and experience
teach US that no others are to be relied on.
W hat ha- become Of the Missouri com
promise, Gas it is calIed,) and what has
been it's operation? Has it furnished to
the South. the ishtest security that slave
property may be holden in any territory
of the United States south Of Sc deg. so
min. Though it has very etfectually
closed the door against its Introduction
north of that limit. OF what value has
been the compromise Of 1888 upon the
tariff question? Has it been regarded as
any thing more than SO much blank paper!
What guaranty have we that any future
| compromises will receive more considera-
tion? lean conceive Of none. The max
ing of compromises, then, seems to me to
be a very idle business, unless it be such
compromises as are made and executed
at the same moment. The constitution
must be left to work out its own results
and though, like everything partaking of
human inperfecton, it must in its opera
ton bear hard at times upon particu
| interests and sections ut our widt- spread
country,l doubt whether anything will
ever be gained by complaints-certainly
nothing by mutual examinations. When
ever wrongs are inflicted on particular
interests by unconstitutional legislation of
Congress, it is then very proper Tor the
| injured party to entertain the question.
whether it will submit to the wrong as the
lesser evil, or whether the wrong is OF so
grave a character as to make necessary
an appeal to the EXTREMIST measures tor
its redress. But there are some wrongs,
under every system Of law, that admit Of
no redress but by the voluntary act OF the
aggressive party. In the language Of the
common law, it is damnuna absque iyuria.
Enforced redress for wrongs such as these
cannot be obtained; for the law itself pro-
tects the aggressor, and he who seeks by
force to redress them becomes himself an
asgressor, and will be counted a disturber
of the public peace. Within constitutional
limits, therefore. we are all bound to sub
NIT to the will Of the majority, whatever
that will may be, and however distastefuI
to the minority. But when unconstitu-
tional measures are passed, however large
the majorities passing them, they are not
law, and may properly be complained Of.
and even resisted by those who suffer un-
Ger them. To apply these principles to
the subject before US. The Wilmot Pro-
viso is an unconstitutional measure, demon
strated to be so by speech of great in
! tellectual power by distinguished states
man during the present session OF Con-
gress. While, then, this W!lmot Provlso
was Likely to be put upon the country BY
brute force, (for it would have been a law
less act carried out by the mere strength
of majority,) the South might with great
propriety have taken any measure Of re-
dress, even to secession from the Union, or
resistance by force. But the Wilmot
Proviso has been abandoned, and. may we
not hope, from the conviction Of our nor
thern brethren that it is unconstitutional,
or at least that its constitutionality IS
doubt ful, and that they will not again
trouble the country with its advocacy?
But other questions now press themselves
upon our consideration; and the one allud-
ed to in your letter is ''touching the plan
of compromise now under consideration in
the Senate" and upon this you desire my
views. cannot but repeat my regret that
those politicians who are generally SO liberal
in constituting the constitution, aud have
thereby derived much more than their
share Of advantages from our federal com
pact, should on This occasion avail them
selves of accidental circumstances to de-
prive the south of what the spirit. If not the
letter, of the constitution intended TO secure
that they should refuse the adoption Ut
such measures as would throw the whole
territory won from Mexico open to the
occupation Of all whose blood ard treasure
have contributed to its acquisition. "he'
ther Mexican law in regard to slavery Is
now in force in that territory. IS ques-
ton that will not presume to decide, or
even to discuss. But do think that,
having been made subject of doubt, Con-
gress should have relieved the southern
| people from the effects Of that doubt. by
declaring it open as we'll to the Stakeholder
as the Shareholder. both upon the
| ground Of Justice and Of sound policy.
| This it refused to do. but even threatened
positive restrictions; and the consequences
are that slav eholders have been afraid to
carry their property into that territory
Hence California has been occupied ex-
clusiyely by nonslaveholders. The spirit
Of the federal compact has been violated.
though its letter be untouched. and CALI
fornia now comes forward and asks ad
mission into the Union as non-slavehold-
ing State and one Of the questions IS.
shall she be admitted /? There is no
question Of constitutionality in this. 1t
is one Of expediency alone. True, we
have reason to complain Of federal inter
ference in bringing forward California in
her present attitude to claim admission.
But that is past. Can that evil be RENE
died by refusing to admit il it can. will
not the refusal bring with it far greater
evils : Is it not important to the South
/ a3A onng 40