Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-15

upen lhs eAppasisaA thai tnags Ra.d Ia AaF sysk sa
States or sections Of the Conederacy that equality Of
enjoyment and free participation to all could not be OBJ
tanned by community OF possession and the privilege OF
general settlement by the citizens OF ALL with their pro-
perty every portion OF the Joint domain The fun
damental principle primary end however, of the
Constitution in relation to this matter equality OF
right and privilege among the people OF the different
States in the use and enjoyment OF the common ter
rltory of the Union Freedom OF general settlement
but land as must be confessed the most ma u-
raj and easy mode of accomplishing the primary OBJ
lect OF equality and right
But if from fer events, or the development OF latent
then existing such antagonlsm or lncompatlbly
of interest between the States or sections OF the
Union, that thee could not be free participation and
equal enjoyment under community OF possession and
settlement then to attain the primary end, and give to
all real participation, some otner mode Than that OF
Joint holding must be devised and resorted to. The ma
tura well equitable resort would be to PARTITION
division of the common territory that could not be
jointly settled and an assignment OF just proportions to
each OF the States sections having such ncompatl-
BILE interests. Would not this be not only consistent
with but actually demanded by the spirit and intent OF
the Constitution, and in the case supposed OF incompa-
ble interests be the only Just plan OF carrying out the
provisions of the Constitution? This exactly as
understand, the ground of principle on which the Mis-
souri, compromise was originally adopted. 1t was al
legged that between the slaveholding and non-save-
holding States there could not be community OF settle
ment and equality Development while tho territory was
open 10 al for that the admission OF the slave was the
exclusion of the white laborer.
| determine not the fact whether this in re-
aty-in my opinion it was not, and therefore on that
ground as we'll as because of the grossly nequitable
partition made for the South have always deemed the
Missouri compromise most disasrou and unfortunate
adjustment, and had | been at its adoption member
of this House, think would have been found among
its sernest opponent. Its principle, however, am
now dealing with, and that, although unequally ap-
Piled was, on the supposton OF incompatbiity ofjont
enjoyment and settlement Just and constitutional TWAS
the principle of PARTITION joint owners dividing and
assigning to each part in severay In principle and
in fact whatever was the language OF the COM
PROMISE the territory north Of the line assigned to
the North and its institution; that below it, to the South
and her institutions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this principle is again invoked
under even stronger circumstances. The former d.
vision has increased and made much more clear the
alleged antagonism OF interess-the incompatibility
of joint occupancy and joint settlement To attain the
primary end OF equality of right and privilege, under the
Constitution, division between the opposing sections
States must be had 1t is now sanctioned by prev
precedent, recommended by the peace and frater
nal feeling it restored and assimated by anc
acquiescence in the minds OF the people to undamen
tai law. Let it be again resorted to, but the prn
cipe OF Just partition and with recognition of the
rights ofthe opposing States in the parts severay
signed as is here practically done; aud trust all o
present agitation may yet rebound only to the per
manency and glory of our union.