Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-27
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
SATURDAY, MAY 90, 1854.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE


Mr.. HARLAN of Ohio opposed the bill because it re
peaed the Missouri compromise which in his opinion tn
South in honor bound to respect and the free States
both by honor and duty bound to maintain because tn
legislation Of 1850 was inconsistent with that Of 1920
and because the principles Of the legislation of 1850
transcribed and violated by this bill He further opposes
the because it violated the platforms established
by both political parties in 1852 maintaining that had
been understood that the Democratic platform did either
warrant, justify, demand the repeal Of the Missouri
compromise, Franklin Pierce would have beena pr
yae citizen and the seats of the Northern men who
rendered this repeal would have been hed by others
lie held that it only within the power of Con
gress legisate for the Territories but that il the
duty to do and duty which could not be abandoned
He opposed to the extension Of slavery Terri
tories free, and not willing to remove any OBJ
sace in the way of its extension would he
the Territorial Legislature catspaw to do that which
he had not the courage himself to do.
Mr. STUART, of Ohio, said that he had desired to ad
dress the committee the subject Of the BILL but, find
ing that he would not have opportunity to do be
would ask leave to print speech. Leave was given.
Mr.. STANTON, of Tennessee, then took the floor, re
marking that he would have addressed the COMMITTEES
but for the extraordinary spectacle which his State
exhibited in regard to this important subject In the
other branch her influence null, being equally d
vded, while in this House it almost the same for
nearly onehaf Of her opposed this
measure which he had supposed would be upon which
there would be great unanmty Of sentiment throughout
the South.
1t had been said that the Missouri restriction Of 1920
solemn compact and therefore rrepealabe; and on
this ground it alleged with great earnestness and
he had doubt with great deal OF sincerity, by gen.
tlemen the other side Of the House. that would DO
gross violation Of faith unwarrantable aggression
the rights of the Northern people, to pass this bill in its
present form He could view the matter in this light
There nothing either in the constitution or the laws
which justified them in looking upon any enactment OF
Congress as any thing than mere enactment.
There nothing in the constitution the laws which
justified them in attempting TO put stamp OF rrepeal-
ability any thing which ght be done by Congress
Z ed &C.
knowledged that far the sense and substance OF
the act of 1920 concerned, it was certainly not
compact agreement Of an irrepealable character.
He would not atemp. to deny that in the
which attended the passage of the Missouri there
something of solemn and important character, which
stamped the act with character somewhat different from
an ordinary act Of legislation and If the circumstances
continued the this day he should be the last to
raise his hand disturb settlement which, in point
of view, considered sacred and binding; but the
tac understanding originated in circumstances OF great
Importance and must pass away with the circumstances
which gave it birth 1t seemed certain it could not be
considered binding future generations We now stood
In the midst of and circumstances wholly different
He contended that the Missouri act had been wholly
repudated by the North and had been ramped again
and again and say that Congress bound by that
act assert thing absurd in itself and contradc
tory the planest understanding. The Constitution
and equality required that this restriction should be
moved in the organization of all the Territories OF the
United States The restriction Of 360 30<
croachment the rights of the South submitted to by
them concession lie argued to the extent OF his
hour In support of the bill. .,.
Mr. GOODRICH sold that should this bill pass and es
tablsh tabla rasa in these Territories to slavery
there would be counterpart to it at the Norha taba
rasa in regard to compromises When said he you strike
down the legal power of the Missouri compromise of 1920
you strike down the moral force Of that Of 1880 Repeal
the Missouri compromise the most sacred that has been
made since the great compromises of the Constitution
and you wipe out with SPONGE all compromises at
the North Your laws may be made, and have the force
of laws but they will not be respected compromises
The technical arguments by which sought to throw
off the honorable obligations Of the Missouri compromise
had had no other effect in the North than convince the
public mind there that the South regarded compromises
upon the subject Of slavery as mere temporary expedents
to extend slavery to be set aside whenever they became
practical barriers to stay slavery Northern men felt
that the pretence that the legislation Of 1850 settled
principle which required the repeal of the Missouri
promise cheat and swindle.
He then showed the Inconsistency Of the report and
bill Of the Senate this subject and said that should
the Missouri restriction be repealed the report Of the 4h
oanuary would stand confession of of the great
est frauds upon the Northern compromise that had
been perperaed in the history of political parties
He then argued to prove that the Missouri act Of 1920
was compromise.
Mr.. HEM then gave synopsis of the views which
would induce him to support the BILL stating that not
having been able to obtain the floor to deliver them at
length, he should take the liberty of publishing them in
extended form.
Mr. WITTE said that if the North--he spoke of the
Democratic party-were divided in sentiment this
position. II the people by the exercise of their legal
sovereign will should desire to make every square foot Of
the soil the continent slave he would have it So If
the other hand by the exercise of the rights and
power they would make every square foot Free he would
have it This the sentiment OF the North, SO far
could speak for them. The Democracy of the
North sound this question Of State rights doc
trine the South They would yield ot title
because the principles which constituted the safety Of the
North constituted the safety Of the South.
He then replied to the arguments heretofore made by
his colleague, Mr. Grow against the bill declaring that
that gentleman had not correctly represented the views
of the North this subject He argued until the ex-
piration of his hour, in support Of the bill.
Mr.. CHASTAIN considered the bill as q measure in
strict accordance with the Constitution, and just to the
North and the South and to the people who were here
after to nhab these Territories He commended that the
Missouri restriction forced upon the South, un
constitutional and only submitted by that section fer
reasons which were weghty in themselves
Mr. EDMANDS said have attempted to obtain the
floor many times to address The committee the bill
before remained here all night until the recess of
the morning in order to get an opportunity saw the
hour given to the gentlemen aboutme And what hour
An hour to speak! Rather hour for sleeppast the
hours of business aye those Of recreation have
attempted to get the floor this morning. and have,
Just as the hour for closing debate has arrived op-
pose the bill before principle and expediency
but l wish to appeal to the sober sense Of this
this House whether it is proper whether is in accord
with the spirit OF American liberty to pursue ouI
legislative business in the dark hours Of the night Sir
protest the Of my constituency against being
kept here carry the business Of the House in sucf
unreasonable hours and protest against this gaggng
debate because an hour M for dark designs fit for thu
preparation Of such outrage is being committed
the attempt pass the bill before is compatible will
the means used in forcing through the measure.
NJ - lnk "a