The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1854-04-08

t1oSe senators propose tomaAe to the Senate !
and country for having flstla the action of [
the Committeejn document Over their own /
signatures, and thus spread fi'sc alarm (
among the people, and miscd the public mind /
in respect to oar proceeding? These sena- 4,
tors avoid the one or the other Of these A. !
ternatiycS. Let them seize upon either, and ,
they stand condemned and scli.conyi,ted; in :
the one case by their manifesto and in the (
other Ivy their speeches.
In fact, tits clear that they have under
stood the bill to mean the same thing, and to I
have the same legal fleet in whatever phase \
it has been presented. When first introlu-
ced, they dcnouncgdi it as proposition 10 {
abrogatc the Missouri restriction. Whrn Z
amended, thyyrepcatod the same denuncia- 4.
ton, and so on each successive amendment /
They now object to the passage Of the bill I
for the same reason, thus proving conclusive
" that they have not the least faith in the .
correctness of their own statements in r.
spect to the mutations and changes in the bill .
They seem very unwilling to meet the real +.
issue. They do not ike to discuss the prin- (
ciplc There seems 90 be something which ,
strikes them with terror when youinvitc their
attention to that great fundamental principle
Unpopular sovereignty. Hence You find that
all the memorials they have presented are
against repeating the Missouri compromise,
and in iiUorof the Sauctty of compactS-in
favor Of preserving pli2htcd faith. The Ssna-
tor from Ohio is cautions to dodicat, his
speech with some such heading A. Maintain
Plightcd Faith The object is to keep the
attention of the people as far as possible troiii
this priucipleof selt-goyernmeut and conSti-
tutioual rights.
Well, SIR, what is this Missouri compro-
mise, Of which we have heard so much of
latgy 1t has been read ooftcu thatit is not
necessary TO occupy the time ofthc Senate in
reading il again. 1t was an act Of Congress,
passed on the 9Th Of March, 1920, to au-
thorize the people of Missouri to form 4 con.
Slitution anda State government, preparatory
to the admission of such State into the
Cuion. The first section provided that Mis-
souri, should be received into the Union ION
an equal footing with the original States in
all respects whatsoever" The last and
eighth section provided that slavery should
be "lorcvgr prohibited in all the territory
which had been acquired from France north
oi So 30, and not includedwithin the linz
its of the State of Missouri. There is moth
ing in the terms of the law that purpor;S to
be a compact or indicates that it was any
} thing more tnan an ordinary act oflorislation.
/ TO prove that il was more than it purports TO
I be on its face, gentlemen must produce 9TH
or evidence, and prove that there was such
an understanding as to create a moral obliga-
: ton in the nature of Il compact. Have they
shown il?
/ have heard but one item Of evidence pro-
duccd during the whole debate. and that was
short paragraph from Niles Register, pub
lishcd q few days after the passage Of the
act But gen,lemgn aver that it was a SOL
emn compact, which could not be violated or
abrogatcd without dishouor. According to
I their understanding. the contract was that,
in consideration of the admission of Missouri
( into the Union, on an equal footing with the
original States, slavery should be pro-
hibited forever in the Territories north Of
$50 3O' Now, who were the parties to this
alleged compact? They tell W. that it was
stipulation between the north and the south
SIR, know of no such parties under the
Constitution. | am unwilling that there
( shall be any such parties known in ourlegis.
/ lation. If there is such a geographical line,
! it ought tc be obt,rated forever, and there
should be no other parties than those provi-
ded for in the Constitution, viz: the States
of this Union. These are the only parties
= Or tHc UUt5d states.
/ Now, if this was compact, let Us see how
it was entered into. The bin originated in
the House Of RCpres niatiy,S, and passed
that body without southern vote in rs f.
yOr. Ii is proper to remark, however. that
it did not at that time contain the eighth see
ton, prohibiting slavery in the Territories
but in lieu of it, contained provision prohi-
, ting slavery in the proposed State of Mjssou-
ri. In the Senate, the clause prohibiting
slavery in the State was stricken out, and the
eighth section added to the end of the bill,
by the terms of which slavery was to be for
ever prohibited in the territory not embraced
in the State Of Missouri north of So 80,
The vote on adding this section stood, in the
Senate, 81 in the affirmative, and 10 in the
negative OF the northern senator's, 90 20
: ted for it and , against it. On the qu, ste
I of ordering the bill to third r.cdi, .
amended, which was the test yG:c .-'g
sage, the vote stood 81 yeas p. 20 pa
Of the north IN senators, -hd 20 nay.
the affirmative, and J. r only voted l
Thus it will be scer % u! inc NEGATIVE
to be A compac. that If it was intende
IL Tho no :, the north never agreed t
the nro' ~thern senator's voted to iusei
ans addition Of slavery in the Tcrritoric
then, in the proportion OF more tina
rfoUr to one, voted against tbs passage Of ii
e bill. The north, therefore, never signed Ii
u compact, never consented to il, never agree
c to be bound by it. This fact becomes yer
d important in yindicating the character 9th
g north for repudiating this alleged compr,
! mise n few months afterwards. The act wa
P. approved and became n law on the 9th
C March, 1870. In the summer Of that yea
l. the people of Missouri formed q constitutio
II and State government preparatory to admi.
+ sion into the Union, in conformity with til
i act. At the next session of Congress tl
C Senate passed a joint resolution. dcclarin
Missouri TO be one of the States of til
n Union. on an equal footing with the orig
e inal States. This resolution was sent to tn
1 House of Representatives, whore it was re
= jected by northern votes, and thus Missoul
e was voted out of the Union instead of bcin
70 received into the Union under the act of In
c 9th of March, 1920, now known as the Mis-
. souri, compromise. Now. sir, what become
0 of our plightcd faith, if the act Of the 9Th O
r March, le2n, was solemn compact, as W
t are now told? They have all rung the chs n
G yes upon ii, that it was sacred and irrevo
c cable compact, binding in honor. in con
t science and morals, which could not be vic
S lated or rcpudiated without pcriidy and dis
: honor! The two senators from Ohio, mfr
a CHASE and Mr.. WADE, the senator from
, Massachusetts, Mr.. SuMNERl the senate
g from Connecticut, Mr. SMITH, the senate