Washington sentinel., 1854-03-15

Connecticut may establish polygamy tomorrow
the people of Massachusetts may do the same
How did they become possessed of greater right:
IN this, or any other respect, than the people o.
ltahY The right in both cases has the same
ioundation-the sovereignty of the people. The
| senator from Massachusetts adverts to the same
fact which so greatly dsturbs the senator from
Connecticut, and has made the profound dis
covery that if Brigham Young carried his
many wives to Pennsylvania he would not be
permitted to practice polygamy there. That is
very true, but why? Simply because the SOW
ereign power of Pennsylvania forbids it; and
for no other reason whatever Every citizen Of
each State must conform to the laws Of the
State in which he resides, and this position
strengthens rather than weakens the position
assumed by us, that each separate community
has, and OF right ought to have, the power to
regulate its own institutions, subject only to the
| Constitution of the United States Y on may
| imagine as many cases Of what you may choose
to call abuse ofpower as you please but you
cannot crush out popular sovereignty to get
| rid Fits abuses. 1t will outliye you and your
| follies and prejudices. 1t is strong in the
strength, and rich in the vitality of truth. Ii
is immortal. 1t will survive your puny assaults
and will pass on and mingle itself with the
thought and speech of freemen in all lands and
| all centuries"
Mr.. President, one Of the most curious things
have witnessed in this discussion is the effort
upon the part of the aboltionists and freesoiers
on this floor to press into their service the great
names and authority of Mr.. Webster and Mr..
| Clay. The senator from New York, Mr..
I SEWARD, in spite of the declaration of Mr. Clay
| that he did not originate the eighth section OF
the Missouri act, that it did not even originate
-. IL -, L,ah H., L I
| that he did not even know that he voted for it,
yet still calls it Mr.. Clays work, his greater
work than that Of 1850. What protection has
anv public man against such pertinacous mis-
representations as this? He has even dared
to call the spirit of that gallant old patriot from
the spirit world; but whoever recolects the
events of 1850 will bear me out in the state
ment that the senator from New York is the
last man in this Senate who would have evoked
that spirit if he had supposed it would have
come to his bidding.
The same senator, with intrepid coolness,
quotes from Mr.. Webster's Buffalo speech to
vindicate his present position and the very
quotation which he makes denounces with the
bitterest invective the very men with whom
that senator was then and is now acting. To
whom did he apply the epithets quoted by that
| senator? The national eye involuntariy turn
ed to those men who were aiding and abetting
| in Jerry rescues; national men involuntarily
turned to those who, at Syracuse, were the IL
bellers and defamers of the expounder Of the
Constitution. The senator, however, does not
believe in spirit-rapping. He did not think
| the spirits would come, and therefore he could
| call on them with safety. But, sir, those great
men yet live; they speak by their votes; they
| are heard through their immortal speeches; and
| by them they will be vindicated through all
time.
Dismissing the lesser objections to this bill,
as rather pretexts than reasons, / will proceed
to the consideration of the third point in the
discussion. We are told that this bill ought
| not to pass because it is in violation of the
! eighth section of the Missouri act of 1920,
which the freesoilers and abolitionists insist is
compact--a sacred and invislable compact, to
which the honor Of the nation, and especially
that of the SOUTH is pledged. hold this act
of 1920 to be no compact, binding upon no
| mans honor; but, on the contrary, plain and
| palpable violation of the Constitution and of
the common rights of the citizen, and ought to
be Immediately abrogated and repealed What
is a contract or compact? Its essential requi-
site is, that there should be parties able 20
contract, willing to contract, and who do
actually contract. This Missouri act lacks
every one of these essential ingredients of a
contract. There were no parties competent to
make compact. Congress can pass laws
within their constitutional sphere and within
that it can command the people of the whole
United States, but it can make no bargain
with them.
By the act of 1920 Congress did not attempt
to do any such foolish thing it passed law,
and very bad law, that was ALL But if they
were able to contract, they did not contract If
the North bound herself, she certainly must
have been bound by her own representatives
but very large majority other representatives
voted against accepting the eighth section OF
the act Of 1920 in lieu of the restriction on the
State of Missouri, which she claimed until
beaten off from it by the members from the
southern States, with the addition Of some
twenty northern representatives. Then, if any
bargain was made, it was by these twenty
members. Therefore, the North neither made
the contract nor ratified it after it was made
but, on the contrary, her representatives came
| up to Congress the very next session, and, in
the face Of the pretended bargain, voted against
the admission of Missouri into the Union, un-
der an entirely different and distinct pretext
Missouri had a clause in her constitution against
the admission of free negroes into her bounda,
ries: just such clause as Massachusetts then
had, and many OF the free States now have.
Selling upon this pretex;, in spite Of the
solemn compact" large ma ioritv of the
northern representatives voted against her ad.
mission into the Union; but we are now told,
by the freesoilers and aboitionists, that the ad.
mission of Missouri was our part of the bar
gain-that we have that, and ought therefore
to abide by the restriction. Even this pretext
I is falacious. Missouri is not to-day in the
Union through the votes Of a majority of north.
ern members. She is here in spite of their
votes. 1t does seem to me, Mr.. President,
that the senators from Massachusetts, (Mr.
SUMNER) and Ohio, Mr.. CHAsE,) and his col
league, Mr.. WADE have had sufficient expe-
rience in political bargains and compacts to
have clearer ideas Of what constitutes bar
gain.
While there can be no such thing as legis-
lative compact in this Union, people frequent.
ly called this Missouri act q compromise. be-
cause fair-minded and moderate men yielded
much of their personal opinions to prevent
dangers to the country. In this sense alone,