The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-13


reader as to the cooteuts Of the different articles
| The Missouri Compromise n Compact :
III FalIaey ENpossd-- The Senate Biii in
| Danger.
We transfer to our columns to-day the grave
aud heavy argument of the National Lateli
| sencer in behalf Of the Missouri compromise O
1920 as compact" between the North aad
the South hardly less formal than the const
| tuition itseli." To this labored argument
| founded upon this erroneous assumption, we
| propose briefly to reply.
We shall start from the opposite side Of the
| question that the Missouri compromise was in
itself an unconstitutional act involving an as
which it had no authority to exercise. All poVers
not expressly granted to Congress, or clearly
| implied. were reserved expressly to the States
| and the people; and among these reservations
is the power Of extending, suspeuding or reiuc-
ing the boundaries of slavery. Neither direct
ly, nor by any rational implication, except in
the District Of Columbia, has any sovereignty
been invested in Congress over The subject of
slavery. The constitution provides that the
| Congress shall have power to dispose Of and
| make all needful rules and regulations res
| pecting the territory or other property of
| the United States y and to violent mis-
construction Of this clause was the country
indebted for the Missouri compromise The
| whole spirit and practical intent Of the consti
tuition are directly opposed to the idea which
would involve the power to set up monarchy
over territory, or to '.dspose of it, with the
people, to monarchy. "All ncedful rules and
regulations" simply mean such temporary SUI
pervison as may be necessary for the protection
and good order Of the territory until the peo-
pie thereof shall have assumed their sovereign
action in the capacity Of a State; and any act
by Congress restricting or extending the limits
Of slavery in territory is, at best, only fore
Sailing the undisputed supremacy of the peo-
pie when admitted to the prerogatives of a
State government.
The Missouri compromise prohibits slavery
forever north of the line Of SO 80; but any
State above that line, without q formal repeal
Of the act Of 1920, has the power to Introduce
slavery, for no act Of Congress can impair the
sovereignty of State overis local institutions.
Neither the ordinance of 1857 nor the Missouri
compromise can prohibit Ohio or Iowa from in
PRODUCING slavery within its borders if it
pleases. Such compacts rs those OF 1887 and
1870 can only be binding upon the States AMI
the people after having been formally and
regularly adopted as amendments to the con-
stitution; otherwise they are superseded by the
constitution, and by the sovereignty of the
States and the people.
The Missouri compromise was an extra-con-
stitutional law, a sectional armlstice, resting
upon the erroneous example of the ordinance
Of 1887. 1t was dictated, on the one hand, by
the anti. slavery sentiment Of the North first
developed as political element among the
dying embers Of the old federal party at the
Hartford Convention, and, on the other hand,
by the desire on the part of various Southern
Presidential candidates and their friends
to concilate the public sentiment of the
North Among these candidates were such
men as Clay, Crawford, Jackson and Cal
houn. 1t was a compromise for the Presi-
dency, and the Missouri restriction which was
to last forever " simply meant that it was to
last till il might become convenient to change it.
The tariff act of 1888 was also q compromise
between the North and the South as solemn
and deliberate as that Of 1920. The exorbitant
duties of the tariff of 1928 had excited spirit
of characterization in the South, which had be-
come infamed in South Carolina to the verge
of revolution. That State passed a law declar
ing the law Of 1928 nullity; and passed other
laws to carry out this notification by armed
resistance, if need be, against the federal gov
eminent. Troops were organized throughout
the State, arms and munitions of war were
provided and but for the firmness, united with
the discretion, of Gen Jackson, civil war
would. in all probability, have been the result.
The danger was still impending when the tariff
of 1888, introduced as q compromise by Mr..
Clay, was passed as compromise by Congress.
1t provided for sliding scale of reductions in
the duties upon imports from 1888 to 1912, and
that from ~ onward the tariff should rest upon
the uniform ad vaIorem of 20 per cent
Upon introducing this bill into the Senate.
M Clay laid, in his speech OF Feb. y, 1888,
that
The descending graduatons by which he proposed
TO arrive at the minimum OF duties must be gradual.
The protective principle must be said to be, in
measure, reinqushed at the end Of eight years and
ahaf lie would admit that his friends did not get
all they could wish for aud the gentlemen on ths
other side did not obtain all they might desire. IL
might be true that there would be loss and gam in
this measure. But how was this loss aud gain dis
uibuted Among our countrymen. II is among
ourselves the distribution takes place. The dstribu
ton is founded on the great principle of compromise
and concession which lies at tne bottom of our ins
tutions which gave birth 10 the constitution itself
What man, who is entitled to the character OF an
American statesman, would stand up in his place ia
either House Of Congress aud disturb tai treaty CT
peace and amity Z
As to the objection, the want of guarantee
TO there being an Interior continuance of the
duties imposed by the bill, on the expiration
Of the term which it prescribes, Mr.. Clay said,
the best guarantee will be found in the cir