The daily union., 1854-02-19
The committee say in their report:

to the territory acquired from Mexico similar question
has arisen IN regard 70 the rgh, hold slaves pro-
posed Territory OF Nebraska, when tho India
be whdfawn aud the coantry thrown aInig ration
and settlement ~ hs eighth section of An act 10 aaEo
re Tue people OF mo Missouri Territory form oons-
tuon and State and the ad OF suc
ssies and prohibit slavery in esas Teniaoe. @ aa
Proved March o 1922 il was provided 'Thnr in all that
pafrory eedsd by Ffance the United States under the
name OF Louisians whoh lies Of 30 deg. min
north latitude, not Included within be limits State
tds. than in lhe punishnsn OF cslmss where
q he parties sna have been day convicted shall be- and
hereby forever prohibited Provasd aioay, That any
person escaping nto the same, from whom labor
yce ls iswiny claimed IN any State Territory Of the
United States such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed
! vice Aforesaid, HaHl 4as # Ilas3
Under this section, in the of The Mexican law
y. - NsW axco ana utah. 4 Y disputed point whehe
ac,ment The decision OF this question Involves
staonal power Of Congress prescribing and
Iegals.lng he domestic institutions Of the various Terrific
RES itne Union In tho opinion OF those eminent
men, WHO hold that Congress is invested with no righu
Ierfofes e eighth section OF the preparatory the
admission oil Missouri Is null and void while the prevail
doctrine the constitution Of the United States seoa1es
70 every czen nn naenable right 10 move into any oil
sonpon. and enjoy the same under The sane
uon OF the law Your committee do feel ihemseves
called upon 10 enter INTO The discussions Of
yerted questions They involve the grave Issues
which produced the agitation, the strife
I'D refrain deciding the matter in controver
sy then, either by affirming repeating Mexican laws
tion and the extent OF the proection afforded by slave
property in the Territories, your pre-
sued on that memorable by alHning
peang the eighth section Of the Missouri aci by any
act decaratory OF the meaning OF the
spect TO the legal points in dispute"
The report gives the deliberate Judgment of the
committee on two important points First, that the
Compromise OF 1850 did not. by It's letter by its spirit,
repeal or render necessary, PROPOSE the abfoga-
lion OF the Missouri Compromise and secondly that The
Missouri Compromise ought not now to be abrogated.
And nov, s, what do We next hear from this cohmit-
lee Firs,, two similar and kindred bills, actually abo.
gazing The Missouri Compromise which, in their report
they had told us ought not 10 be abrogaed at all Sec
ondy these bills declare their face n substance that
That Compromise was already abrogated by the spirit OF
that very Compromise of $780, which, in their report they
had just shownus, lett the Compromise OF 1920 abso.
uteiy unaffected and unimpared Thirdly, the commit
lee favor u.s. BY their chairman. with oral explanation,
that the amended bills aorogang the Missouri Compro
mise identical with their previous b which did moi
abro2ae It, and only made 10 differ in praseology
the end that the provisions contained in Their pre- yous
and now discarded bil shall be absolutely clear and
tain Ee
must take leave TO say that the Inconsistencies and self,
contradictions coaaned in the papers has given have
destroyed all claims on the part OF those documents 10
respect here or elsewhere
the recital OF the effect of the Compromise of 1850
upon the Compromise oil 1890, nay revised, correct
ed and amended, here 10 The lace OF the Senate
alter all substantially what that recital meant stood
before II was perfected. else IL nothing tangible
or worthy OF consideration at ALL Wha, II the spirit, OF
OF Tue compromise 1850 did
iict with the Compromise OF 1870: the Compromise o
ls20 was, by lis very nature, compromise rrepe slabe
aud interchangeable, without violation Of honor Justice,
aud good faith. The Compromise OF 1850 If II impaired
previous Compromise 10 the extent OF The loss TO free
labor OF one acre OF the Territory OF Nebraska, was
either absolutely void or ought in all subsequent legs
Iaiion, to be deemed and held void. 81
bal If the spirit the letter of the Compornse was
violation OF the COMPROMISE OF 1920: then, inasmuch
as he Compromise oi 1870 was nvioabe, The attempted
violation OF sho oss that the so-caed Compromise OF
Il n nj /. hut
factions, spurious, and pretended compromise Whai il
the letter or The spfi OF the COMPROMISE OF 1850 did
pefsede or impair, or even conflict WITH the Compromise
OF 1920: then ha, Is reason, not for abrogalng the
irepeaable and inviolable Compromise of 1920, but the
spurious and pretended Compromise ol 1850.
Dlr President, why Is this for proposed alb
ogauon OF the COMPROMISE OF 1870 assigned in these
bills al aii 1t IL unnecessary The asslg nrnent OF rea
son adds nothing TO the force or weight OF the abrogaon
itself. Father the fact alleged is true il is
moi roe IL At be untrue, your asserting il here will not
make Il true II be il is apparent 10 the text of
The law oi $780, without The aid OF legislative exposition
now. IL is unusual IL rs unpafliamentary. The Ian
guage OF the awgvef, whether The sovereign be demo-
cratic republican, despoc, is always the same Il is
mandatory imperative. IL the lawglver explains at all
m statute the reason for IL, the is IL his
pleasure SIC seso, Jubeo Look at the Compromise OF
iS2o Does Il plead an excuse ior lis commandsi Look
al Toe Compromise of 1850, drawn by the master hand oil
our American Chatham Does that bespeak your favor
by aquibbng or shutting Apology Look at your own,
now rejected, inst NEBRASKA bi which, by concusv.
implication, saved the effect OF the Missouri Compromise
lsrriiorles Look AT any other bill your cal.
endar Examine all the laws on your statute books
DO you Ind sny one bill statute which ever came
bowing, siooplng, and wugglng into the Senate
pleading an excuse lof lis clear and explicit decIara-
hon OF the soverelgn and irresistible will OF the Amer
caa peopel The departure from this habit IN h, so
lary beirays sedisust, and attempt the part
OF the bill TO divert the public asoion raise complex
and imma,erla issues, to perplex and bevder and
found the people by whom this transaction is 10 be
viewed Look again at the vacIllson betrayed in the
frequent changes of the structure OF This apology. AT
FIRST the recital told that the eighth section OF the Com
promise act of ls21 superseded By the principles OF
the COMPROMISE laws of is50-as II any bad ever
heard oi supersedeaa OF local law BY The prin
opss OF another local law. enacted for altogether diff
ierent region, thirty years afterwards Ga another day
We were told, by an amendment OF the recital that the
ComFonise OF 1890 superseded by the Compro-
mise OF 1850 al all, but only "inconsistent with
F--as II a local act which repeaable now 10
be abrogate because inconsistent with a subse-
quent enactment, which had application whatever
within the region which the hrst enactment
bned Ga third day the meaning of the recital was
further and finally elucidaied by amendments which
declared that the st repeaable act protecting Nebraska
ffom slavery declared "inoperaiive and void
Congress not 10 egslae slavery into any Territory or
state nor TO exclude il hsseirom,
But take this apology IN whatever form may be ex
pressed, and test iis logic BY simple process.
The law Of 1870 .ecared free institutions the regions
acquired from France in 1903 by the wise and prudent
foresight OF the Congress or the United States The law
OF 1850 The contrary, committed the choice between
Tree and slave institutions w New Mexico aud U,ah--
Territories acquired from Mexico nearly fifty year. after
w1dsio the interested euPdiry the caprice of their
earliest and accidental occupants Free institutions and
slave institutions equal, bat interested cupidy