The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1854-05-09
MR. sENToN's SPEECH ON THE NEBRAsXA
QUESTION,


ron of Missouri. addressed them on the Me-
brasda bill. We give n summary OF some OF
the leading features in his speech:
Mr.. Ben,on said:-If any bill to impair the
Missouri Compromise line of 1920 had been
hronoht into this House by a member from
sI.ye State. or under tho administration OF
pros;dant elected from slave State. should
have demed il my duty to bavo met 1t at the
,b,osbold and to have made the motion which
The parliamentary law prescIibes for tho re-
puse of subjects which arc not fit To bc consid-
cred. should have moved its rejection at tho
first reading But tho bill before us-for the
two may be considered as onc-does not come
from that quarter: il comes from Fr State.
and under the administration of .asldent
elected from a Free State; and under that as
pcct of it's origin, deemed II right TO wait and
hear what the members of tho FREQ States had
to say ii. It was proposition from their own
ranks to give up their ha.fof the Slavery Com
promise of 1920, and Il they choose to DO so.
did not see how the Southern mo@bors could
refuse TO accept it. 1t was n FREQ Stnte qros-
ton. and the members from tho FREQ States
wore the majority and could do as they pleas
cd: so stood aoof waiting to SEQ their load,
but without the slightest intention OF becoming
governed by it. had my own convictions OF
right and duty, and meant to act upon them.
had come into political life upon that Com
promise had stood upon it above thirty years
and intended to stand upon it to the end, soil
tary and alone, if need be; [Applause and
daughters: but prcferring company to soiitude,
and not doubling for an instant what the result
was to be. / have said this bill comes into
Congress under the administration OF FREQ
State President, bnt do not mean to say or IN,
sinuate that the President favors the bill
know nothing of his disposition towards it, and
if did should not disclose it hero; it would
bo unparliamentary and breach of the privi-
leoe of this House to do so. The Presidents s
opinion can only be known TO us by himself, IN
message in writing.
rMr. Benton condemned in very strong
terms the Interference of the President. or any
| of his Secretaries in any measure before Con-
oress He cited the indignant ropulse which
such an attempt made on tho part of George
the Third and his advisors met from Mr. BURKE
| and the British House of Commons, VINO de-
clared i, dorogatory to the Parliament ana "a
high misdemeenor, subversivc OF the Oonsti-
tuition of the country Still less did Mr. ben.
ton admit the right of interference on the part
of ntbe public printers, (meaning tho Washing
ton Union.) who require the Democratic mem
bers of this House, under the instant penalty
of political damnation, 10 give their adhesion
TO every bill which they called Administration
and that in every change it may undergo al
though moro changeable than the moon
For that class of ntermeddlers (said Mr.
BENTON. I have no parliamentary law to ad
minister. nor any question from Burke to sup
nlv-nothing but a little fable to read, tho val
ue ofwhich, as in all good fables. lies IN it
moral. II is in French and entitled Lane G
son .Maitrc,' which being done into EngiIsi
signifies the Sass and his Master, and run
stood in n the path; and teneif hersa'e 'seaEe 9
coming he commenced roaring, as he though
but he only brayed, and the master knew
was his ass; so ho went up to him WIN W
, cudgel and beat him nearly 20 death; !. ia. :.
a the end of the fable, and tho moral OF IL IL
caution TO all asses to take care how they vi
!. der,aEe 10 scare their masters. ExcessiV
a LAUGHTER. Long contiued cries OF mot oad
Good, .Ha. ha!l Mr.. Chairman, this Hons
A wilI have fallen far below its constitution
1 mission if it suffers itself to be governed
- authority or dragconed by its own hire''ngs'
n This Compromise of 1920 is nota mere sta
N rte 70 last for day. it was intended ior pc
= ne,nitv and so declared itself. IL is an enac
4 mnnt n settle controversy, and did set'le
is and cannot be abrogated without reviving u
e. CONTROVERSY. IL has given the country pea
I! for above thirty years; how many years 0! u
Id turbance will its abrogation bring? That is
ne S,a,eman's question: and without assuming
of ho much of Statesman. l claim to be enou
so N consider the consequences OF breakint
settlement which pacified continent;
member tho Missouri controversy ana no"
re- distroyed all social feeling, and all capaci,y
re- beneficial legislation; and merged all Pol.l
IL principle in an angry contest aoon' o'ase I've,
,ut d;vidino the Union into two parts, ana ara
balyas into OnnOsitO ana q
os- crontino lines like enemies on the field OF oat
tv, 7 ao not wish to see such times again, a
nd ,horarore am against reviving them oy ore
lar inc nm tho settlement which quleted th'
The Missouri Compromise OF 1870 was
be nortitionino between tho Free and Slave Sta
ead IF orcat Province. taking the character
of nornetual settlement. and closing with the
Co. rrea, comnromises which gave us the Or'
der once of July Is. 1877, and the federal Const
cry ,ion of September II, of tho same yea
= There are three Slavery Compromises ~
Y, it history. which connect themselves WIN
foundation and preservation OF .he on'o,
y in First the Territorial Partition Ordinance OF
10y az. with its clause for the recovery OF iugl
into slaves: secondly, the contemporaneous 20
tutional Recognition of Slavery IN inc 81
which chose TO have it, with the fugitive
gus recovery clause in the Same instrument; u
day, tho Missouri partition limo of 1920, with
ken same clause annexed for tho recovery OF
Sth tivo slayes-all three of these Compron
and are part and parcel of tho same policy
bot neither of them could have been formed
the ont the other, nor either of them without
nsa- Fugitive Slave clause added to it.
RINK [Thesc three compromises, Mr. Benton
Deon were of equal moral validity.l
sup The Missouri Compromise of 1920 is
,Aeu ,,, t;nuation of tho ordinance of 17S1-its e.
aod' a tjon 70 the since acquired territory west
I'D Mississippi, and no way differing rom ls
Az" a"r er in principle or dcta; the ordinance OF
: III ~ divided tho then territory fthe united
'"0 about equally bctwecn the Free and
states. Tho Missouri Compromise a..
same by the additional territory OF the
from States as it stood in 1880, and in both ca
an was done by act Of Congress, aud was tn
tal tt Element of difficulty, which was to last
suite. or. consider them, bo'h, with their ru
RS OF Slave recovery clause and tho similar
vory in the constitution. as part ana parce,
capi- same transaction. different articles in the
man. GENERAL settlement.
Nv at Thus Ave times in the beginning OF this
males ry. fivc different times. and without an