Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1854-02-17

the Baltimore Patriot, the Louisville Journal the ~ O. f.
Bulletin and last, but not least the Organ par ercel-
lence-the National IntelIigencer, we take pleas
ure in copying the annexed remarks from its Peters
burg Va, namesake of the 9Th inst. We sincerely
hope and trust that there will be waverng in the
ranks of Southern men in Congress, upon this point
The great body OF Northern Democrats We feel GER
tain, will go for it:
The National IntelIigeneer OF Nebraska Bill. |
The old saying that 90 there is no telling what a
day may bring forth has been forciby brought to |
our mind by the appearance in the National lntel- |
gencer OF Monday-of its leading editorial article
This venerable and valuable journal has, contrary
our expectation come out against the Nebraska Bill
and taken It's position along side of Benton, Chase,
Sumner and the rest of the Free Soil and Abolition
opponents of the South. We have rarely seen in an
important political crisis the of the Intelligent
feebly sustained by argument in the present
case. We speak with entire respect when we say
that in the article which we noticing the editors
fall very short of doing justice to themselves, for they
have heretofore generally signalized themselves in
the discussion of great issue by their power of rea
soning and felicity of illustration. We have read
with care what they have written in the way OF
ception 10 the Nebraska Bill and we are constrained
to express qualification at finding in their words
nothing to weaken shake the opinion which we
have, after mature consideration arrived at in favor
of the proposed measure. We regret that the1nte-
ligencer has taken the attitude which it announces
but cannot follow It's example, for it is our sincere
belief that let Judge Douglass notifies be what they
may his propositions about the Missouri Compromise
involves not particle of violated fath-contans not
syllable proposing 10 abrOgate ttUing {" COM
PACT" There is in it no Modification of solemn
covenant between the United States and the State of
Missouri ; for the very bill itself expressly says that
the Missouri act of 1920 "was SUPERSEDED BY
THE ACTS OF $780," and it is upon this assump-
ton, or rather this FACT, that Judge Douglas pro-
ceeds to declare the "superseded" law " inoperave'
Now the ony question to be considered is, whether
or not the Compromise of 1850 did actually or viru-
ally repeal that Of 1920? If it did, then is the act
of 1920, as contend is, null, void and of force
in another word, it is inopeative,' without the
need of any formal declaration from Congress to that
effect. We will not at present go again into dis
cussiOn OF the affirmative OF the above proposition,
8 holding do that either the old Compromise was
exnguished by the that the latter is entirely
misrepresented when it is called ga FINAL SETTLE
MENT IN PRINCIPLE AND SUBSTANCE" of the
whole controversy about slavery. 1t was character
lied in these precise terms by Mr. Fillmore. who APP
PROVED it. lthas been recognized by the present
!. Head of the Nation, and by every eminent national
Wing and Democrat lis purpose avowedly
: TO terminate fully and foEeUer the unfortunate ex-
citements which were periodically harrassng Con-
,e gress and the country growing out of Free-Sol
20 and Abolition agitaons, and it intended and
expected by all its advocates 10 cover the whole
ground, so far the FUTURE was concerned. We
e think that we are amply sustained by The records of
= the memorable session of l849-l850 and by the
of events since, in this statement of the mat
e ter 1t has been the steady and earnest object of
s. every friend of the Compromise, from the day
Or of lis passage to the introduction of the Nebraska
Bill, to give it paramount, supreme authority in its
ut province of operation; ard hear for the first
10 time, asoniShment, that enactment which
lie framed and passed amidst the fierce elements OF
IN strife that for the second time the history of the
u Government threatened an extreme iSsue-an
he ment, which designed and calculated to close
finally and perpetuaAy the angry contentious between
ar the North and South of which the aarerg subject
L. was frutfu-we hear now, for the first time, the
a. extraordinary cry raised, by press respec
table the National lntelgencer, that thu enact
ment. this Compromise of 1850, was, after all, nc
settlement of the question, for that the Missouri
ed Compact" is still in force-still solemn, sacred
d. and living covenant" If the lntelgencer is right
d. we should like 10 be informed what is meant by th
official language used by Mr.. Fillmore when be spoke
of the Acts of 1850 as "a final settlement, in prin
at cpe and substance" of the whole question Surely
ks words like these embrace something more than mere
h, empty notions. When we read about the prinCple'
and &c substance" of great controversy, and of
g, final settlement of by the highest power Of h
he land, we certainly should not interpret such phrase
it ology conveying the idea of subordinate ncom
al plee or temporary arrangement. The only consls
IS tent view that be taken of law spoken OF ii
Is that it operates supremacy within it's prescribed lin
IN its, and those limits, in the present case comprise
the whole subject of slavery in its connection will
on the Territories, and with the admission of new State
he into the Union.
al, If in in this understanding of tn
&C. Compromise of 1850, then it is but very indferen
et specimen of wise, comprehensive and efficient egis
he lation. 1t does not meet and the
'se cries peace when there no peace, and is uter
3D. destitute of the feature of fnaluy which has been
re- loudly ascrbed to it, And if be not fnai of wha
TO- real value is it to the country The Missouri Com
'b promise tried 1t aayed agitation for
but fanaticism seized the first favorable opporlun
ice that offered afterwards fo reminding the flames
lst 1920 The Free-Soilers and Abolitoniss, animate
we by the very spirit which stirred up their voien
resistance to the admission of Missouri, revived th
nd troubles and perls which it thought had bee
ended by the law of 1920, and, in fact, repudiate
that law itself, by opposing its extension to the PG
.N cifc, and by fosting the Wilmot Provso into tn
red Oregon Bill. Compact" thus became nj
&C cessary, and accordingly framed
u adopted and declared to be final settlement
principle and in substance of the question out of while
ar it grew-the very question out of which tt
ty- law of 1850 generated viz the question
at slavery in the territories. And yet, in view of
this the National nteligencer denies the supremac
at and fnality of the Compromise of 1850, mantainn
that the g Compact of 1920 is still in force
Iii too solemn and sacred " covenant TO be put ash
ly for that equally solemn and sacred one, the GOV
the pant of 1850!
&c Supreme
al Opinions have been delivered in the folowir
an cases since our last:
at By NASH C. J. In Nichols Bell. from Cartere
ere affirming the judgment. Also in Clifton V. New
cen som, from Franklin, reversing the Judgment and
Dz.l