Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-04-15


partial Judge assert that the sentiment IS ifound
ed, that what has fixed public opinion and influenced
public conduct for years is to be unsettled by yerba
discrepancy some latent meaning OF subsequent en-
actment there springs up fierce hostility to the
sure to be benefited by the decsiona hostility worse
than that which the direct repeal OF the measure OF
promise would have provoked
4 say to you sir that the public sentiment at the
North-nay sir so far learn at the South also
outraged by the attempt to show that there was
really no compromise in lS2O, or that 1t was quietly
crety repealed in 1850 than is by the bold attempt
repeal By the legislation of 1854 The rickery of the
attempt offensive because more dangerous than
the bold assault Every where, sir there was belief
that slavery excluded from certain territorial
uuirelnents north Of $50 3p. Few stopped to ex-
anime the staute; all parties consented, and the South
boasted Another compromise was made in 1850 Ours,
sir is nation Of compromises ours Is Constitution of
compromise ours, sir, institutions of compromise
and the legislation Of 1850 gave to the institutions Of the
South larger range and the chance for wider scope,
ample extension north and west than they had be-
FORE But the concession specific, the boundaries
were Defined and the extent was fully set forth
But is said that the compromise of 1920 was nen-
tionay repealed by the compromise OF 1862 that the
intention to produce fuaty by establishing prin-
cpe of for future use and that that idea
influenced the action of the Thirty first Congress. Sir,
deny the ASSERTION; boldly deny it. was member
of the Thirty First Congress- that which passed the
promise bills of l850 was constantly attending mem
ber conversant with the whole course of egsla
ton relative to the five acts called the compromise.
familiar with the of argument in the House,
and the spirited discussions and earnest pleas out of the
House and both sides of the House, for them sir the
House had two sides. joined in that compromise and
gave up certain views which had cherished and thus
became interested in the whole proceedings. And say
unhestatipgy, say it with full recollection of all the
words and deeds of that momenous PERIOD there
thing said done to lead me to the supposon that the
concessions then made by members each side were to
interfere with work repeal Of the compromise Of
1920. Nay sir, declare that while the advocates Of
that limited at repeal OF the Missouri
hrn aft
sage Of the five bills the Northern opponents of the
compromise of 1850, in all their ingenuity to devise
gumens against the measure, conured up such
unlikely bugbear. Men rash at that time, and
casonay unreasonable perhaps both Sides but they
not ridiculous. And say here and unhesitat
ingly that had the least suspicion been entertained in
this House that the enacments of the compromise of 1850
would have been construed into repeal OF the compro
mise of 1920 that they would have ultimately led
any such result those five bills would have been voted
under the table, or what is the thing, they would
have been put upon the calendar and have been for
gotten.
Mr.. BAYLY of Virginia. Will the gentleman allow
me to interrupt him only to say that take issue with him
on that point. t'.. .. ....
Mr.. CHANDLER. Certainly. am right SO far as
regards the understanding of myself and all the members
of the Thiryrst Congress with whom have conversed
Sir, had suspicion Of such motive or such result
been breathed in this hall, not Of all those who
overrued the decision Of the Speaker of that Congress
would have followed between the telers the distinguish
ed member who is the Speaker Of this Congress oyerrung
that righteous decisions doing wrong for the sake of the
right; reversing rule for the sake Of principle max
ing parliamentary law yield to the necessities Of the
nation.
Nay, sir the leader of that important movement now
Speaker, would have undertaken work de-
ceptiye; never would have risked his fame such
enterprise The state of public affairs required much
erton much sacrifice; but no situation can warrant
public in deceptive acts. None, venture to say,
would tempt that man to their commission. -
The compromise of 1920 remains unmpaired its obli-
ment be admitted rs the Of their abrogation
without the violation Of legislative intentions and no po
sitye law repeating their binding force can under pre-
sent circumstances be passed without outrage to public
sentiment and violence to the confidence reposed in Con-
gressonal faith.
But sir this assertion of the direct virtual repeal of
the compromise of 1920 by the of 1850 not made
in good faith if it s let it be tried If the act is really
repealed then why egsatef Let those who believe in
this repeal show their faith by asking for further
peal Let the who asserts that there is nothing
binding in the restrictions of the Missouri compromise
show the sincerity Of his belief by orbearng all agitation
at the present me and trusting the decision Of the
United States courts in favor of the repeating action Of
the United States Congress
But the advocates, rather the apoogsts of the
bi slavery will go into Nebraska the climate and
tho soil of that immense territory forbid it. The
of the products and the peculiar capabity Of the land
render slavery impossible because they will make slavery
Improbable; and therefore, it is sad the opponents of
slavery have nothing to fear from the violation Of the
Missouri compromise. .....
Now if were disposed to make an argument with re-
ference slavery should fell refer the fact that
slavery does exist in laudes much higher than those Of
the proposed Kansas and that there is nothing there
FORE in climate to render impossible the introduction of
that institution into the proposed Territory; but re-
peat what have already sa that whatever may be the
feelings of Representatives north of Mason and Dxons
ne rather the Representatives of free States here
the subject of slavery in the abstract it is not their poll
cy it is not my intention, to build any argument upon
feelings opinions for against that institution Slave
ry exists by compromise; and arguing, wish to do,
against the violation of compromises the subject Of
slavery, shall not seek to disturb any Of the compro
misses in favor of existing perhaps
well in the tact admission, the quiet allowance of
slavery and its consequences in enactents and ord
nances. =. .l.
But if slavery cannot 60 into the Territories to be
erected by this b why does this bill seek to give
mission 60 there If there is no possibility of taking
slaves into Nebraska, why seek disturb compromise
that has stood for thirtyfour years? Why violate
pledged faith to meet abstraction What is the use
of agitatng the whole country from north to south
permit that which take place. and to give liberty
to do that which desire do Why wantonly
violate pledge? Why causeessy prove fathless to
compromise when party to be aggrieved and
ured by the fahessness and the other party to derive
no benefit from the perfdy?
But opponents of the measures proposed and the bills
now happily referred to the Committee of the Whole are
met with another and taking species of argument
new ground Of action viz: The right Of every pot-
cal community govern itself " and the popular catch
word is passed round this hall and round the country
non intervention word sir of very expansive qua
ties and Of mutiform Specification If any body wishes
this nation to keep clear Of angng alliances with for
eign Powers non-interventon expresses the object ex-
actly If party desire that this nation should interfere
to prevent the interference Of Russia in the affairs be-
tween Austria and Hungary, is the word
II administering expedition sets forth from New Orleans