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

esced. IT WIS held that this compromise was
to be the permanent law Of the land, or that
nothing should disturb ii but the exigency
of the government. Yet, as soon as the North
came fully into power in Congress, in 1S4l-42,
this solemn compromise of 1888 was super
seeded by the legislation" first, of the tempo.
rary act of ls4l, and secondly, by the regular
protective tariff of 1912, with all its exorbitant
schedules of specifics, home valuations, and
minimums. And yet the South submitted to
this exorbitant law, for although the act of '33
was compromise, ia compact almost as formal
as the constitution ITSELF" it was still but o
law of Congress- and having served its purpose,
was set aside. Mr.. Clay was the author of the
supeIseding act, as he was of the original
compact, which he had declared to be binding
treaty peace and amity."
| But the Missouri compact has also served its
purpose. Till the federalists, in their last
despairing struggle at the Hartford Convention,
raised the question of slavery as subject OF
sectional agitation, by taking ground against
the representation allowed by the constitution
to the South of three ffths of their slaves,
no party ever dreamed Of making South
| ern slavery the subject Of Congressional
legislation. But from that day the virus diff
used itself through the North, so that upon the
Missouri question in 1920 the Northern anti
slavery sentiment was Sufficiently powerful to
dictate the restriction Of SO 80. AT that day.
| while, for Presidential considerations all the
La Of fba fpI IN
| the arrangement, Mr.. Webster was foremost in
| the North in defending it as constitutional
law, scarcely less obligatory upon all parties
than the constitution ITSELF
But again, in the measures Of 1850, providing
territorial governments for Utah and New Mex
leo, we fEd Mr.. Clay and Mr.. Webster aban-
donipg the doctrine Of the Missouri compro-
mise for the simple constitutional concession
Of the legitimate sovereignty of the people in
the territories over the question of slavery, as
one Of their local institutions with which Con-
gress had no right to interfere. After an inter-
val of thirty years Of liberation Mr.. Clay de-
liberately abandons the Missouri restriction,
and Mr. Webster virtually relnquishes his for
mer interpretations of the constitution in his
memorable and convincing speech of 1850. The
doctrine of intervention was thus practically
admitted to be unconstitutional by the father
of the Missouri compromise, and by the sur
yiving statesmen of that day who cooperated
in the Senate in the passage Of the acts of nom
intervention for Utah and New Mexico.
We find then. that the tariff compromise of
1883, introduced as permanent compact be-
tween the North and the South, was deliber-
ately superseded by the North. as possessed Of
no binding obligations, upon the very first op-
portunity, by system of high protective
duties. We find the South consenting to the
repeal because the compact was possessed OF
no legally binding obligations. We are also
reminded that Mr.. Clay and Mr.. Webster, the
leading champions of the Missouri compro-
mise Of 1920, with equal GOODNESS in 1850
opposed the extension of the Missouri line, but
united in superseding it in the new territories
by the doctrine of non-intervention And,
taking all these proceedings together, the argu-
ment of the National htelhgencer, of the in
volatility Of the Missouri compact, like that
compact itself, is broken to pieces as rope of
sand. Father Gales is just thirty-four years
behind the age.
What the Mteligencer has said of the ter
giversatons of the Presidents organ on this
Nebraska question is more to the point. The
Union, the Cabinet, and the President, have
been reluctantly forced to go with Douglas, for
all the lodging in and out of the Washington
organ failed Of its purpose--to create diver
sion. STILL from the free soil antecedents, in
clinations, partialities, sn1 obligations of the
President and his Cabinet, there is danger to
the bill. and this danger is becoming more ma
nifest with every succeeding day. There is
no constitutional objection against the bill. 1t
only proposes the repeal of an unconstitu-
tional law; and yet there is danger it will be
defeated in the House from administrative in
fuences invisible to the naked eye. If the
bill is lost let the South and the friends Of
Douglas place the responsibility in the right
quarter. 1t can only be lost through the
treachery Of the administration.
The Attempted Robbery OF the People OF
New York.
Rob Roy, salying forth from his mountain
glens and, dagger in hand, stripping the Saxon
traveller Of wallet and purse, was not more
daring or more impudent highwayman than the
gang Of politicians who, with their hands on our
Threats, now demand us to surrender ten mil
lions of dollars into their grasp. In frankuess.
the gallant Highlander stood immeasurably
above the thieves at Albany. He did not tell
his victims that their interest required him to