Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-02-18
SPIRIT OF THE MORNING PRESS.

The infeulgencer contains Ietter from
Edmond Coles, now of Philadelphia, ad-
dressed to Judge Douglas, in refutation
of the position of the Judges Nebraska
bill opening speech, wherein the Senator
contends that the ordinance of 1877 was
of no practical bearing in Illinois, &c.
Mr.. Coles than whom no other is better
fitted to defend that side of the contro-
versy) piles history and law up before
the Judge, so as to make it absolutely
necessary that the latter shall do his best
to pull down the gist of the argument.
The Union discusses the controversy
between North and South involved in the
Nebraska question, saying:
The real and only point of disagreement
then. resolves itselfinto this thirty-four years
ago Congress passed an act which made an
odious distinction between the personal rights
and privileges of the citizens of different
States. That law was made applicable to the
Nebraska Territory, but cannot become opera
tive until Congress gives it vigor and efficacy
by granting to its inhabitants a territorial
government, Congress must declare the act of
1920 to be imperative, or, as a legal cOnse
ouence, 1t becomes operative. 1t follows that
II Congress does not declare the act of 1920
imperative, it in effect re-enacts that law, and
by congressional Intervention makes a distiIc
ton between the rights of the stakeholder and
the non-slaveholder. This is precisely what
attempted in 1850, and what was resisted
by the South, and was rejected by the nation.
The South asks, Why should Congress attach
10 the Nebraska Territory prohi bition which
IT refused to attach to Utah and New Mexico
The answer of the North is, that the prohibi-
ton was attached by Congress thirty -four
years ago. and that its repeal now would shock
the free-soil sentiment of the free States
That free-soil sentiment-and by this we mean
the prevalent northern opposition to the ex-
tension of slavery to territory now free-con-
stitutes the real obstacle to the amicable and
permanent settlement of the question. The
northern feeling is, that as Nebraska wa
made freesoil by the act of 1920 il must con-
tinue to be free soil by the operation of that
law. The South does not expect the North to
change its anti-slavery position on this point
although it honestly regards that position as
resting on sectional prejudice. 1t does not
ask that the Missouri law shall be declared
imperative in order that Nebraska shall be-
come slave territory. To remove all appre-
hension OF the subject, it acquiesces in the
declaration that the Louisiana law is also in
operatiye-thereby efectually removing all
legal obstacles to the continuance of the terri
tory asfree-sOl territory, and leaving its future
permanent condition to the sovereign will of
the people, but at the same time admitting
that the laws Of nature will. in all probability
continue the territory as free soil. 1t feels
that the prohibition in the act of 1920 is in
sulting and degrading to one entire division of
the Union, and it warns the North not to re-
enact that odious degradation in giving a
government to Nebraska. As a matter of
right, the South claims an equal participation
with the North in the territory As matter
of justice, it demands that that right shall be
recognised. 1t turns to the record, and proves
It's uniform acquiescence in the act Of 1920
until the principle of that act was solemnly
and repeatedly repudiated by northern votes
during the tendency of the acts of 1850. 1t
now points to the principles of the act of 1920,
and calls on the North to recognise their valid
ity by declaring the act of 1920 to be inopera-
tive"
The same journal seems greatly shocked
by the conduct of the Baltimore delega-
cation, in the Maryland Legislature, in
preferring Wings to Democrats in their
recent Senatorial and Board-of. Public
Works election.
The Sentinel argues to show that the
North regularly and Systematically repu
dated the Missouri Compromise from
1920 to 1850, On all occasions when
called upon to vote On it in Congress.
The same paper 'judgmatically" declines
TO express an opinion as to the propriety
of the act of that august body" the
Senate, in rejecting the nomination Of
Major General George N. Saunders to be
Consul at London.