The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-07-13

y tttclneHt OF lcoU WIS tne consequence
Then it that the great men of that day whose
names have been so honorably mentioned some of whom
had borne conspicuous part in the pers of 1920,
compelled to devise scheme of adjustment and
the Compromise of 1850 the result
Now, in what particulars do the compromises differ
They differ in this the legslated slavery out of
Territory where existed according the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. MACE and Others who oppose this BILL and
Jorerr prohibited lis return while the other laid down
he principle that Congress ought not to interfere with the
subject at all but to let people settle it for themselves
the one based upon the right and duty of Congress
tertere the other upon the doctrine Of nonntcrierence
the based upon the capacity and right of self govern
ment the other denies this capacity and right And yet
gentlemen pretend to say that these two compromises are
not inconsistent the with the other Why sir, they
are MS different from each other day is from night as
| light from darkness. They totally irreconcabe in
principle The laers clearly in principle an abrogaon
| Of the former ID lcT7
| Compac,s should be broken, laws should not be
changed for light and trivial causes but when expe-
rence shows that they work injustice that they fail
complish the object for which they designed Others
better calculated to reach the desired end should adopted
in their stead Thus when the principle of the Missouri
Compromise was found insufficient to maintain the peace
and security OF the country then ii that could only
restore the country to quiet by falling back upon the
great principle of sefgovernnen and leaving the ques
ton OF slavery where we leave other quesonswith the
| people to bc affected by IT,
In the bill organizing the Territory of Utah. lying en-
tirey north OF the line Of 36 deg 80 mn and the bill
ganng the Territory of New Mexico part of which lies
north of that line, and part of which is territory pur-
chased of France in ls03 and to which the Compromise Of
1920 applied we have in each Of said bills the following pro-
| vso
That when admitted State, the said Territory,
portion of the same, shall be received with or without
slavery as their constitution prescribe at the time of
And yet are told that the one is neither repealed SUI
perseded, inconsistent with the other Why SIR the
line OF 36 deg 80 min is clearly abandoned to Utah.
and also to that part Of New Mexico lying north that
line and far the act of 1920 applied that portion
of Louisiana embraced in the Territory of New Mexico
| it is clearly abrogated
| But to avoid this the gentleman from Indiana Mr.
MAcE] contends that another clause in the bill for New
Mexico the Missouri Compromise refer to that
usual clause added to all territorial bills declaring that
the constitutions and all laws of the United States To-
caly inappicabe shall have the force and effect
within the said Territory elsewhere within the United
States Now if the rule Of construction contended for by
gentlemen were correctthat the Missouri Compromise
was not abrogated because it not expressly stated by
the Compromise ofls5ot certainly by the rule
not reenaced by this latter clause in sud bill for
! ton Of the Missouri Compromise is made
still stronger reason against this position is that in
the organization Of Utah, lying it does north Of this
ineand when all the for the application of the
principle of 1920 would operate strongly they could
for its application to any Territory Nebraska and Kansas
not exceptedCongres only refused to adopt it. but
laid down different principle different ruIeone which
entirely changed the practice of tho government from in
| tervenuon to non-intervention. @ 8t
This view OF the subject also nanain is not only per-
ecty consistent with the resolutions adopted by Congress
the 5th April 1859, referred by the gentleman from
Indiana Mr. MACE but they sustain this view Of the sub
ject The latter resolution offered by Mr.. IILLYER is in
| these words: t
Resosed That the series of passed during tho first
COmDrO-
mise, regarded final ustmen permanent
ement Of the questions therein embraced and should be
Now, sir what the questions embraced in that
tpromise? Why, the most important one was, whether
Congress or the peopnf State Territory should settle
the slavery question 2whether Congress dd intervene
or refrain upon this question PA question of Intervention
or non-interventon This although not the question
edracfd was the main question and having been settled
upon the principle OF noiercenon by the Compromise Of
1850, was, by the resolution of 1852, be permanently
maintained and executed.
Now sir how this principle of non-intervention
maintained in the organization of the Territories of Ne
braska and Kansas any other Territory hereafter
ganized2 BY maintaining the principle of Intervention by
Congress? Certainly not for this would be in direct yio-
ation of the great principle of State and individual
eregny embraced in the Compromise of 1850 and endorsed
by the resolutions of 1882 If the principle is right APP
piled to Utah and New Mexico it is right applied to
Nebraska If its application in the best cal
cuated to give peace to the country its application in the
| other will give peace to the country. aH ts
But it is not true has been charged that the Missouri
Compromise was not mooted in the struggle of 1850 1t
was endecd again and again, by the people of the South
to the North basis for the settlement Of the then arita-
tons II was spurned as have already said by ee-soi
ersand aboonsts; it had no charms for them then--it
had no constitutional sancy the fact that it had remained
upon the statue-book for thirty years gave
quence in their esmaon and the very whose
they invoke to it then the objects of their
scorn and contempthe subjects of their bitter vupera-
| ton and deracton
i Nor, sir, anything be found in the platforms of the
two parties which met at Baltimore contradict this view
OF the subject at their respective conventions in 1852 They
both endorsed the principles OF the Compromise of 1850
they virtually renounced the principle Of the Missouri Com
promise; they pledged themselves stand by those of
1850 ltis in vain for gentlemen TO attempt to reconcile
the two principles They either for the or the
other for Intervention non-interventon Political alb
oitionist however, may oppose BOTH favor the
other as Will best suit their purposes of agitation for it
would be inconsistent with their history heretofore find
them advocating any principle that they might think would
| lead to u final settlement Of this question.
But il is charged that the friends of this bill are agi-
ating the slavery question again. and thereby violating
the Compromise of 1850 This deny, sir II is not the
upon this question: neither the friends of the Compro-
mise OF 1850 disposed to agitation. The friends of
this bill ask that the principle of the Compromise of 1850
shall be applied to this Territory in its organization They
ask that what done in Utah and New Mexico may be
done in Nebraska and Kansas. They ask nothing more
than strict adherence to this principle of non-inerven-
ton by which Congress and the country pledged to
stand by the act Of 1850 and by the resolutions of 1852
and by the Baltimore platforms of 1852.
| But will tell you who the that agita-
ting the question of slavery They those sir who have
always opposed the Missouri Compromise, lest it would
quiet the counry who denounced the Compromise 1850
lest it would give quiet to the country. They are
who prosuted their position members of Congress and
senator's by the dissemination OF abolition hercses and
disnnion sentiments. They the who prosttued
the legislative hail. the stump 1.-THE great forum of tho
pc the press, the Sabbath the sanctuary the altar the
sacred desk the high and holy calling of the minister Of
Gospel of peace to the dissemination of disunon sen
mens and the resistance of the Compromise of 1860
the shedding Of blood These the men who
tempting to raise excitement and not the friends of this
bill Make the legislation OF Congress uniform to Ter
rtories by migrating into this bill the principle of
intervention and the last plank upon which they stand in
Congress is stricken from the platform Stand firmly to
the doctrine or non-intervcnton and abolionism is
crushed out But abandon the principle of non-inter-
Won thp utiOno IF