Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-03-03
VOL. XLvIII, NO. l4.~wHoLE NO. a472.

'cf' 10 shot thO tfEutfI SrItfoti W ttIO
Compromise act OF 1890 was super
seded by the principlesof the Conn
promise laws Of l550--as if any one
had ever heard of supersedeas Of
one local law by the mere principles
Of another local law, enacted for an
altogether different region, thirty
years afterward. On another day, we
were told, by an amendment of the
recital, that the Compromise of 1920
was not superseded by the Compro-
mise of 1850 at all, but was only
inconsistent with it--as if local
act which was irrepealable was now
!. to be abrogated, because il was in
consistent with subsequent enact
ment, which had no application what
ever within the region TO which the
first enactment was confined. On a
third day, the meaning Of the recital
was further and finally calculated by
an amendment, which declared that
the first irrepealable act protecting
Nebraska from Slavery was now de-
clared " imperative and void" be-
cause it was inconsistent with the
| present purpose of Congress not to
legislate Slavery into any Territory
or State. nor 10 exclude it thereGom.
But take this apology in whatever
form il may be expressed, and test
its logic by simple process.
The law of 1920 secured free in
situations in the regions acquired from
France in 1909 by the wise and
prudent foresight of the Con-
gress Of the United States. The
law of 1850, on the contrary, COM
mited the choice between free and
slave institutions in New Mevico aud
Utah--territories acquired from Mex
leo nearly fifty years aitcrward--to
the interested cupidity or the caprice
Of their earliest and accidental occu-
pants. Free institutions and slave
institutions are equal, but the inter-
csled cupidity Of the pioneer is a
wiser arbiter, and his judgment sur
er safeguard, than the collective wis
dom of the American people and the
most solemn and time-honored stat
ute Of the American Congress-
Therefore, let the law Of freedom in
the territory acquired from France be
now Snnulled and abrogated, and let
the fortunes and fate Of freedom and
slavery, in the region acquired from
France, be, henceforward, cetcrmin-
ed by the votes OF some seven hum
dred camp followers around Fort
Leavenworth, and the still smaller
number of trappcrs. Government
schoolmasters, and mechanics, who
attend the Indians in their seasons Of
rest from hunting in the passes Of the
Roeky Mountains. Sir, this syiio-
gism may satisfy you, and other SEN
ators but as for me, | must be con-
tent TO adhere to the earlier system.
Stare super anfiquas rias.
There is yet another difficulty in
this new theory. Let it be granted
that, in order to carry out new
principle recently adopted in New
Mexico, you can supplant a compro-
mise in Nebraska, yet there is max
i'm oil public law which forbids YOU
from supplan,ing that Compromise,
and establishing new system there
until you first restore the parties in
interest there to their statu quo be-
fore the Compromise TO be supplant-
ed was established First, then, re-
mand Missouri and Arkansas back to
the unsettled condition, in regard to
Slavery, which they held before the
Compromise of 1920 was enacted,
and then we will hear YOU talk of re-
scinding that Compromise. You
cannot do this. You ought not TO do
it if you could and because you can,
and ough, not TO do it, you cannot,
without violating law, justice, equity
and honor, abfogate the guarantee Of
freedom in Nebraska.
There is still another and not less
serious difficulty. You call the
Slavery laws Of 1850 q compromise
between the slaveholding and hon
slavcholding States. For the purpo-
ses Of this argument, let it be grant
ed that they were such compro-
mise. II was nevertheless compEo-
mise concerning Slavery in the Ter
ritories acquired from Mexico, and
by the letter Of the compromise It ex-
tended no further. Can you now.
by an act which is not compromise
between the same parties. but mere
ordinary law, extend the furcc and
obligation of the principles of that
Compromise of 1850 into regions not
only excluded from it, but absolutely
( protected from your Intervention there
by solemn compromise Of thirty
years. duration, and invested with a
sanctity scarcely inferior TO that
which hallows the Constitution.it-
self
Can the Compromise OF 1850, by
a mere ordinary act of legislation, be
extended beyond the plain, known.
fixed intent and understanding of the
parties at the time that contract was
made, and yet be binding on the par
ties to il, not merely legally, but in
honor aud conscience Can you OBJ
rogate a compromise by passing any
law Of less dignity than compro-
mise II so, Of what value is any
one or the whole OF the Compromis-
esi Thus you see that these bills
violate both Of the Compromises -
not more that of 1920 than that Of
1850.