Washington sentinel., 1854-02-07
THE NATIONAL 1srELL1eEscER.

The Missouri COMPROMISE AND THE Ne
BRAsKA BnI--We are panied to perceive that
the National Ltelligeneer opposes that pro-
vision of the Nebraska bill which repeals the
slavery clause of the Missouri compromise.
We had indulged the hope that the Iatelligeacer
would not throw the weight of its well-earned
influence against measure which we believe
to be eminently just and imperiously demanded
by the present condition Of public affairs
But that hope has now vanished.
In this connexion we would remark, that the
h,telligencer, in the course of its speculations
as to the motives which prompted the move
ment against the obnoxious clause Of the Mis-
sour act, does us and the Nebraska bill great
injustice, by stating that the Sentinel giocs as
a reason for the measure that 1t ,ciH compel GER
tain politicians to shop their hands" We
never stated that any such motive or reason as
that prompted the Nebraska bill or gave shape
or character to any of its features. When
Judge Douglas first presented his report to the
Senate, we believed that it would have the
effect of exposing to the whole country the
chicanery and dishonesty of certain spoils-
seekers who wished to taint the purity of the
democratic party. The words we used to ex-
press that belief were used on the 5th of jan
uary, and are these: II seems to us that the
proposition to ertend the principles Of the COM
promise Of 1850 to Nebraska ,ciH force skulk-
ing politicians to shop their hands, and to
come out plainly in the face Of the country"
Our belief thus expressed has been fully sus-
tanned by actual occurrences; but yet we can
not perceive that our words justify the state
ment that we have given any mere party pur-
pose as a reason for the movement TO repeal
the obnoxious clause ofthe compromise of 1920.
proposed enactment to attribute its origin to
unworthy motives; nor is it new method of
counteracting such hostility by attributing it to
factious impulses or party feeling. But we
will not retaliate by throwing out the suggestion
that the Latelligence,'s adherence to the Mis-
souri, compromise may spring from old party
associations and traditions, or that its opposi-
tion to the Nebraska bill may be owing to the
announcement that it is an administration
measure, and to the fact that it was reported by
q democratic chairman Of democratic com.
mittee.
The Intelligencer adheres to the restrictive
clause of the Missouri compromise with great
zeal, and deprecates with more than its usual
warmth the consequences which it attributes
to any attempt to give legal force and effect to
the idea that the principles of the compromise
of 1850 supersede the conflicting and hostile
legislation Of 1920. 1t does not undertake 10
show that the Missouri restriction was constitu-
tional, but it contends that the circumstances
under which that restriction was made. and the
long period of time it was left undisturbed, i'm
part to it almost as much sanctity as that
which attaches to positive provision Of the
Constitution. But if the hatelligencer will con-
slider the events of the last few years, il will
find that the Missouri compromise was repu-
dated by the very men whose desire to renew
agitation because of the repeal movement ex-
cites the fears of that journal. When the Ore
gon territorial bill was before Congress, the
freesoilers and abolitionists would not consent
that the compromise of 1920 should be consid-
cred a complete and permanent settlement Of
the slavery question, and the Winthrop proviso
was attached to the bill. Mr.. Polk signed the
bill on the ground that Oregon was north Of
360 3O<, and that the real intent of the Missouri
act was to effect complete and permanent
settlement.
When the discussions growing out of the
acquisitions Of Mexican territory convulsed
he country four years ago, the freesoilers
and abolitionists again repudiated the prin-
ciples Of the Missouri compromise. They reso.
lutely refused to extend the dividing line west
ward, and a new compromise, based on an en-