Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-19

That was a clear construction put BY Con-
eress, in the year l645, upon the meaning and
Interpretation of the exclusion contained M
the act for the admission Of Missouri, passed j
in 1920 The last applies as restriction 10
States. expressly by name as States" and the
other il q perpetual restriction upon certain
described "territory' or domain, without the
slightest reference to the political mutations
through which it might pass
In the next place, Mr.. President, think it
Is abundantIy evident that the Missouri com
promise was founded upon certain principle.
NV friend from Massachusetts said that he did
not see how he could with correctness use thc
language that the restriction IN ihc eighth see-
ton of the Missouri bill was inconsistent with
the principle Of non-interyention established
by the legislation of 1850. / think my friend
erred. / understand by principle any tunda-
mental truth, any original postulafe, any ilrst
position from which Others are deducted, essesr
as .;,ios -. -.,e. .f eo.a,..s Far example,
It IS obvious that this principle, postuaie, fun
damental truth, original position, was ASSUMED
| in 1920 in the passage Of the Missouri eonipro-
mise act, to wit: That Congress shouts have
power to establish geographical line. and 10
| permit slavery on one side the line and cxclnd-
ing it on the other; and further, that il was ex-
pedient that such line should be selce. I'd, md
such an exclusion and permission attached TO
it; and therefore, out of these two positions fol-
lowed the enactment contained in that statute,
that above $50 30 slavery should be prohibited,
with the implication that south Of 36o 30> it
might exist.
That is exactly the view which have OF
what is meant in the amendment, which has
now been Incorporated into the bill by the ex-
nised by the Legislation Of lS50.r Some origi-
nal truth, some proposition admitted or as
sumed rs being within the power of the legis-
lature, and some position Of expediency to use
it, must always be supposed, as the reason or
foundation upon which the authoritative rule
Of conduct is given in the law.
WE'LL then, what was the course to be taken?
| Here was an act which assumed to fix q line,
and to prohibit slavery on one side and impli-
| edly to admit it on the other side OF the line.
1t applied to States as well as Territories; and
| it was so intended. 1t was supposed by the
framers Of that law that they had power to
make it perpetual in its application to States
as well as Territories. That is the FIRST charac-
teristic of it, or rather one CHARACTERISTIC di-
vided into two heads. The nextisthis: The Mis-
souri, compromise law intended to fix it as
rule for all Territories of the United States.
| 1t is applied in terms to all that territory
! which was ceded by France; but we had no
other territory. That was all the territory
which we then had, whose destiny was to be
settled by an act of Congress. Therefore, the
further principle involved was this: They in
tended to compromise and adjust the question
between the different portions Of the Union
| then and forever. 1856 agd WA
Am / right in this? think SO. There is
nothing in the act OF Congress, there is nothing
that know of in the contemporary discussion
in either of the houses of Congress upon the
subject, which goes to show that the two
houses considered that there was something
particular in regard to the territory cedcd by
\ France and that what would be right with re-
gard to that would be wrong with reaaldto ter
ritory which might be ceded by another power.
But then we have the Texan annexation COM
] mentary upon it. When Texas came into the
Union, the Missouri compromise line was taken
up and extended through her, as a matter Of
course; and, as the Missouri compromise
| line,'' under that name, as a compromise line,
just as applicable in principle to Texas as to
| the particular territory to which it had been
| originally applied. The first was an act of
| legislation. OF course, it could govern nothing
except what we had. The second was an act
of legislation. It took up and applied the rule,
which was introduced into the first act, under
its name of the Missouri compromise line"
and applied it to the new territory, as a matter
of course. H
To my understanding, it is clear that, when
i the Missouri compromise line was established,
| it was intended to apply to all the territory Of
the United States If we had had other terri
tory acquired from Spain, or conquered from
Mexico, or ceded by Mexico at that time, this
i line would of course have been extended to 1t.
4 j think it is demonstrable, from the grounds
of dictation and resistance onsthe one side, and
the other from the terms in which this contest
issued, from the reason of the case, and from
the subsequent legislation of Congress--for
which no reason under heaven can be given,
, except that they were carrying out an estab-
lished principle--that the principle OF legisla-
ton embodied in the Missouri compromise was
this: That line in the territories should be
selected, and slavery excluded iql the one side,
and impliedy allowed on the other; and that
as we acquired future territory we should ap-
5 ply that line. One modification of this exist
ing power which has been one, think, not OF
very long discovery, is this: That in truth and
reality any exclusion of a power of a State
either to admit or to exclude slavery, imposed
by the government of the United States, must
! be vain, idle, and imperative, as an act OF
power. 1t is obvious, as hayelsaid, that the
men of 1920 thought otherwise. Whether they
intended or supposed that this restriction would
operate qropaio aigore, without further legisla
ton, as an exercise Of rightful power on the
part Of Congress, binding by its own proper
1. efficacy or whether they expected, as eacf
new State within this domain in which slavery
was prohibited should come into the Union.
Z fundamental condition" as tits called, shoule
be annexed to its admission; and whether they
, supposed that that fundamental condition
would itself operate so as, in proper sense, tc
J restrict the power, or would merely impose an
! obligation OF good faith upon the authorities O
the State, we know not but, 10 my, understand
ing, it is plain that they intended the exclusion
Z to apply to this domain under all political Or
|. ganizations, and for all time, to be carried ou
in one or other Of these manners. s.
n Now, Mr., President, propose to show tha
e this principle, upon which the legislation O
If 1920 was based, was repudiated by the legisla
; ton of 1850. Ipropose to show that the ap
( plication of the Missouri compromise TO State
e and Territory was insisted upon by the south
arn y,,arohara of fha Senate in manv, very ma