Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-03-24
luceklp Gree Dress.
BURLINGTON, FRIDAY, MARCH "a, 1854
The Missouri Restriction Constitutional.

The Missouri Restriction Constitutional.
Those who, in Congress or out of it, sane
ton the attempt to repeal the Missouri Com
promise act, feel that it is necessary to make
some show of legal argument for so novel and
bold measure. So they say the act itself
was unconstitutional That sort of talk is a
favorite one with southern politicians. 1t
is resorted to when they wish to resist almost
any proposed enactment which is distasteful
to them, or to find ground for quarrelling
with any law of the United States whose
force they wish to overcome. None so strict
constructionists as they, when a strict con-
struction will favor their desires, none so
loose as they, when they can gain by having
the scope of constitutional language ampli-
fed.
When tho law for allowing Missouri Ter
ritory Gas it then was) to frame State con-
stitution for her admission into the Union
was under debate, it was asserted with the
greatest vehemence that it would be uncon-
stitutional to restrict her from becoming
Slave State, or to restrict her in any way,
save that she must have republican form of
government When the law was framed at
last, without such restriction, but with a
restriction on all the rest of the territory
north of lat. 800 80, tho same men said that
restriction was unconstitutional also.
Missouri formed a constitution recogni.
aing Slavery and imposing a duty on the
Legislature to pass laws to keep out of the
State free people of color. The same men
were well satisfied that such legislative action
would be all we'll enough, and that it would
be unconstitutional for Congress to do any
thing to prevent it. But a majority in Con-
gress thought otherwise and required that
Missouri should pass solemn declaratory
act that such clause should never be con-
strued to debar any citizen of another State
from his rights in the State as guaranteed to
him expressly in the constitution of the
United States. When that WAS done the
President Of the United States was to pro-
claim her admission, not before.
Such solemn declaratory act tho Missouri
Legislature passed-doing it to be sure in
about as offensive a form as could well be
had no right to impose any such condition,
that it was an absolute nullity, deserving of
no regard by the State whatever. Still they
made the declaration as required, though as
they said, under protest. Subsequently the
State passed law to prevent free colored
persons from other States residing in the
State under any pretence whatever.
Now for the result. Three or four wears
ago freeman. negro, emigrated from Vir-
ginia to Missouri and the court in one of the
counties, gave him license to reside there.
Lately, an attempt was made to have the
court revoke his license, as being against the
aforesaid Statute Of the State. After full ar
gument, last mouth, the court missouri
Judges, be it recollccted,) decided that the
Statute Of Missouri was unconstitutional and
under Wh,oh the State ,cos admitted 10 the
Union
The conclusion isIrresistible that whatever
Missouri, Illinois, or any other politicians
and demasoguos may say the Missouri Court
holds that it was constitutional for Congress
TO impose restrictions on Missouri as condi-
tion of her becoming State of the confedera-
cy. If it had not been 30, her assent to the
condition imposed could have had no binding
force on her legislature.
Why don't Mr.. Douglas or some other
elsve owner just take some of his Slaves from
Slave State into the territory north Of &C.
30, and have the case tried in court whether
they remain Slaves or are thereby made free :
The reason is plain enough, Such men
have no doubt at all that the law of ss0 which
mterdicts Slavery north o! SO so is constr
fut'2"ol. That is the very reason why they
are striving to force its repeal Aud We have
men from the North helping them to accom-
pllsh so unri"hteous an act