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

yeas ana 80 nnys'
Again. on the bin Cor establishing The bosn.
ares OF Texas and territorial rosernihent 4
New Mexico, motion was made by Mr.. Cuxr
TO amend the bill by inserting section n. lia
y, alter the word " residents, - nor shah thes
DC IN said territory either slavery or inyolnni.
~ servitude otherwise than In the punishment
OIL crimes whereof the party shall be duly Goa
victed to have been personally guilty." i wa
determined in the negatiye--yeas 20, nays 2;
will not trouble the Senate with rcadin
these amendments further. One amendmen,
recollect, set out with great particularly tha
the Missouri compromise line should he ex
tended 10 the Pacific, aud declared 10 be In III
force and binding in the Same sense, and viii
the same understanding with which il was oriri
nally adopted
Now, sir, what was the result of all thes,
various votes Here was the Territory OF New
Mexico, oil OF which, except very small frac.
ton, not worth mentioning, Law south of 3es
3O>, and yet the senator who now inyokes ma
70 support the Missouri compromise. lMr.
CHASE, moved to apply the Wilmot proyiso 10
that Territory, and voted, in every instance.
upon the yeas and nays, except in one case.
where his name does not appear ut all. against
ne recognition or the application of the Mis-.
.uu" compromise in any form whatever. What.
auen, = he actual result? Here we're those of
10 WV W.; On the floor representing southern
mnst sov heaa; ;,a only arguing, but may al
Missouri COMPROMISE Ibis. recognition Of the
tain It The Missouri compile could not OBJ
ected: it was repudiated; it was, une was re-
not to be aPPs'eoSffr . sno aosf not e
| to them. What, under these circumstance
| did Congress do? They passed two bills e.
| territorial governments; one for Utah, lying
| north of 500 30, and one for New Mexico,
| nearly all of which was south of 500 30I, in
precisely the same words in respect to this
whole subject-matteE, putting them exactly
upon the same footing, and comforting upon
each OF them the same amount of Legislative
power, and treating the line Of $50 30< as If il
had politically no existence.
Now, Mr.. President, to recur, for moment,
to what set out upon this point with mentions
ing-that the principle upon which an enact
ment is founded the principle out of which a
rule of conduct grows, is some original or as.
sumed truth, some proposition admitted to be
right, out Of which the law, or rule of conduct,
naturally and properly springs beg your at
tention to the language which has been so
much objected to and criticised. 1t is that the
Missouri restriction limiting slavery according
to latitude ais inconsistent with the principle
of intervention by Congress with slavery
in the States and Territories recognised BY
the legislation of $780, "The principle OF
non-intervention," not the words contained in
those laws. Now we ascertain what was the
principle upon which that legislation proceed
ed, by looking both to what was put into the
laws, and to what Congress refused to put into
Them and, examining the subject in that light,
we find that the legislation of 1850 was found
ed upon distinct reputation of the idea Of
making any difference between the condition
of people lying on one side of line of lati-
tude, and the condition of people lying on
the other side; and that was accomplished
against the speeches and votes of the whole
southern delegation upon this floor.
Now, sir, if am right, these things are made
out: The principle or fundamental truth upon
which the legislation of 1920 was founded was,
that Congress had power, and that Congress
ought to intervene 10 exercise that power, to
exclude slavery from Territories lying north of
a certain latitude, and implicitly admitting it
on the other side. That principle was applied
to all the territory which the United States had
which could be made subject to it. 1t was re-
cognised as principle by its subsequent appli-
was continued ont in its course towards the
Pacific ocean; yet Texas did not fall within
the description contained within the Missouri
compromise She was foreign independent
State, incorporated by her free consent, upon
| the principle Of treaty. Then, in 1850, what
had been thus recognised was distinctly and
unequivocally repudiated. The principle upon
which the legislation of 1920 was founded, be.
ing thus disregarded, is it not strictly proper to
say that the principle that Congress should not
intervene in relation to these matters distinctly
shown eviscerated out of the acts of legislation
of 1850, being directly inconsistent with the
other principle on which the legislation of 1920
was founded, the latter is imperative and void ?
| pray you, sir, if it is not strictly accurate to
say that this clause of the act of 1920 is incon-
sistent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States and Terri.
tories and that that principle was recognised
BY the legislation Of 1850?
Well, if it was, as to my understanding it is
evident it was, ! say that the honorable chair
man could not have adopted operative words
| more strictly accurate and proper than those
| with which he has followed this recital. What
are they? Us hereby declared imperative
and void" 1t would not have been correct or
| just to the subject to say that we thereby re-
peal the Missouri compromise, as if we had
/ taken new notion now, suddenly, in regard
to it; but it is the true, proper, and legitimate
conclusion, that, Congress having in 1850
adopted a prisciple, and grounded its legisla.
tive action upon it, which is inconsistent with
the principle involved in the eighth section Of
the Missouri law that eighth section should be
declared imperative and void In the court
below that provision effects repeal; and it is
Just as legitimate mode of effecting repea
| Of law, to declare it void, as to say it il
| hereby repealed" If gentlemen will consult
the English statute-book, they will find hume
rous instances Of repeats by such words 1t il
peculiarly appropriate to adopt that form il
/ this case, because it is legal consequence fol
lowing out of the facts recited that It ought Il
be "inoperative and void, }" and it is therefor,
declared to be sof
Mr.. President, in the view which take o
this subject, it seems to me strange-no, will
not say strange-but ask you if it is not yer,
very remarkable, whether strange or not, tina
the honorable senator from Ohio Mr.. CHASE
should have felt such an extreme urgency 70
proper respect being paid to the Missouri com
promise line, when, in every instance in which
it was proposed to the consideration of thu
] Senate i'm the year 1850 he constantine bv hi;