The daily union., 1854-02-21


Il WAS the demands the treasury every week. in.
vented not invested the types made us say that re-
Qufed millions to satisfy them. We hope The greater
part OF them are not likely very get into shape
for Investment
The National IntelIigencer and the Nebraska a
FL Question.
The editors OF the National Intelgencsr seem to be
anxious TO themselves from the odium which at
taches to their present affation with the Summers
Chases Stewards. and Giddingses, by msrepresen,ing
the grounds which Judge Douglas in his report orgi-
nsiIy recommended the Nebraska BILL and on which the
Unon gave to the bill its cordial support The Iassli
Kssssr now thinks tina, il would have been better to
follow The wise adopted by the Committee on
Territories, in its report the Senate rather than to en-
counter the evils Of renewal of sectional agitation by
the amendment 10 The bill declaring the Missouri Com
pEomiss imperative and void The impression sought
% be made BY the hieligeneer is that 'ihe country,
throughout its extent and in all its borders, was
psace." and that this happy condition" would have
been undisturbed" by Judge Douglass wise course
in his original bill The truth is, however, that was
against the original bill that the spirit OF agitation was
kindled--it against the very "course" which the
hlelkg meU admits was wise" that The sbolionis,s
spmmenced the work of agitation. Before any amend.
nent proposed to declare the Missouri Compromise
null and void. the abolition leaders assailed The BILL and
denounced its principles virtual repeal of that
Compromise Il against The principles OF the Com
promise OF 1850 incorporated into the Nebraska bill
thai The spirit OF fanatIcism stirred up Unforu-
natey for the consistency and the patriotism OF the In.
Allgener its editors dld not then forward to re-
luke the aga,ors by sustaining the wise course adopt.
ID BY the Committee on Territories" II stood of in
'maslery inactivity" the leading aboionsts ap.
reaiing to The anislavery feeling OF the free States,
witnessed their bitter assaults upon the principles OF the
Compromise OF 1850, but had not the manlness
10 The support OF the measure which il says was
l'wiss." Ii no, until Judge Douglas saw that the
abolition warfare wsged against the bill directed
against it as virtual repeal OF The Missouri Compro.
mise that he came forward with the distinct proposition
declaring the &C, Of 1920 imperative and void This
was than the Inieugenr could endure and then
that its editors became 80 much exercised with
feelings of regre at the renewal OF sectional agitation
that they resolved join the agitaiors in their warfare
upon the bill
The Nebraska bill JUS, as obnoxious TO The abo-
liioniss In is original shape j, is As reported
By the committee, it re-enacted the principles OF the
Compromise OF 1880 The aboliiionss at once saw h
tAses principles inconsistent with those OF the
Missoari Compromise, and they raised the hypocrtica
en- OF opposon on, OF regard for the sacedness OF ha,
solemn compact. Their real spposi,ion was based upon
the fact that the bill reatrmed the principles of the
Compromse OF 1850. The object OF Judge Douglas was
TO eontorm strictly to the action Of Congress in giving
governments 10 Utah and New Mexico but a. Congress
led not in hA, action deemed necessary 10 say wheh
q or not the Mexican law was in force, 40 in the
Nsbnska bill be did not think il necessary 10 de.
clare whether the Missouri Compromise was in force
or not He adopted the exact language used IN The Utah
and New Mexico bills, and applied il to Nebraska
II that language established non-aiervention by Con
Gresa in Utah and New Mexico. then the same Ian.
guags would establish non-niervention in Nebraska
We do not suppose that Judge Douglas ever doubted that
his original bill swept away all obsuuctons to the prin-
cips Of non-intevenon, the Missouri Compromise az
we'll - any other but such declaration was deemed
necessary in the compromise measures Of 1882 be did
not deem il necessary TO make it In the Nebraska bill
Ths nsesssy for the declaration became apparent when
W saw that the abolitioniss assaiing il as repeal
of the Missouri Compfomne, and that others were op.
posnk because there doubt its true consrue
bon Az amended by Judge Douglas. the bill means OK
arsty what he understood il to mean, what we under
aooS to mean, and what the abo,ionss understood il
70 sean. when i was originally introduced II il had
been passed in its original shape according 10 Judge
DouglasS construction and according to ours. the Mis-.
ses Compromiss would have been imperative and void
sGal consequence in its presen, shape this legal
eopeeqasncs il expressly declared The I~l.u,esne.r
thinks the bill was "wse" in it's original shape. but as
amended Il meets with its 6erce opposition
In ts effort to shield itself from odum, the IsEge~ey
rssors TO extracts from editorial in the U~ion OF the
2osh Of January II has gabed and selected iis ex-
uasts, however, as 10 msrepresen, position In that
article We expressed ourselves decidedly for the Nebraska
eu - 1T was originally introduced We alluded 10 the
fees that wing and abolition senator had proposed to
osassA 1.-THE ons by express repeal OF the Missouri
Csawoniss. The other by declaring III. Missouri Com.