The daily union., 1854-02-11
The Nebraska Bill.

looked 10 BY the country with great interest II involves
The whole question OF g the hnaly OF the Compromise
Of 1850 - and ia not strange, therefore, that every sec
OF the Union. and especially OF The South should
gard with anxious sociiude every movement in eonnex
ion with this important measure The important Issue
which this bill presents grows out OF the fact that the
Territory OF Nebraska is covered by that provision OF
The Missouri Compromise OF 1920 which prohibits slave
ry in all The Louisiana territory north OF 80 80. Ne
bfaska is part of that territory and lies north OF thai
line Is that provision TO be enforced in The o Me-
braska Ths, is the question, and il has be met
open and broad day Light, There is for dodxng
or equiyocaton. The doctrine OF non-ntervention--
which is the doctrine OF the democratic parry pro-
claimed in the Baltimore platform and in the compromise
acts OF 1850 responds this question with flat and
unequiyocal Nor Non-inierveniion, we under
stand il. and il has been taught in the school OF the
national democracy. denies TO Congress the power 10
legsale upon The subject OF slavery in the Territories 1t
submits the question to the people for their decision, and
leaves ihem in tie organization OF their State constu
tions, 10 determine whether they will or will not
have the institution of slavery. Such was the prin
cple upon which the territorial bills OF Utah and
New Mexico were adopted and the national demo-
cratic party, in affirming The principles OF those bills
as final settlement OF the slavery question. incor
poraied into Its creed this doctrine OF non-ineyenton
thus expounded and carried in the legislation Of Con
gress. Ii is sound constitutional doctrine and should
be rgidjy and faithfully carried out Democrats every
where have Pofessedit The sincerity OF portion OF
them who have heretofore favored the opposing doctrine
tine has when all doubts will have to be re-
A -.
for and who sgains, the cardinal doctrine OF the
national democracy. We fear not the issue, though il
hardly be hoped for that every northern man pro-
Tossing the OF democrat will be found true 10 ibe
principles OF The party in this matter yet we doub, NOT
that the final action OF Congress will show ,ha, in this
similar occasions in pas, history the great body
OF the northern democracy will be found faithful to
their principles, and true the constitution and the
Uaion
When The Nebraska bill first brought lor ward we
did DOT regard either necessary or important that
there should be any express provision ia the bill repeal
ing the clause OF The Missouri Compromise, 10 which
we have already referred There several consider
aors which. in judgment, rendered such action un
necessary
i. The PASSAGE OF that clause OF tie Missouri CON-
promise in direct conH ct with our notions OF con-
.ttutonal powers the subject and therefore void As
compromise, which waived The question Of power and
looked for s enforcement tine honorable Obligations
which II imposed upon the parties IT. we had always
been the advocate Of adhehng TO H. until il was rspud
aed and spurned b. The Nonh. In a former article we
discussed this psni some length and will not bow r.
peat the Argument II is enough 10 know thai the Norh
rejected the Missouri Compromise when il was sought
10 be applied ior the benefit OF the South From thai
day ieli relieved from all allega it, and regard
ed iis enactment applicable 10 future territorial organ
izarons a dead letter
a Another for considering its direct repeal an
Necessary The fact that il was passed a, time when
no territorial other government was proposed. and
could therefore only be looked upon as declaration, on
the part Of The Congress that adopted il, Of whx hey
thought ought 10 be done when the Territory should BE-
organized and provided with laws.
.. A third reason found in the fac, that the bin
expressy provided that Nebraska should be admitted a.
State n the Union. with OF without slavery a. the peo
pie thereof might determine This provision was either
cheat and n0lliiy, be considered a. repeal
Of all laws which oonhieed with the free fair and full
exercise Of this right BY The people Of Nebraska Ia The
latter light regarded il, and or eonyictios Z mai
It.
Such were the reasons which opetaiea on our own
mind in bringing il 10 ihe conclusion that the Nebraska
iii, as introduced BY Jadge DoGga. should BE- acc,p,s
bic il then stood to The fsnds and supporters Of the
doctrine Of Intervention. Since then however prop
osons have been made both to enact the prohibition
clause OF the Missouri Compromise and also 10 repeal
It, This stale Of things shows that doubts exist in
The public mind as 10 the effect Of ibe bin on ibs
slavery question in its preset form. This should
90, be The case There should be ls no room for fu
uts qub5Ing on The ssbjest !, il A. issue upon which
there are bot ~o siies and when the question is dis
posed of, the country should know distinctly upon which
side lhs decision has been made The national demo-
cratic party bss taken The side Or aon-nlerver,iop. no
prohibition legislation. II The members Of the party
intend 10 good faith 10 stand up TO that doctrine IN is
true intent and spirit, hen they can have no hesitation
10 giving he country bill free from ali doubt and
embarrassment To say in one breath TO The South we
offer sou non-nieysntion. and IL The next breath 10
the Norih have already prohibited slavery there by
The Missouri Compromise, iraud 100 plain and man.
est for the present day and age Whilst under such
proceeding OF The Soolh might obtain our consifu
tonal rgbs, according TO the view which we have ias
presented, yet such a course Of conduct would greatly
weaken our confidence in those who would ac, upou
such principle, and would 90 more to dsmoraye he
National democracy Of the Norh has all the abuse and
caIamny which have been hespsd spon them for The last
twenty years BY the wing press Of the country
We address ourselves TO the northern democracy. for