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

for the interests of the tribes themselves that
we should now adopt the proposed legislation.
The public faith, then, Mr.. President, being,
as think, sufficiently relieved from all just inn
putat;on, the question with regard TO time be-
ing one Of comparative unimportance, and, for
the reasons which have mentioned, not weigh
ing at all events, strongly against the present
adoption of some Just system in reference to
these Territories, the question then arises, is
there anything in this bill which should induce
me to reject it, or are its provisions such as
commend it to our appreciation? Every one
must be aware that the real question, and sub
stantially the whole question, involved in the
consideration Of the bill, arises upon the provi-
sion which has been incorporated into it, as
amended upon the motion of the gentleman at
the head of the Committee on Territories, re-
specting the power Of legislation over the sub
ject of slavery.
1t is supposed, by gentlemen on both sides
yesterday 6S t5St the 6Sncrable a sens
tor from Illinois, gives an entirely Objectionable
character to the bill, and we are invoked to re-
fuse to give it our sanction because it involves
violation of the plighted faith Of the nation.
1t is said that this provision is repeal of the
Missouri compromise that to repeal the Mis-
souri, compromise is to violate common un-
derstanding by which the different portions of
this country became bound to each other thirty
years ago; and that therefore, we cannotadopt
that provision consistently with the principles
of good faith If that were so, ], for one, say,
without hesitation, that nothing can be COM
pensation to US for the violation of the princi-
Piles of good faith; but then we have to con-
slider whether any such violation is involved in
a. r a. oh hat -, I'D
that the language of the amendment, as incor-
porated into the bill, is true in fact, and that
the consequence deduced from it in the particu-
lar provision is just consequence; and that
the declaration that the Missouri compromise
is imperative and void " is the appropriate
method and language which should be used for
the purpose of producing the effect designed by
this measure.
1t becomes necessary, in order that ] should
do this, to recall the attention of the Senate
somewhat to the nature and history Of the Mis-
souri, compromise.
Sir, the nature of that compromise has been,
think, signally misunderstood. It is an act
of legislation, to the language Of which it is
necessary to recur, in order to understand with
clearness its intended operation and effect. 1t
| is the last section of the act passed on the 9th
day of March, 1920, entitled An act to au-
thorize the people of the Missouri Territory to
form constitution and State government, and
for the admission of such State into the Union
on an equal footing with the original States,
and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories" !"
The act authorized the meeting of a conven-
tion in the month of June, after its passage, to
consider the propriety of adopting State con-
stitution; and if the convention should deem
it proper to adopt State constitution, and if
that constitution were republican in its terms,
according to the Constitution of the Unite !
States, the State of Missouri should be admitted
upon an equal footing with the original States;
and then, at the conclusion of the act, comes
| this section:
SEC s. And BE- 1t further enacted That in all tho,
territory ceded by France 10 the United States
+. under the name Of Louisiana, which lies north o.
$50 30 north latitude, not included within the lin
its Of the State contemplated by this act slavery
and involuntary servitude. otherwise than in the
/ punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall
have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby
forever prohibited: P,ovided alacays, That any
service is lawfully claimed in any State or Terri
tory of the United States, such fugitive may be
| lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed 10 the person
claiming his labor or service as aforesaid
Nv honorable friend from Connecticut, Mr..
SMITH, in the argument which he offered here,
said that this prohibition was, upon the face OF
it, intended to apply to territorial organizations
and not to States. Now, say that it is plain
that it was intended to apply to all organiza-
tions of government States or Territories. In
the first place the expression is "all that terri
tory" What territory? Not o territorial po-
litical organization, not portion or district oi
country in which a political government had
been established under the authority of the
United States; but obviously the word terri
tory" was used in the sense Of land or domain
and it meant all that domain which the United
States acquired by cession from France under
the name of Louisiana. In regard to all tina
territory, or all that domain, what is the pro
vision of this section? "That slavery and in
voluntary servitude shall be and is hereb,
forever prohibited" without reference to an,
mutations in the political condition of the do
main, but it is to be "forever prohibited"
! Again, aside from the absurdity of supposint
that this strong and emphatic language, for
ever prohibited" was intended to mean "unti
they become States" how, upon any system 0
interpretation, can you, consistently with the
view offered by the senator from Connecticut
make the exception of "the State contemplated
by this act?" If the enactment was to prohibi
slavery in territorial political organizations, ano
not IN StateS, now uOeS IL hdpPcH thot. out "
i the territorial organizations we excepted the
very State which the act provides should come
into the Union?
But sir, the history of the time shows us
what this provision meant II was contest
whether Missouri should not be compelled by hel
constitution to exclude slavery. The antago
nism was between those who said that Missouri
should be allowed to do as she pleased, and thos,
who said Missouri should be controlled in regart
! to what she should do when she came int
the Union. The arrangement effected was I,
do what? Not to leave to Missouri privileg
which everybody admitted she had, but to leav
to Missouri right which she claimed, the es
istence of which right was denied, and to re
lieve her from the restriction or conditio
which it was proposed by the opponents of th
extension Of slavery to impose upon her az
mission into the Union.
But, sir, the meaning to be gathered frol
this provision is clear, (entirely Independent
these two sources for ascertaining its sense,)
we recur to the corresponding provision intr
, duced into the joint resolution for the anne:
alton of Texas. That provision is in thes
words.