The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-07-19
DCN9Df-R A(.V


'em Is TO '"fi"e democracy. Ahsr informing
its readers. mt democracy sign'hes ''v"vern-
maD' by The Pa"pl- u attempts an arp'ica ior
OF ~" pnn"ip'". :" what IL STYLED 'hr M 'ss"n l
C"mnr"'n'se and holds tina, mp !" pnhhc appr"-
h''i"n a. correct and underwriting test. The
ed't"r saws:
"s"m- twenty or thirty years ago, the peo-
P"' " '" "p''s'"'s'' 'ne''' ~"
,.,..l IF ia. S,.tb and ill., ~,
pie If IA, N.rtn for the purpose OF settling
u = u" s'' u that "a producing oi>corh "nd
'a' 'FS'''s' W" NV "" "
he. I,.sa a q, iiu. ..,a .,ai.c ;..,n ,he, $ t
u. d ihcn. TIN COMPROMISE was 'f ed hy
" ~" ' p@ "'
po d i.rln.., b.o hs.ly love, aad harmony.
were fnli' restored 'h's an ''r "' doi's
''"s IN ''e
This would all be very go d taik prov ded II.
wa IS t.npi.d in truth. pruy cpd lie history oil
the country wnnd su.raiur. Blu wnat are The
facts S, lar from the act ad it,ins Miss ufi
To the Union ,eing a com act, il nnssess
I'd siusIe eienent, necessary to produce a
compact. WIZ, ~ compac,9 II 10 solemn
az -eer,ent. or covenant h4tween parties, hind
ing each ~ CERTAIN stipulated performances and
carving wit" i hi..h moral obligation I" ad-
here rie'dly to said covenant. Was the act ad
uniting Missouri such c ,ven,n,? By no
MEANS. To pr'sve 'ais. let "s refer n the his
| tory ~ the time The II for The ADMISSION
Of Missouri originated NJ the House ot Repre-
senia,lves and passed that b dv without, a single
SON. hern vote in rs favor. the reason 1t got
no Sen'hern t swas heca ise i contained a
clause prohihi;in slavery in he state 1t went
II the Senate and this obnoxious clause was
stricken ont ard the Missouri r"str'ctl"n insert
| ed in its stead. Upon adm, tins res'r'c'vf
clause to the bill, 81 vt d n the affirmative
and 10 IN The n"gat We D. tn" NHr'h"r" ; n
| s'o-s 90 voted Cor il ard = agaiDsf 1t On the
On. >,inn of ord riug h bill 10 bird reading
"a amended. which the real ties, N lis pas
! .age the VT" s'"oa II yeas and p nays U
tn. Naf,hc Senators oe'y voted in VI" affir,
| n,a.ive aud Is IN the negative Hrre it will b,
seen ,h7, the N'rth, represented in the S n
ate, voted .rains' "a bill, in 'he proportion OF
m, re than ur I, one. A strange way of max
ins u compact
This &C, w.s passed, approved and became o
law on tn. 6 h Of March 1920 The follow n
stlnner tn people o. Missouri for ned cons'i
| u '"n aud sta sern mt, preparatory to ad
| mis-icn, in cnnfur nifty with tn Act A III,
! n xt scss' " consres the Senate passed Il
Joint res luton declaring Mss .uri 10 be Il
the ats OF the Union, On an equal foo in with
the ri sinal states THIS re solution wenl to tn,
| House a:.d was r, iced BIZ Nailhern v ties, and
| thus Mi. ; .url was vt,d aut Of Uuion. in
stead ri bling admitted under the Act Of Gill
March 1920, known as the Missouri Compro
mise. Upon IN amendment of red to the bill
Ia r. jeci slavery from the state, sky one Nor
'hern men voted l,r tire amendment and thirty
three against it Another evidence of the com
pact, by repud:aling vote of nearly 'w' to one
tr"m the North. A compact implies consider
atom What was the c"nsidt ra'ion to the
! South? Ii was that Missouri should be admit
fted On an ,qlal foo,ng with the original states
with the in> 'ltoti"n of slavery: and yet we find
| 81 cat Of "a Northern Rep-esea 'atives-nearly
two to me vo,ins t. keep her out of the I'm
ION, because. tn. S, .u.n clancd the fulfillmen,
of this compact What was the consideration
| to The NORTH. II was that slavery should be
excluded from the territ,ries North of $50, 30
! Blu, hn dad the n rtl, observe its faith. After
it had procured ,h4 passage Of the Act prohibit
jolt, suiict i.t t. prevent its repeal, it repudia
ted ali ooiga 10" TO perform It's part Of the -
pact, by refusing to admit he state OF Missouri
WITH slavery Eight months after the passage
"i the Ac' "' n March. 1870, for The admis
s,oa OF Missouri, The Legislature of New York
| together win other Northern Legislatures, in
s'rucfed lhcir Senator'S and requested their Rep
res, n a.,vrs by resolutions, to vote against the
"d"isr'-'n of Missouri, unless clause was in
serted in the bill prohibiting slavery. Missouri
was never admitted under the Act of 9th oil
! March 1890. She was absolutely and by re-
| r-ated votes refused admission. The compact
then, as it is called, was nudity; il was worse
1t was cheat; a'decepiion successfully prac
tced upon the South. by system of coniemp.
lille Legislative legerdemain. The North made
a contract with the South. The consideration
| to the North, was, that slavery should be excu
ded from the Territories North OF 90 80, while
the consideration to the South, was, that Mis-
souri, should be admitted to the Union with
| slavery. Missouri was not admitted under the
Act of 9th March 1890 and therefore the con
tract was void-vo:d in every possible sense.
Rut the puestion NAV be asked how did Mis-
souri ret into the Union. In February 1921
| Mr. (isv brouobt forward a resolution. chang
ing entirely the issue and involving new prop
osition. This resolution proposed to admi, Mis-
souri,, not in compliance with the act of OH o.
March 1920 not with reference TO the princI-
pIes involved in that Act; not 18th her Consti
tution as framed 10 comply with that Act bu