Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-04-01

and directly to that object
The term forever" connected with the prohibition,
relates also to the of the prohibition 10
wit slavery in the Territoryn the Territory Of Louisi
ana, for which the regulation made It is word OF
solemn ormality and is often used in the settlement of
great matters of national and international adjustment
to show the intention of the parties to be to make final
and permaueut settlement.
1t is asserted that the Missouri compromise was re-
peaed by the compromise of 1850; but | know Of no
proof argument authority that sustains the
tion.
The compromise of 1920 was anexercise Of the power
Of Congress to egslate the subject Of slavery in the
Territory OF Louisiana, and it settlement of the
question of slavery in that Territory satisfactory the
North and the South.
The compromise 1850 was au understanding or agree
not to egsate the subject of slavery for the ter
ritory acquired from Mexico, and it was satisfactory
settlement to the North and the South.
Now the agreement not to legisate is not to be
sidered reputation denial Of the power Of Congress
in relation to slavery in the Territory On the contrary
e kaow that the compromise Of 1850 carried by the
votes and influence of like Clay and Webster, who
boldly and constantly avowed that Congress had the power
to eGsate for the Territory The not legisating
an act OF Cancellation towards the South respect for
the opinions and feelings of those who denied the power
Of Congress to egslate for the Territory the subject
| OF slavery in case in which, as has already been
shown slavery excluded by express law, and by the
still more powerful law Of nature. This policy Of mac
ton has been enormously styled PRINCIPE Of noa
inrtentoa and is represented ectye power,
ruling the right of Congress to legslate for the Terri
!
bill that the compromise Of 1850 supersedes and repeas
I the compromise of 1920.
But the compromise measures give warrant for this
assumption OF facts and this reasoning They contain
no language OF repeal They make no mention Of nor
do they ailude to, the compromise Of 1920 When Mr..
Webster found himself obliged vote for uncaedfor
and unnecessary amendment offered by Mr. Soule from
Louisiana, providing that the States formed New
Mexico and Utah should have the right and privilege of
making their constitutions, and Of presenting those
to Congress conformaby to the Constitution
OF the United States with or without q prohibition
against slavery the people rnose
about to become States may fit lie said he voted for
II exactly on the grounds that he voted against the
Introduction of the provso. And let it be remember
ed" added he that now speaking of New Mexico
and Utah and other Territories acquired from Mexico
| and OF NOTHING ELSE" SC.
The compromise measures it is clear, were intended
only to have effect in the Territories for which they
were enacted Thelanguage of those leaves
for doubt 1t is specific and confined in terms to those
Territories It fixes boundaries and forth, in pro-
yso, the ground taken already mentioned in regard
to slavery 1t neither asserts suggests any idea of
repeal OF on any interference with any previous act in
relation to any existing Territory does it under
take authorativey to lay basis of for fu
ture Territories that may be acquired The true charac
ter Of those acts has, in my judgment been perfectly de-
scribed in the wise and patriotic speech of ustrous
son of Massachusetts,, (Ar. EvERErT published in the
journals of this city. -. &. ri" X"
And that have shown the true character Of the
compromise Of 1850 and that that compromise does not
supersede or repeal the compromise of 1920 desire to
be distinctly understood approving and maintaining
the late compromise measures believe those measures
had their origin in spirit Of mutual concession of fra
tenal feeling and patriotism believe they happily
stored peace and harmony to the country which had been
by sectional strfes and dissensions and be-
eve, II faithfully executed they have been up to the
commencement of the present agitation they will
the protection Of Southern rights in regard to slavery,
and perpetuae the blessings of union to the whole
try But, while entertain these opinions, feel it my
duty to declare that doubt whatever of the power
of Congress to legslate slavery outside of the States
and within the Territories The arguments Of the const
tutiona lawyers of the national schooCay, Webster,
and others-on this subject familiar to the House,
and leave nothing to be said upon it. The power rests
upon mpregnabe groundsthe authority expressly vest
ed in Congress to make the necessary rules and regua
tons respecting the territory and other property belong
ing to the United States and the treaty making pomsr,
from which the power of acquiring territory is derived
Besides the question has long been practically settled
But the sands of glass have nearly out and must
hasten on towards conclusion.
The advocates of the bill argue that the compromise Of
1850 establishes the principle Of noninteryention and
therefore supersedes and repeas the compromise of 1920
But aware that if this be conceded the Louisiana Terri
tory would still be left their principles under
the operation of the treaty and the local law of Louisi
ana which, they say, guaranty slavery and that this
state OF things would be equivalent to the action OF Con-
gress in favor of slavery they have proposed amend
mont to the b which declares, in substance, according
to my understanding of it. that the Territory shall be
henoeforth held and deemed released and set free from
the treaty and the local law in favor of slavery and be
subject to the action and control of the people Of the
Territory in the formation of State Constitution Now,
submit that the amendment proposes act of inter-
venton to wit the annullng Of the existing law and
that it Isl therefore, inconsistent with the doctrine OF
nonnerventon which, it is said, is established by the
compromise of 1850 IF be said that the effect of the
amendment is to put the Territory equal footing
both respects Shareholders and Shareholders an
swer if this be granted the amendment is still act of
legislation act Of intervention, and that il is mad
misbe to arrive Mt the desired endthe repeal Of the
compromise of 1820by subversvc of laws in the
nature of contract in favor Of Shareholders In these
remarks do not intend to be understood approving
the doctrine that the treaty between the United States
and France and the law of the portion of the Territory
inhabited at the time Of the ratification of the treaty
to be considered establishing law slavery in the
vast unnhabited portion of the Territory. Such doc
trine is in my opinion wholly untenable France stpu
lated for the existing property of her subjects within her
inhabited territory and for the speedy incorporation Of
those subjects into Union citizens; but she
contemplated and the United States would have
consented that the policy of the United States in respect
to slavery in the land to be occupied should be controlled
and settled by her royal will The object of my argu
ment this point Is to show the inconsistency of the
advocates of the bill on their premises.
lnammatory appeals have been addressed to the South
based the assertion that the South has right to carry
slavery into any of the Territories of the country have
already expressed opinion to the OF Congress
to egslae slavery outside of the States and within
the Territories But let take the assertion rs true
and make practical application Of it to the Missouri
compromise matter and see whether there is any just
complaint the part Of the South in relation to it.
The South claims constitutional right to carry slavery
into Territory south north Of 36o 3 But the North
claims apd has equal right to admit her sons also into
o Territory whether south north of 800 30|. Here
then, is clashing Of interests In this state o. things
In r AlaI ~