Spirit of the times. [volume] (Ironton, Ohio) 1853-1858, 1854-03-21

tho Missouri compromis; and il they
had changed, were they to call upon
everybody else TO follow theml Ii !.
lin orderto prove thu the Missouri
act was constitutional, M. Follett pro-
cecJed to read numerous legal decisions
to The feet that the taking Of SLAVES iD.
TO the Northwestern territory, by the
owncr. gave them their freedom under
the Oriinauce Of 1881. The Missouri
uct was the some in principle; ana !" ad
dition 10 the sanction Of Calhoun and
the Cabinet Of Monroe, there were theso
decisions. The Missouri act never was
said TO bc unconstitutional, until they
wanted to get rid oft. If these men be'
lieyed the act to be uncrn'ttutional,
what was their conduct when they pro-
posed TO extend it to the Pacific in the
Oregon Bill? The Missouri act was al.
so recognized by the Texas bill. And
to come dcwn lower, TO 1850, In tho
bill to fix tho boundary Of California,
there was an attempt made TO adopt this
line and apply it to California. BEAD
the omendment offered by Douglas, 10
extend the line to the Pacific ocean.
Referred to the motion OF Mr.. KIM, ol
Alabama, 10 make the line 50 deg; and
10 that Of Mr.. Davis, Of Mississippi, to
mnkci. a5 deg. 80 mn-.c Missouri
Line.
Foo, moved 10 make the boundary Of
California SO Q 80 it was voted down.
Turfcy moved TO make the Missouri
line the southern boundary Of California
it was voted down, 80 nays, 2s yeas
Was there me n everrose ana said that
ir his opinion tho Missouri limo an |
law were both unconstitutional! And
mark this, the discussions have allul.
cd to, were going on just when tho Com
promise Of 1850 were under debate. The
whole Of these acts were repea able acts
but it was a question Of good faith be.
tween the Congress and the people ol
the territories. The laws had been re-
cognized, acquiesced in, adhered to, for
that long time, ard had become par,
ofthc constitution itself OF its construc.
ton. (Read from speech made by
Badger in 1850 TO show how he had
changed. Badger had spoken in favor
Of the ight Of Congress 10 let in and
shut out whom they pleased.)
Then if grave Senators differed and
changed in this way, we must think ana
act for ourselves. You could not find
man who stood where he did months
ago upon this question except, General
Cass, who stood by the Nicholson let.
ter. Eul be regretted that the repeal o
the Missouri act ha been introduced.
Now he would consider whether the
compromise Of 1850 superseded the
Missouri act. To prove that it did not
he would read from the report Of the
committee on territories, Of which Mr.
Douglas vas Chairman. That repor
expressly recognized the Missouri act
and said they would not disturb it.
Whu, did Alchison Of Missouri say las
session when the Nebraska bill was un
der discussion which was Afterwards de
lea,ed in .he Senate? (Read from A,chi
sons speech, and the report of the com
mil,ec on territories on that BILLY
TIE report said, that the Ncbrask;
county occ upied the same relative po
sition with reference to slavery, ,ha
New Mexico and Utah did, when they
were admitted. How did it occupy th,
samo position? Because the institution
OF s!a"eIy was prohibited in all Of them
in the Nebraska country by the Mis-
souri, act, and in New Mexico and u
tab by The Mexican laws. There was
great difference Of opinion. Oae part,
in the Norlh agreed that The Mexican
laws would not exclude slavery, an;
they demanded the proviso, the soutl
was afraid that The Mexican laws woul'
exclude them, and wanted Congress II
decide the question.
The report went on 10 say that it wa
a disputed point, whether slavery wa
excluded in Nebraska by valid enact
ment. And it concluded by saying ,ha
this committee would neither affirm o
repeal the y. s.issouri act. They said il
effect, that if the south wanted 10 ques
ton the validity of the Missouri ac'
they mus. take it to the courts; the pro
per tribunal TO decide it. Another grea
reason why The committee would not re
commend the repeal, on the allirmalio
Of the Missouri Compromise was, that
would open up .he agitation. Wher
did this repeating lause come from?
did not come from Douglas: it cam
from Dixon of Kentucky. (Read frog
an article in the Washington Union rel
a,ive to the amendments offered by Dix
on on the one hand, and Sumner on tn
o,her.) The editor evidently held lht
1 the compromise OF 1850 had not repca
ed the Missouri act; for he says that h
would have been better. pleased if re
pealing clause had been in tho con
promise of 1850, because the principl
Of non.intervention by Congress woul
be better affirmed by repeating the Mil
souri, act, which was not in accordunC
) with it.
If the constitution ofthe United State
recognized property in human beings,
could be taken and held in the Terrific
les the same as any other property, ur
less thu institution was prohibited b
positive law. Read the speeches
Benton and Douglas 10 show that the r.
, strictions Of the Missouri act, and Of II
Ordinance Of 1887 only had force viii
the Territorial form OF government G;