Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-14

population is: Are our slaves 10 be presented with
freedom and daggera For il Congress has III.
power 10 regulate the condition of the inhabitants
of the States within the States, il will be but an
other exercise of that power 10 declare that al
shall be free. Are we, then, TO again Athenian
Peloponnesan war 10 settle the ascendency be-
tween them Or is il the tocsn Of merely servile
war? That remains TO be seen. But not, hope, by
you or me- Surely they will parley awhile, and
give US time TO get out Of the way. What bed
lamte is man ~
Here, sir, the illustrious witness, called by
the senators to sustain their position, deals
them rather hard blows. He denounces their
sacred compact as unconstitutional its pro-
moters as the holy alliance of restrictionists-
as having committed TREASON against human
hope-as being counterparts of their predeces-
sors. Now, will these senators discredit their
own witness? Will they, after such a display
of his illustrious name, to subserve their own
ends, disregard this part of his testimony; or
will they stand by him, and aid in obliterating
this geographical line" established in viola.
ton Of the Constitution Of the "FATHERs"-in
TREASON AGAINST HUMAN HoPE?"
Once permit Congress to assume and exer-
else such ilimitable and dctatorial powers, and
where is the limit? Sir, repeat, if this doc
out by Congress, without the shadow of con.
stitutional authority, what viii be the result
Why Congress at once, instead of being q Con-
stitation-observer, creature of its provisions,
becomes Constitution-maker body clothed
with illimitable power, more despotic and ty-
rannical than the king in Parliament.
But the senator from New York. who, by the
way, stands very high in the legal profession,
has come to the rescue of his friends; and l
must confess he has pretty fairly stated the
grounds on which this sacred and irrepealable
compact rests. 1t can rest nowhere else. He
says:
Some senators have revived the argument
tional. But it is one of the peculiarities Of COM
promises, that constitutional objections like all
others, are buried under them by those who make
and ratify them, for the obvious reason that the
parties at once waive them, and receive equiva-
lents."
Sir, constitutional objections, like all others,
were buried under this compromise-under this
sacred, irrepealabe compact-by the Congress
which made and ratified it. And why such an
act Of treachery to the Constitution? For OBJ
vious reasons, says the senator. The parties at
once waive their objections and receive equiva-
Tents. All, sir, waive the Constitution and re-
ceive equivalents Well, this is a pretty strong
exercise OF power on the part of the Congress
of the United States.
This, then, is the way that sacred pledges
are given, precious rights acquired, and ir-
repealable compacts made, by burying the
Constitution under them. Sir, what mon
strous doctrine is this 1t is nothing more nor
less than to admit that statute, (tor it is no.
thing else,) which is now SO very sacred, SO
al,
was conceived in perjury and brought forth in
TREASON to the supreme law of the land-in
derogation Of the rights of the States and the
justification for the existence of the Missouri
line. The Constitution of the Uni
ted States has been buried under the Missouri
in consideration of equivalents to
different geographical sections of the country.
And what was the price agreed upon al the bu-
rial? The Missouri compromise with its equiva-
ents. And that price for the mutilated and
buried Constitution of our fathers is now held
up as a sacred pledge, q sacred covenant, an
compact. Sir, separate this cues
ion from the question of negro slavery, and, in
ny humble judgment, there is not man in
his broad land, whether lawyer, minister,
physician, farmer, or mechanic, who will not
pronounce such an assumption of power on the
part OF Congress gross usurpation and an un-
oardonable violation Of the federal Constitu-
ion.
will here leave this branch of the question,
and proceed to consider the rightfuness of the
Missouri compromise, as connected with the
,reaty of cession. Sir, would not do this were
t not for the appeal of certain senators here,
styling themselves "The Independent Demo
Gratis in Congress to the People of the United
States | find in that appeal the following:
"There was no apology in the circumstances of
he country for the continuance of slavery. The
original national policy was against it, and no less
he plain language OF The treaty under which the
errilory had been acquired from France"
And no less the plain language Of the treaty
under which the territory had been acquired
rom FranceW Now, this is bald, naked Il
will not say false) assertion, put forth to the
country without argument or evidence to sus-
ain it. The territory acquired from France
BY the treaty 1903 was slave teri tory. AT
he time Of its acquisition slavery existed there
BY law, and slaves were held and adjudged to
be property. Well, sir, what did the treaty of
,ession provide?
"ART. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory
shall be incorporated in the Union of the United
States, and admitted, soon as possible, accord
ng TO the principles of the federal CONSTITUTIONS TO
he enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and
mmunties of citizens Of the United States; and,
n the mean time, they shall be maintained and
in the free enjoyment Of their liberty,
and the religion which they profess"
Now, sir, upon what hinge here do these gem
lemen hang the assertion that the plain Ian
yuage Of the treaty was against slavery? There
5 not one word in it about slavery, unless slaves
be included under the general term property, in
he above article of the treaty. However re-
uctant we may be to admit it, can there be any
loubt that slaves were included, and intended
o be included, in the general term property?
hink even the senator from Ohio would hardly
De willing to risk his reputation as lawyer by
denying that
Well, sir, if this be so, what had become of
he plighted faith Of the nation in that angry
controversy about slavery in Missouri and Ar.
KANSAS, to which the senatorfrom Massachusetts
Mr.. SUMNER referred with such an air of APP
parent triumph, as the doctrine of the fathers?
Both Missouri and Arkansas were saveholding
countries at the time of the acquisition in 1903,
and had been so for long time before. They
continued to be such, and we're such in 1919
md 1920 In 1903 the faith of the nation had