Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-01-22
From the Washington Union, Goth.
The Missouri COMPROMISE.

We have expressed our cordial approval of
the bill introduced by Mr. Douglas, providing
territorial government for Nebraska Tt will
be remembered that the bill, as proposed to be
amended by Mr.. Douglas re-enacts and applies
to Nebraska the clause on slavery adopted in
the Compromise Of 1850. That clause IS silent
as to the question of slavery during the terri
torial condition of the inhabitants, but express
ly recognises and asserts their right to come
into the Union as a State, either with or with
out the institution Of slavery, as they may de-
termine in their constitution. Two propositions
have been made in the Senate-one by Senator
Dixon, wing, and the other by Senator Sum
ner, an abolitionist-which indicate that the
bill, as proposed by Mr.. Douglas, is to be Wig
orously assailed. Mr.. Dixon proposes to amend
it by clause expressly repeating the act Of
1920, commonly known as the Missouri Com
promise Mr.; Sumner proposes to amend it
by expressly declaring that the Missouri Com
promise is to continue in force. Persons pro-
Tossing to speak the sentiments of Gen. Cass
have persisted in declaring that he was not
satisfied with Mr.. Douglas BILL and that he
would offer so to amend it as to declare the
Missouri Compromise repealed. We place no
reliance upon these statements as to General
Cass's position. 1t would only be necessary to
remember his course on the slavery question
in 1850 to know that bill which re-enacts the
vital principles Of the Compromise of that
year could not be otherwise than satisfactory
TO him. We are aware that General Cass re-
CARDS the Missouri Compromise as inconsistent
with the great doctrine of congressional non
Intervention, on which the utmost powers of
his gigantic intellect were put forth in the
debates on the compromise measures We
are not prepared to say that he would not vote,
if required to vote at all, in favor of propo.
sition to declare the Missouri Compromise null
and void but we are equally well satisfied
that he never contemplated making such a
proposition, and that he is satisfied with the
bill as reported by Mr.. Douglas.
But, notwithstanding the real position Of
General Cass, it is still true that wing senator
and an abolition senator have proposed amend.
ments which bring up the Missouri Compro-
mise. We are free to declare that we should
have been content to see the question thus
presented left where the Compromise of 1850
and the bill of Judge Douglas both left it.
and yet it would be uncandid in us if we did
not add that a clause in the Compromise
of 1850, and in Mr.. Douglass Nebraska BILL
declaring the act of 1920 null and void be-
cause ii contravenes the principle of congress
sional non.intervention, would have made both
Of these measures more in consonance with our
opinions and wishes. But we accepted the acts
OF 1850 as they were passed, and approved their
passage rs q final compromise and in the
same spirit we have been content with the per-
petnation Of that compromise as proposed by
Mr. Douglas Nebraska BILL We have never
Welded 10 the Missouri compromise any other
obligatory force than that which attaches TO q
solemn covenant entered into by two opposing
parties Coo the preservation Of amicable rela-
tons. To such considerations we have felt
bound 10 yield as ready an acquiesence as IL
the compromise was The law Of the land, not
only in form, but In Substance and reality.
Viewed A. . legal question, we should be con-
strained 10 pronounce u unsustained by constr
tutional authority viewed ~ Che evidence Of q
comPromise Of conflicting interests and opin-
ions, We have been ready 20 waive the legal
question, and 10 abide faithfully by i,s terms
II NE have studied the soashern sentiment cor
rcctly, this has been the view taken cf the Ms.
sour compromise In that division of the Union.
II u scarrsly necessary Tor NJ 10 say that,
whilsi ne have Welded 10 the honorary oblixa-
ton 90 abide Nv the Mascara cosspromise. we
have not aoubisd that its original adoption was
q misfrtpne---end Cor che reason that, IN our
Judgment, a stosA opposed 10 the Constitution,
and, IN addition, undsrteok 10 prescribs an ar
bitrary line a demsrc&fion, which world have
been better len toshe grsss laws u Nsiars, in
aecoraance with ne principle ef congrcsxonal
non in,sryension. We have labored under the
suppression thai these considerations were all
fully and maiurrly weighed 10 The discussions
Il 1850, and thar the compromiss thsn Adopted
was Designed a. . permsneni rule inr faiure &c
ton. " vas npsn this yiew fhsf Ne gave 20
Nv. Doagiass IN eur ready spprosal, and w
stu think that he peace ard harmony a che
cosniry vill hcsi ~ SECURED ny a. adoption.
We arr frss 10 exprcxs oar strong aversion 20
the reoIeniRg a. ths slavery qpss'ion, and nc
still bslisxs that trus WISDOM dictates that this
can hrs, h. aypiaeA " standing firmly upon
the ccmpromiss a 1850 - fpL ndjas.
msnt,
We trust thai Nc shall sos 10 eonsidesed