Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-03-31

qae whcthcrts s in truth any relaxation at aI-seen 10
GSsuse themselves by saying they know slavery 60
hce and we expected be delighted this barren and
somewhat equyocal compliment
or, my neshbo should refuse TO hold any intercourse
win me- and give orders 10 his servants 10 keep watch
ie eoo's OF ms town and OF his country house. TO prevent
we rom entering. and should afterwards learning that
cno'o not visit him at hs counry seat direct his
there to lake further pains exclude mr. hut should
new aud repeat the orders given 10 the other, would be
eo 10 regard This recognition OF my social equality;
ahe would not render myself ridiculous by boasiing OF T.
hcld2
Do NOT tell me, lhen that grel, principle s recognized
when II Is Intended continue the restriction in Minnesota
oregon ana Washington. No has proposed. and no
man now dreams OF asking removal OF tile restriction in
auy OF lhtse Territories.
But IL has said ha this principle being necessary
consequence Of what called the compromise of
Sou, was only 10 be recognized In the formation of
territorial governments since thu; limo Sir this attempt
show mat we have succeeded in obtaining recognition of
great consttu,inn1 principle and that this recognition Is
perfectly compatible with the refusal TO all existing
restrictions upon slavery WI, not avail When in 1853
three years alter The passage the compomise measures
established Tho territorial government Of Washington which
was formed out OF part OF The Ofegca Territory man
proposed 10 remove the restriction by which SlvcIy
prohibited in that Territory
But after ALL wha, Of repeal OF ts Missouri c9mpfo
mise Is Proposed 10 be given us Is it boi opca and
snpe annu!nlenl o acknowledged 10 5- wromg2
No. sI it is accompanied the llmd declaration that it
Is not The Intention To icglte slavery iaI1 any Territory
State exclude tcveirnm This apologize iec4ra
ton much the appearance Of afron,, while
seeming 10 wipe OF an old If the Missouri compru
j
then il ought repealed II be both risht and
wrong il be said &c hc neither the 9th
cr There ia no middle ground bet@ccn tight and
II you admit the Missouri u DC Unconstitutional
us ought 10 be restored 10 The condition in which na
act found Its Ec Tor Congress calculate the
Quences G! repeating an acknowledged 10 be ndefens
bic II slavery reyiyes, 1t s not by 1t is only
ana odabe result OF The annument vi Sir have
little confidence in the efficacy OF that repentanee which
confcsscs the sin, but will not rclinqush its fruits.
But said by distinguished Senator from illinois
hl DovoLAs, in letter 10 northern newspaper, ihat
Congress allowed slavery 10 revive II wou be lcglling
Into the Terrtoyi aud he maintained as well as rec0lcc
his letter. that southern would not consent 10 he
passage Of by which sl:e.y 10 bs essal=t
into Territory,
find n the Globe ha, Mr. BADGER takes pretty much
the view. But will give his words He says:
Isl" il the prosluvcry law wch existed in ta Territory whem
COMPROMISE act, thea Congress pas
again iogcc then is the Of Congress s'h truly oushin
the MIssOuriaw and il Congress- BY repeating the as
su the Other hon Congress Isssa's slavery no The
Congress !cgsa,e slavery into Territory By repeating
law whc hud improperly prohibited lis continued existence
and yet this declared by gentleman Of high and eminent
character and qualifications: Sir suppose it should happen
from The accidental absence o some five or len Southern
Seuaors anh fifteen twenty Southern members OF
the House that majority in Congress should enaet lw
abolhiog =Iavery in the District Of Columbia. Suppose
that week afterwards, when the absent members returned
aud The proper majority restored, bill should nsau
introduced NAL !he law. What would oe thought o.
Southern mchers who should declare that iheY cou n''
revive any law BY which slavery was allowed or
protected hnt wond bo 10 lcgsa.e 'vsIy nIo Terri
tory should Insist Inserting clause providing
that their nianIion 10 60 so cannot enter ain
doubt, bu. that whatever senatorial tasdiosy might
prompt our constituents wonld demanda repeal-an mme
date ruthless unconditional repca would it occur
their Representatives were iegsatig slavery
: into n Territory where il did not exist. ~ .
Such being and object OF theso bills seems
there nothing in them Father
Seccd ;?t tie positions OF the sections would te re-
Northern sentiment towards ns must NJ hostile in
Deed their 10 be cenaud and discard
ed for supporting either of these bills Bu. cannot vii
believe IL. There Is such unrendlncs5. Our gal
generous friends from the TO ua be-
friends Of Jutcr aud the Constltuio1-wi be sus
tanned by ,hsit constituents in substantial mani
csta,ons Of their good feeling than Ia these cqaisoca con-
crssons
| do not know that the North would oppose The acqus
on OF Cnba; bat would be strange it. ut some nnre Gay
cesson that island should be- efea by casting
I. of the Senators from Nebraska aud Kansas
Sir, if could be thai would be form
ed would te waDt.d In thcsc Territories for the
twenty years. think shond against passage
Of the Honse BILL But have said it is now only ques
on Of time, and such is the pcsen, complication of circum
attending tns question complication, the
Of which do intend TO explan that fcr
sectional ani national and political caractcf may BIZ
proper and necessary DO what uadcr other cicum
e s.o nces could not be dune without hazard 10
If But southern gentlemen appear 10 have been deeply
r. impressed with the Kindness and condescenson Of
lhcrn friends They 10 think that too much was ten
derci lhm They oppressed with sense OF obga
ton aud they wished ~ make concessions In return The
bill had been discussed for months Public opinion had been
fJrmed upon IT, But immediately before ,s passage pro-
position offered and hastily aud almost without word
Of discussion adopted declaring that there peal OF the Nils
souri, restriction should not be construed 10 revive or put in
force any law regulation which may have existed prior
the act Of 9Th OF March, 1920 either protecting, esab
10 lshng aboliehng or prohibiting slavery This is what il
called The BADGER proviso. What is the history OF th:
amendment similar ono was first proposed by Senator
from Michigan, MR. STUARTl who pledged himself ncve
to vote fer bill unless II adopted Another ;ena
tor Mr. CHASE Of OhiO os see from The report said tina
among amendments which he had 10 offer the very
pose 10 Offer On that very day the amendment moved
BY Southern Senator II is in substance aud effect INT
sme as prepared by Mr. STUART; for though alse
revival Of any law prohibiting slavery prior
1920 as we'll any ,w protecting it, yet there
had been law prior 1890 prohibiting slavery that add
lion TO Mr. STuARTs amsniment wholly imperative.
Is said that tho effect and meaning OF the BILL will
the uosso OILY what it wOu have been without IT, Hnt
that The effect OF the whole is that there shall be ta0
total absence Of all aw protecting or relating 10 Ella
very Suppose ms were So nen, as me aht
all lave locally inapplcable extended to Ne5rak
and Kansas ,ioo"S that every other species OF property
is protected bu slaves. Is This equality Is ths Some
hing proud OF? Is il very honorable position 'o
the Souh that while every other man may convey every
other subject OF property that country, and there find u
nrolec,c by established law the oaly spccies OF property
from which all protection and all law are expressly win
dmwn that In slaves7 Aud it very clear that WIN
resoec,ed and enorced1 Even though positive law mgh
not be necessary there no at least! DC some
ton rule Q! society," 10 support inc ''e VI 'c Sa'e
i. But shy shu!d hl, offer be made 10 repeal The forme
c aw7 II will he recoec!ed that four years ago we uitess
" attempted induce Tho majority here 10 repeal the Mexl
cun w. in order ha. might have the tue principle
i non intervention Yc in the face of the persistent Ifusa
Of the North TO abolish the Mexican law prohibiting slavery
southern come forward and tender The repeal OF the 10
e cal law Of this country allowing slavery sir am %iins
If 10 aad any common ground. If The North VIII nav
l. nonintervtntion will have nonncrvcnon II they vii
revca the Mexican law the Spanish law and the Frenct
lac and have one rule everywhere am agreed an
!. fr mutually.
Bu. said tho addition of tho provlso makes no chang
ia the construction OF the bill as II stood without H. ""
show that does As tho Senate bill now stands thefe Az
ne distinct provisions relating ID slavery the hfs repeal
The Missouri restriction tho second declares mat IL Is no
The intention OF Congress legsale slavery INTO any e
ory nor exclude thereom and the third when IS W
poviso declares that no law reguao which existed oe
fore the passage of the Missouri restriction either po'ectn
or prohibiting slavery should be revived or Put ~ o!ce
IL coutcnded that the first two clauses were competent
produce and did produce tho effect as oil three losl
cr Now il Is rule Of statutory construction lhal Iec
"a muat be given possible every part OF Inc sauc
" HOw thea will III, statute be affected by lae last c'Irse =
The will decide that |, Something more ,ai
n The other wo; fra Aecause Is presumed iat c Id"
=. making AID uDd eupehuous cause
and ihe wards Vi the i.id ciinsr IN iehi
8 saves Import more ian is conveyed in the other two
What lhrn will be The elect OF tie proSlso II IS 70 pre-
- cent the revival Of any law regulation existing neior
1920 By which slavery is projected But "ho kGa U ID"