The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-02
TIE NATIONAL ERA WASHINGTON D. G, FEBRUARY O. 1854
THE ULuSATUM THE MISSOURI c0MPRo
MISE TO BE REPEALED.


The ULTIHATUM THE MISSOURI c0MPRo-
MISE TO BE REPEALED.
We have at last the ultimatum of the Terri
torial Committee of the Senate, and of the Ad-
ministration-and that is, the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise This is no longcr left
to implication.
Yesterday, in the Senate, Mr.. Douglas an
nounced an entire change in his Bib.
To avoid dividing the Cherokee country, he
said, the Committee had agreed to run the
southern boundary of the Territory on tho s7th
degree of north latitude. AS the Indian coun-
try is expressly excluded by the forms of the
Bill from the operation Of the Territorial Gov
ernment, this change was totally unnecessary.
The real objects Of it are, to avoid recogni-
ton even in name of the Missouri Compromise
line, and to conciliate the support of those
Southern Senators who have been hostile to the
Bill from alleged considerations respecting the
Indiana
Another change was the division of the Ter
ritory into two portions, with q Government
for each, to be divided by. the parallel of 40
degrees, the portion above that line to be called
the Territory of Ne brasks; that below, Kansas.
Of course, as Kansas lies along Slave Territory,
the object is to insure its settlement by slave
owners.
There were one or two other amendments,
Mr.. Douglas said, that would make the other
provisions of the Bill upon I" some delicate
questions little more clear and specific so
as to prevent misunderstanding. We need
hardly say that these amendments embrace the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise AS now
proposed by MIR. Douglas, says "the organ"
the I4th section of the Bill is as follows, the
amendment being printed in brackets:
"SEcrIoN IA. That tho Constitution and
laws of the United States, which are not locally
inapplicable, shall haze the same force and effect
acith,n the said Territory as elsewhere a0sthin
the United States, [ercept The 9Th section of the
act pyeparatoryto the admission of Missouri into
tie Union, approved March 6, 1920, acsieh was
suspended By The principles of the legislation of
1850, commonly called the Compromise Meas
ureS and as hereby declared inoperatiue"l
This 9Th section, which the Bill says shall be
IMPERATIVE is as follows
"dnd be it further enacted, That in all that
Territory oeded by France to the United States
under the name of Louisiana, which lies north
OF SO dog 80 min. north latitude, not included
within the limits of the State contemplated by
this act, Slavery and Involuntary servitude, 9th
cruise than in the punishment of crimes ,ohereof
the parties shall hare been duly convicted shall
be, and hereby as, PROHIBITED FOREVER"
Well, it ID satisfactory to know that the game
of duplicity is at an end. The Bill as it stands
has but ono face, and that is Pro- Slavery one.
It can deceive nobody. Every Senator, every
who shall vote for it, who shall
support it, who shall oven indirectly favor any
motion that may promote its passage, will vote
to annul the Missouri Compromise, to rob the
free States, TO convert every foot of the unor-
ganized Territory Of the Union into slave
soil, to subject free labor in our Territories
to the degrading competition of slave labor
He cannot cloak his action-he cannot prevent
the People from seeing its nature and conse-
quences He will stand, a manifest convicted
Slavery-supporter, and
traitor to God and man. That is not ALL He
will vote to falsfy the record of Legislation and
the Truth of History. For this 18th section
falsely asserts that the 9th section of the Mis-
souri, act of iS20-the Anti-Slavery Proviso--
" 'ods suspended by The principles Of The kgiSta-
hon Of 1850, commonly called the Compromise
Measures" Will the Senate dare, by its vote,
10 affirm this utterly false statement! There
Is not member of that body not member of
the House of Representatives, not a well-in-
formed man in the country, who does not knoy
that it is false. By what act or principle of an
act of 1850 was the 9Th section suspended! By
the Fugitive Slave Act2 1t did not touch tho
question Of the Territories. By the law pro.
hibiting slave importation in this District
That was Ansi-Slavery. BY the acts establish
ing Territorial Governments for New Mexico
and Utah They applied exclusively by their
terms to the new territory acquired from Mex
leo. BY the Texas Boundary Act That re-
affirmed The principle Of the Missouri Compro-
mise. What then, was it. that suspended the
9Th section of the Missouri Acta The act was
pre-eminently solemn and imposing. By uni
versal consent it has always been regarded as
partaking of the nature of a covenant or COM
pact. An ordinary law could not be set aside by
an Inference. When an act is passed conflict
ing with former acts upon the same subject. an
express provision is incorporated, that all acts
or parts of acts repugnant thereto shall be and
hereby are repealed No one dreamed, in 1850.
of repeating the 9Th section of the Missouri
Act-no one imagined that anything in the
acts then passed was in conflict with it-and
for repeal would have been secuted.
And yet, this Territorial Committee of the Sem
ate has tho hardihOod to assert that the prin-
ciplos of the legislation of 1850 suspended the
Sth section of the Missouri Act of 1921 The
only part of this legislation which can be
tortured into afording a pretext for this
groundless assertion is the declaration, that
thereafter any State or States formed out of
the Territories should be received into the
Union, with or without Slavery, as their Con-
stitutions should provide at the time of admis-
slo".' The principle of this is, not that during
the territorial condition Of the inhabitants of a
Territory, they may establish Slavery, or that
said Territory shall be open to slave settlement,
but that when its inhabitants or any portion
of it, acting under authority of an act of
Congress, shall organize State, form State
Constitution, and apply for admission, then they
shall be received into the Union, whether their
Constitution forbid or exclude Slavery. OF
course, the mere assertion Of such principle
could not suspend an established Law, with
which it was in conflict Nothing but a formal
oct could do that. But the truth is, the asser-