Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1854-05-12

lost. object to this on the part OF th'
, State of Missouri-the State to be mos
injured by converting all the TERRITORY
north and west Of her, quite out to tn
British line, into an asylum for runaway
slaves. The blunder can not be corrected
lat least in the opinion Of those who deny
the constitutional power Of Congress te
legislate on slavery in Territories) by al
act of Congress.
Then comes the reason for excepting the
Missouri compromise from the extension
which is given to mass of laws which are
not there, and denied to itself which is
there. II the reason had been because il
was already there, it would have been O
logical and comprehensive reason; but
that is not the cause assigned; and those
which are assigned are actually numerous
and curious, and worthy Of examination
First, because it was superseded by certain
acts of 1850; next, that it is inconsistent
with those acts; then that it is imperative
and finally, that it never was there, being
dead in its birth under the Constitution,
and void from the beginning.
Let US look into these reasons, seriafim,
as the lawyers say: and first of supersession.
1t is said that the measures Of 1850 super
seeded this compromise Of 1920. If so,
why treat it now as still existing, and
therefore to be repealed by an exception
in order to get rid of it? If it was
repealed in 1850, why do it over again in
1852 Why kill the dead? But it was
not superseded; but acknowledged and
confirmed by every speaker in 1850 that
referred to the subject, and by every act
that mentioned it. This being matter Of
fact, and proven by all sorts Of testimony
parole, written, and record-it had to be
given up, (though test Of political ortho-
doxy as long as it stood;) and something
else put in its place. Tbcreupon super
session was itself superseded by "incon-
sistent." Out Of the frying pan into the
fire. Inconsistent signifies inability to
stand together-two things which can not
stand toge.her-from con and sisto. Now,
what is the fact with respect to the COM
promises of 1920 and 1850? Can they
not stand together? And if not, why
knock the one down that is already down !?
1t is now four years since this inability to
stand together took effect; and how do the
two sets of measures make out together at
the end of this time? Perfectly well.
They are both on their feet-standing bolt
upright-and will stand so forever, unless
Congress knocks one or the other Of them
down This is fact, known to every body,
and admitted by the bill itself; for if the
first is inconsistent with the second, and
unable to stand, why all this trouble to
put it down? Why trip up the heels of
the man already fiat on his back on the
ground? Then comes another reason
that this compromise Of 1920 is inopcra-
tive and void. 1fso, those who are against
its operation should be content. 1t is in
the very condition they wish it-useless,
powerless, inactive, dead-and no bar to
the progress of slavery to the North. Void
is vacant, empty, nothing Of it. Now, if
the line of So 30 is imperative and void,
it is in the condition Of a fence pulled
down, and the rails carried away, and the
field left open for the stock to enter. But
the fence is not pulled down yet. The
line is not yet imperative and void. 1t is
an existing substantive line, alive and op-
Grating; and operating effectually to bar
the progress of slavery to the North and
will SO continue to operate until Congress
shall stop its operation. Then comes the
final reason, that there never was any such
line in the world-that it was unconsti-
tutional and void-tlat it had no existence
from the beginning; and that it must not
be repealed by direct act, for that would
be to acknowledge its previous existence,
and to nullify the Constitutional argument;
and, what is more terrible, involve the
authors Of the doctrine in an Inconsistency
of their own; and thereby make them,
themselves, imperative and void. And
this is the analysis Of the reasons for the
Nebraska bill-that part Of it which is to
get rid of the compromise of 1920: untrue,
contradictory, suicidal, and preposterous.
And why such farrago Of utilities, in
congruities, and inconsistencies Purely
and simply to throw upon others-upon
the Congress of 1850 and the innocent
Coustitutiou-thc blame of what the bill
itself is doing; the blame Of destroying
the compromise Of 1920; and with it, de-
stroying al! confidence between the North
and the South, and arraying one half the
Union against the other in deadly hostility.
1t is 10 be able to throw blame upon the
innocent that this farrago is served up to
US.
And what is all this hotch.potch for?
It is to establish q principle, they say