Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-17

States. These, sir, are the stakes in this legis-
lailve game, in which | lament TO see, that
while the representatives OF the slaveholding
States are unanimously and earnestly playing
TO win, SO many OF the representatives Of the
non-slayeholding States are with even greater
zeal and diligence playing 10 lose.
MIR. President, the Committee who have rec
commended these twin bills for the organization
OF the Territories Of Nebraska and Kansas hold
the affirmative in the argument upon their
passage.
What is the case they present TO the Senate
and the country2
They have submitted report; bul that re-
port, brought in before they had introduced or
even conceived this bold and daring measure Of
abrogating the Missouri Compromise, directs all
Its arguments against it.
The Committee say, in their report:
" Such being the character of the controversy. in
respect 70 the territory acquired from Mexico sim
liar question has arisen regard to the right 10 hold
slaves in the proposed Territory Nebraska when the
Indian laws shall be withdrawn and the country
thrown open to emigration and settlement By the
9TH section OF act to authorize the people Of the
Missouri Territory to form Constitution and State
Government and for the admission Of such State into
the Union on an equal footing with tho original States
and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories an
proved March 8, 1920 it was provided: That in all
that Territory ceded by Franco to the United States
uuueI Oh LOUISIANA, which north of thir-
tysx degrees and thirty minutes north latitude not
included within the limits of the State contemplated
by this act slavery and involuntary servtudc other
wise than in tho punishment of crimes, whereof the
parties shall have been duly convicted shall be- and
is hereby, forever prohibited P,optdd al,pays That
any person escaping into tho same from whom labor
or service s lawfully claimed in any State or Terri
tory OF the United States, h fugitive may be law
iuly reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming
his or her labor or service, aforesaid
Y nder this section, in tho case Of the Mexican
law in New Mexico and Utah, it is disputed point
whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska coun-
try by Ua/sd enactment. The decision of this ques-
ton involves the constitutional power of Congress TO
pass laws prescribing and regulating tho domestic in
situations OF the various Territories Of the Union In
the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that
Congress is invested with no rghtful authority to
lcgislatc upon the subject of slavery in the Terrific
RES the 9Th section of the to the ad
mission OF Missouri is null and void while the pre-
yaiing sentiment in large portions of the Union sus
tains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United
States secures to every citizen inacnabe right to
move into any of the Territories with his property of
Whatever KIND and description and to hold and enjoy
the same under the sanction of law. Your Committee
do not feel themselves called upon to entor into the
discussion OF these controvcrted questions They in
voive the same grave issues which produced the ag
tatlon the sectional strife and the fearful struggle of
1880 As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to
refrain from deciding the matters in CONTROVERSY then
either by affirming or repeating the Mexican laws or
by an act dccaratory Of the true intent Of the Con-
|
it to slave property in the Territories SO your Com
mittee are not prepared now to recommend n de-
parture from tho course pursued on that memorable
OCCASION either by affirming or repeating the 9Th
ton OF the MISSOURI act, by any act decaratory Of
the meaning Of the Constitution in respect to the le-
gal points in dispute"
This report gives us the deliberate Judgment
OF the Committee on two important points.
First, that the Compromise of 1850 did not, by
Its letter or by its spirit, repeal or render neces-
sary, or even propose, the abrogation Of the
Missouri Compromise and, secondly, that the
Missouri Compromise ought not now to be
aDrogated. And now, sir, what do we next
hear from this Committed First, two similar
and kindred bills, actually abrogatng the Mis-
sour Compromise, which, in their report, they
had told us ought not TO be abrogated at ali.
Secondly, these bills declare on their face, in
substance, that that Compromise was already
abrogated by the spirit Of that very Compro-
mise Of 1850, which, in their report they had
just shown us, left the Compromise Of 1890
absolutely unaffected and unimpaired. Thirdly,
the Committee favor US, by their chairman,
with an oral explanation, that the amended
bills abrogating the Missouri Compromise are
Identical with their previous bill, which did not
abrogate II, and are only made to differ in
phraseoogy, TO the end that the provisions con-
tanned in their previous, and now discarded,
bill, shall be absolutely clear and certain
entertain great respect for the Committee
itself, but must take leave TO say that the in
consstencies and ACCOMMODATIONS contained
in the papers il has given US, have DESTROYED
all claims, on the part Of those documents, to
respect, here or elsewhere.
The recital Of the effect of the Compromise
OF 1850 upon the Compromise Of 1920, as final
ly revised, corrected, and amended, here in the
face OF the Senate, means after all substantially
what that recital meant as il stood before il was
perfected, or else il means nothing tangible or
worthy Of consideration at ALL What if the
spirit, or even the letter, Of the Compromise
laws of 1850 did conflict with the Compromise
Of 1902 The Compromise of 1920 was, by
It's very nature, a Compromise rrepealabe
and Interchangeable, without violation Of hon
or, justice, and good faith. The Compromise
Of 1850, if il impaired the previous Compro-
mise TO the extent Of the loss TO free labor of
one acre of the Territory of Nebraska, was
either absolutely void, or ought, in all subse-
gent legislation, to be- deemed and held void.
What If the spirit or the letter Of the Com
promise was violation OF the Compromise of
1920? Then, inasmuch as the Compromise
Of 1920 was inviolable, the attempted violation
Of il shows that the so.caed Compromise OF
1850 was TO that extent not a Compromise at
all, but fictitious, spurious, and pretened
Compromise. What if the letter or The spirit
Of the Compromise of 1850 did supcrsede or
impair or even conflict with the Compromise
of 1902 Then that is reason, not for abro-
eating the irrepealable and inviolable Compro-
mise of 1920, but the spurious and pretended
Compromise of 1850
Mr.. President, why is this reason for the
proposed abrogaton OF the Compromise of 1890
ASSIGNED IN these hills nj all In ,s ,,nnecaoSarv
The assignment of reason adds nothing to the
force or weight Of the abrogation itself Either
the fact alleged as reason is true or il is mol
true. Ii IL be untrue, your asserting il here
will not make il true. II il be true. it is APP
parent in the text Of the law of 1850. without
the aid OF legislative exposition now. Ii is un-
usual. II is supplementary The language
OF the lawgiver, whether the sovereign be
Democratic. Republican. or DespoIic Is al