Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-05-05

il was superseded by certain acts Of 1850
next, that il is inconsistent with those acts
then that it is imperative and finally, that
it never was there, being dead in its birth un.
der the constitution, and void from the be.
ginning.
the COMPROMISE or 1850 DID NOT SUPER
sEoE THAT OF 1890.
Let us look into these reasons, sviniim, as
the lawyers say and first ofsupersession. II
is said that the measures of 1850 superseded
this compromise of 1870. If so, why treat II
now as still! existing, and therefore to be re.
pealed by an exception in order to get rid ol
ii? If Il was repealed in 1850, why do il
over again in 1854? Why kill the dead
But it was not superseded but acknowledge
ed 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
parol, written, and record-it had to be Civ
en- up, though test ofpoliticol orthodoxy
as long as it stood, and something else put
in its place. Thereupon supersession was IT.
self superseded by inconsistent" Out OF
the frying-pan into the fire ! Laughter.
Inconsistent signifies inability to stand TO-
gether-two things which cannot stand to-
gelher-from con and sisto. Now, what is
the tact with respect to the compromises OF
1920 and 1852 Can they not stand to-
gether? 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 ofthem down. This IS fact,
known to everybody, 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 ofthe man already fiat on his back on
the ground Then comes another reason -
that this compromise Of 1870 is imperative
and void. II so, those who are against its
operation should be content 1t Is in the
very condition they wish lt-useless, power
less, inactive, dead--and no bar to the pro-
gress of slavery to the North. Void IS va
cant, empty, nothing of it. Now, if the line
of 80 deg. 30 min. is imperative and void, 1t
is in the condition of fence pulled down,
and the rails carried away, and the field leil
is not yet imperative and void. 1t is an ex-
lstlng substantive line, alive and operating;
and operating ei1ectually TO bar the progress
Of slavery to the North and will so con-
iinue to operate until Congress shall stop It's
operation.
Then comes the final reason, that there
never was any such line in the world e. that
il was unconstitutional and vod-that 1t 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 nulliy the constitutional a
greement; and what is more terrible, involve
the authors of the doctrine IN an inconsistent
cy of their own; and thereby make them
selves imperative AID void. And this is the
analysis of the reasons for the Nebraska bill
that part OF 1t which is to get rid of the
of 1920; untrue, contradictory,
suicidal and preposterous. And why such
a farrago of utilities, incongrulties, and in
Purely and simply TO throw upon others
upon the Congress of 1850 and the innocent
constitution the blame of what the bill 1t.
self is doing the blame of destroying the
comp -omise of 1920; and with IT, destroying
all confidence between the North and the
South, and arraying one half the Union
against the other in deadly hostility. 1t is
to be able to throw blame upon the innocent
that this farrago is served up to us.
TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, NONSENSE.
And what is all this hotch-potch for 1t
is to establishes principle of non-intervention
of squatter sovereignty. Sir, there is no
such principle. The territories are the chill
dren Of the states. They are minors, under
II years of age; and IL the business
Of the states through then Delegations in
Congress, TO take care Of these minors until
they are of age--until they are ripe for state
government-then give them that govern
ment, and admit them to an equality with
their fathers. That is the law and the sense
of the case and has been so acknowledged,
since the first ordinance in 1884, by all au
thorities, federal and state, legislative, judi
cial and executive.
The states in Congress are the guardians
Of the territories, and are bound to exercise
the guardianship; and cannot abdlcate II
without a breach of trust and derellctlon OF
duty. Territorial sovereignty is a monsros-
ity, born of timidity and ambition, hatched
into existence in the hot incubation ola pre-
canvass, and revolving to the hold
ers when first presented. Well do | remem.
Der that day when II was first shown in the
Senate. Mark Antony did not better re-
member the day when Caesar first put on
that mantle through which he was afterwards
pierced with Internationally "enyious
stabs." 1t was in the Senate IN 1913, and
was received as nonsense--as the essence OF
nonsense--as the quintessence of nonsense
as the five-times distilled essence of politi-
cal nonsenslcalty.
THE STUMP SPEECH IN tbs BILL.
Why, SIR, the territory itself is the pro-
perry of the states, and they do what they
please with it--permlt 1t to be settled or not
as they please; sell il, or give it away, as
they please chase white people from It, as
they please. After this farrago-thls ola
podrida--comes little stump speech, inject
ed in the belly of the bill, and which must
have prodlgious effect when recited in the
prairies, and out towards the frontiers, and
up towards the hetds Of the creeks. Laugh
,er aud sensaiion.) | will read it, and hope
without fatiguing the House; for II Is both
brief and beautiful, and runs thus;
at being the true intent and meaning Of
this &C, not to .egislate slavery into any state
or territory, nor TO exclude II thereifom but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic Institutions
in their own way, subject only to the consti-
tuition Of the United States"
This is the speech, and pretty little thing
itself, and very proper TO be spoken from a
stump in the prairie. 1t has intent, and a
true intent; which is neither to legislate
slavery into or out of a state or territory -
Then why legislatc at all ? Why all this
disturbance If no effect is produced, and
things TO remain Just as they wereF Let
well enough alone, was the old doctrine to
make well enough still better, is the doctrine
of progress; and that in spite of the Italian
eptaph, winch says: Il was well, and
would be better; took physic, and here |
am" But the states must be greatly de-
lighted at the politeness and forbearance OF
this bill. 1t puts states and territories upon
precisely equality with respect to the
power Of Congress over hem. Congress
does not mean TO put slavery IN or
out of any state or territory. To all that
polite abnegations | have 10 say that, in re-
spect Of the states, it is the supererogation