Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-05-19

IL
is limited to the Northwest Territory
the second part of the Missouri Com
promise extended this right to all the
territory north and west of Missouri
and that being repealed, that right o.
recovery is lost. l object TO this on
the part Of the State Of Mssouri-ths
State to be most injured by converting
all the territory north aud west of her
quite out to the British line, into ar
asylum for runaway slaves. The
blunder cannot be corrected, (at least
lin the opinion Of those who deny the
constitutional power Of Congress tC
legislate on slavery in territories) by
an act of Congress-
Then comes the reason for excepting
the Missouri Compromise from the
extension which is given to mass o.
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 logical and com.
prehensible 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First, because it was superseded by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
is is imperative; and, finally, that il
never was there, being dead in its
birth under the Constitution, and void
from the beginning.
Let us look into these reasons, seria-
tim, as the lawyers say: and first OF
supersession. Itis said that the
measures of 1850 superseded this
Compromise of 1890. If so. why treat
il now as still existing. and therefore
TO be repealed by an exception in order
TO get rid of it? II it was repealed
in 1850. why do ii over again in 1854?
Why kill the dead? But it was not
superseded; but acknowledged and
confirmed by every speaker in $50 that
referred to the subject, and by every
act that mentionedit. This being the
matter of fact. and proven by all sorts
OF testimony-parole, written, and rec
orbit had to be given up Though a
test of orthodoxy as long as it stood J
and something else put in its place.
Ihereupon supersession was itself
superseded by Inconsistent" Out
OF the frying-pan into the firel Incon-
slstent signifies inability to stand
together-two things which cannot
stand together---from con and sisto.-
Now, what is the fact with respect to
the Compromises of 1890 and 1850?
Can they not stand together? And il
not. why knock the one down that is
airvaviy dvuus AZ r. now rUur yUurS
since this isinability 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 everybody, and admitted by
the bill itself; for if the first is incon-
sistent with the second, and unable to
stand, why all this trouble to put it
down? Why trip up the heels Of a
man already fiat Of his back on The
ground? Then comes another reason
that this compromise of 1890 is
imperative and void. If SO, those
who are against its operation should
De content. IL is in the very condition
they wish it-useless. powerless, dead
and no bar to the progress of slavery
in the North. Void is vacant. empty.
nothing of it. Now, il the of 36 deg.
80 min. is imperative and void, it is
in the condition Of a fence pulled down,
aud the rails carried away, and the
field left open for the stock TO enter.
But the fence is not pulled down. The
line is not yet imperative and void.
II is an existing substantive line, alive
and operating; and operating efFectu-
ally 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 il
was unconstitutional and void; that it
had no existence from the beginning;
and that il must not be repealed by a
direct act, for that would be to ac-
knowledge its previous existence, and
to nullIfy the constitutional argument;
and, what is more terrible, involve the
authors OF the doctrine in an inconsist-
ency Of their own; and thereby make
them, themselves, imperative and
void. And this is the analysis Of the
reasons for the Nebraska bill-thai
part Of IL which is to get rid of the
Compromise Of 1890: untrue. contra
dictory. suicidal. and preposterous.--
And why such a sarrago Of nullities,
incongruities. and inconsistencies?--
Purely and simply 10 throw upon
others--upon the Congress of 1850
and tho innocent Constitution-thC
blame of what the bill itself is doing
the blame Of destroying the CompIo
mise Of 1890; and with it, destroying
all confidence between the North anC
the South. and arraying one half tn,
Union against the other in deadl,
hostility. 1t is to be able to throw
blame upon the innocent. that thi
farrago is served up to us.
And what is all this tch-potch for
1t is TO establish a principle, they sa,
--the principle Of on-intervention-
Of squatter sovereignty. Sir, there j
no such principle The Territorie
are the children of the States. The,
are minors under twenty-one years c
age; and it is the business of th
States, through their delegations t
Congress, to take care Of these minor
until they are Of age-until they ar
| ripe for Stafc Government--then criv