Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-26

| It's ylolatl0n nor permit single slave 10 he heiu
in all that Territory say the South with the
North, pledged themselves, forever, TO prevent IT,
and prohibition OF the United States Is pre-
ventiye, ii perhdy does not come in to nnllify it.
Ii is TO be regretted, Mr.. Chairman, that a
measure of such grave Importance, and fraught
| with so much danger to the peace and harmony
| of the country the one before us, should thus
| be sprung upon us, and urged in such hot haste
| to its final consummation. II is to be regretted
| that the unpopularity of the Free Soil appoint
ments, or the disgust so loudly expressed in GER
/ tain quarters at the proscrptye course pur-
/ sued by the Administration towards Judge Bron-
/ son, for his devotion to the Compromise of 1885,
/ which the Administration stood pledged TO carry
out, or any other cause, has led the Administra-
| ton to Offset their apparent leanings towards
| Free-Soilism by proposing to give to the South
an immense extent of Northern free territory, for
which they have not asked, and to which they
know that they have compromised away every
L shadow of claim.
| And this is doubly to be regretted, when that
| proposition will cause to be kindled anew the
| flames of civil discord and fraternal strife.
/ Allow me 10 read the section which this bill is
| intended to repeal. It reads thus:
"SEoTIoS s. and be IL further enacted That in
all that territory coded by France to the United
| States under the name of Louisiana, which lies
north of 36 degrees 80 minutes north latitude,
mot included with the limits Of the State contem-
| plated by this act Slavery and involuntary
/ vitude, otherwise than in the punishment of
scrmes, whereof the parties shall have been duly
| convicted, shall be, and hereby is, prohibited
| forever.
| Propided, ARRAYS That any person escaping
into the same, from whom labor or service is law
l fully claimed in any State Territory OF the
United States, such fugitive may be lawfully re-
claimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his
or her labor or service, as aforesaid.
i "Approved March G, 1920"
Here permit me to remark, that this section
| ceived the votes of majority of Southern mem
| bers Of either House of Congress- The passage
| of the BILL coupled with the section just cited
constituted what was, and still is, termed the
| Missouri Compromise and is, believe, the only
l compromise on that subject in which both parties
stand recorded in single act. In this settle
ment the whole country has acquesced, for more
| than thirty-three years. Every State, thus far
| formed out of territory north of the Compromise
line, has been free State and every State south
of it has entered the Union slave State. The
| bill before us repeats and abrogates this sacred
| Compromise in the following apologize, but ia
| tai terms:
| "The 9Th section of the act preparatory to the
! admission of Missouri into the Union approved
l March g. 1920, which, being inconsistent with
| the principle of non-intervention by Congress
with Slavery in the States and Territories, as
recognised by the Legislation Of 1850, commonly
called the Compromise measure, is hereby de-
i clared to be imperative and void; ii being The
rue intent and meaning Of this act, not 10 egisLae
Slavery into any State or Territory exclude ii
heretrom, bat to Leave the People thereof perfectly
free 10 form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their ocn ray subject only TO the Constitution of
! the United States
i Let US examine some of the pretences set up
to Justify this ruthless destruction of the land
marks of Freedom. 1t is claimed that they
tablish the doctrine of intervention with Sa-
very by Congress.
| Now, it is true that all legislation by Congress
| relative to Slavery, ever since the organization
| Of our Government, as well as that of $780, rec
/ ognises the principle of non-intervention with
| Slavery in the States No considerable party of
| men ever disputed this principle. Why, then, is
| it so much referred to in connection with this
| law? Can there be any other reason than to
make this truth serve as mask for the falsehood
associated with IT'D | say it is falsehood, on
! the very face of the l4th section above quoted,
| to say that the compromise measures or egisla-
| ton of 1850 established principle inconsistent
with the Slavery restriction of the Missouri Com
| promise, recognise in any manner as princi-
/ pie of non-nterventiOn. II cannot be found
] in the Territorial bills of either New Mexico
| or Utah, for each expressly intervene with Sla-
| very by providing that when they are admitted
as States, they shall be admitted with or without
Slavery as they may determine.
Ii is true, this is Intervention in favor of Sla-
very but it is very important departure from,
and violation of the principle of, non-intervention
| on that subject as now propounded as the reason
/ for this bill
/ Let il also be remembered that the District of
| Columbia acquired by the United States by
cession, and that the United States have the same
powers, and no other, this District, as that
| over Nebraska, or any other Territory and that
i Inv of fha IL amh cd In he
measures of 1850, Shareholders were prohibited
4 from using the District as slave market.
Here there is direct Intervention by Congress-
| by the said act of 1850. The principle of Sla-
very restriction, and Intervention by Congress
| against Slavery in United States territory, is as
| distinctly recognised as the principle of Slavery
restriction is recognised in the Missouri Compro-
| mise.
The new-fanged doctrine of non-intervention
has never been recognised as principle of legis-
lation by Congress or the people, but is practi-
| cally repudiated by the acts of Congress since
4 the organization of the Government.
| As have before remarked, II is pretended that
/ the measure is necessary, in order to secure the
| principle of self-government TO those who are to
| occupy the Territories The Missouri Compro-
mise is either unconstitutional, or it is a valid
| legal enactment IL unconstitutional, then il is
| null and void and can impose no restraint upon
/ any one. If il Is constitutional, il was enacted
| before any one inhabited the Territory; and all
who may elect to become its inhabitants, do
with afull knowledge and understanding that
Slavery can have no legal existence there. In
fact il is accepted already as free territory; and
| if the Government is pledged to anything, il is
pledged that free laborers and liberty-oving citi
1 zens shall not be excluded from its soil by the
| presence Of Slavery. IL is said that the Compro-
mise of 1920 is superseded by that Of 1850 be-
cause the acts Of ls5aestablsh principle which
supersedcs the principle Of geographical line
made in 1920. Now the settlement by geo.
| graphical line, so far from being inconsistent or
unnatural, is the most natural and proper mode
of settling dispute about territory or jurisdic-
4 ton.
| Compromises in general and that of 1850 in
particular, establish no principle whatever An
independent act Of legislation may settle a prin-
| cple for the time being; but law which is ac-